Slashdot Mirror


Batman Discussion

I won't be reading it because I haven't been able to go yet, but I suspect a goodly number of you have already partaken in the latest Batman flick that taunts me. Mocks me. And knows that I don't have time today or probably any time this week (unless there is a movie theater near the OSCON venue?) Anyway -- here is the official place to talk about the biggest geek movie out until the X-Files comes out next week, and I have similar frustrations.

16 of 967 comments (clear)

  1. Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because Heath Ledger deserves one.

    End of story.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    1. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by Hausenwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nicholson played the Joker as crazy. Ledger played the Joker as a psychopath.

    2. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by SputnikPanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Over the decades, the Batman comics moved from dark to campy to dark again. Nicholson's Joker was some strange amalgam between dark and campy. Ledger's Joker on the other hand is indeed pure psychopath, the Joker as characterized by Frank Miller and Alan Moore.

      Of the people I know who are familiar with the Joker character from having read comic books, all who have seen Dark Knight agree that Ledger's Joker is the best interpretation.

    3. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by twalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd put this further as saying Nicholson played a great comic book Joker.

      Ledger played the Joker as a real human being. That gives a LOT more emotional shock value in the end, since you could actually imagine Ledger's Joker existing in the real world.

    4. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by cptnapalm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only things I've ever seen Ledger in were Knight's Tale and 10 Things I Hate About You.

      Those and Dark Knight.

      He deserves an Oscar for the Joker.

      Let me tell you how I described his performance to a friend of mine who was curious:
      Heath Ledger is not in this movie. The casting people traveled to Gotham City and got the Joker on a work release program.

      One thing a lot of people seem to be expecting is that Ledger is totally over the top. He's not. If you see the film, try not to have preconceptions for how you think he will act the part. Go in that way and I assure you that you will be impressed.

    5. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by TinCanFury · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, kinda...

      Ledger's Joker is based more on the comic series which always had the Joker as more of a psychotic than a jokester. Perhaps it was the Adam West series's softening of the character that gave the Joker that impression in the general public. In the 70's when the Joker became even a bit more grittier, and through the Dark Knight and similar gn's, the "darkening" of the Batman universe came to influence Dini, etc. in how they developed the character for TAS, though a bit softer still since it was a kids show.

      Ledger's version is easily the closest to the original Joker concept of a true psychotic criminal, one who not only revels in his own altered version of the world, but finds the humor in the differences of what is considered our normal and what he considers normal, and uses that humor as part of his villainy.
      Nicholson's Joker, while following closely to The Killing Joke origin of the Joker (and in my mind a weak cause for the level of the Joker's psychosis as required for the original character), was more along the lines of the 50's and 60's prankster Joker.

      Either way, it will take a lot to find another actor who can come close to bringing the Joker to life in the same way Ledger did.

  2. It's not the latest Batman flick by SageinaRage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the latest Joker flick, Batman is just a secondary character.

  3. The Dark Knight by DocturKnowles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll go ahead and comment here but keep it short and sweet. Pros - Heath Ledger was the epitome of psychosis. BRILLIANT acting. In the original Batman movie (think '60s) and later in the Burton films the Joker was more or less a silly villain. He was out for revenge or just doing it for the kicks but he wasn't crazy. He had his fun and went home. The Dark Knight's Joker was fantastically evil. I will see this movie again just to re-watch Ledger's performance. Cons - Some cheesey dialogue. The Bat-Bike was so-so. Scarecrow and Two Face seemed under used. All in all I'd give this movie a nine out of ten. Ten out of ten for acting and sheer awesome. Eight out of ten for cheese and missed opportunities.

  4. Re:"disappering pencil" by Broken+scope · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never has a simple writing implement, been used to set the tone of a movie so effectively.

    --
    You mad
  5. Boats by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ethical dilemma on the two ferries toward the end of the flick was excellent. The Joker's rants are enough to make you think (if you haven't already) but that one line was really, truly excellent:

    "Well, we're still here, which means they haven't pushed the button."

    Above all else, the best thing about this movie was the trip into the different aspects of the human condition. Whether it's the chaotic Joker, fair Two-Face, pure Fox, kind Alfred, or incorruptible Batman, or any of the others, we get, as The New Yorker paraphrased, a rare glimpse into the abyss.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  6. Re:Holy editing Batman! by m93 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. This is also a flaw in Batman Begins. However, if you think about it, the pacing and framing of each scene is akin to what you would see in a comic book. In essence, each scene is a frame. Am I the only one who thinks this?

  7. Harvey to Two Face felt forced by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First I want to say I loved it, easily the best movie I've seen this year. Nolan did a great job at keeping it dark and gritty, and I can be satisfied with that alone. Some of the aspects of the movie really did seem forced though. For one thing it seemed like Harvey made the transition to Two Face very quickly. Yes, there he went through a lot, but his character never gave off a sense that it affected him all that much until the end. There was only one scene to really show that he might've been unhinged somewhat before becoming Two Face, and even then he seemed to be very much in control. It just seemed like there wasn't enough foreshadowing that he was capable of being a true monster. Aaron Eckhart gave a great performance, but I think if Harvey had been given more a backstory (such as how they introduced him in Batman: TAS, talking to a shrink) the overall effect would've been more profound.

    --
    God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
  8. Re:I wonder who will play Aunt Madge by pragma_x · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Joker simply took advantage of Dent's vulnerability after having lost the love of his life. He explained to Dent that this happened due to the corrupt elements within the police force; that the "good guys" weren't all good.

    The Joker also explained himself as little more than a "dog chasing cars" that "wouldn't know what to do once he caught one." He has no motivation for the destruction of Gotham other than sheer nihilism. As others have explained: he is a force of nature.

    So, in that moment it was laid out for Harvey. The good weren't all good, and the bad not all bad.

    Dent decided that this applied to himself as well. He then went on a vendetta, using his "lucky" coin as judge and jury, since sheer fate was the only form of justice left to him.
    --

    For as we all know: money can't buy knives.

  9. Re:Biggest geek movie until X-Files? by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Geek" doesn't mean being into the latest gadgets and computers.

    Comic books and tabletop gaming are, and always have bee, geek.

  10. Re:Holy editing Batman! by foniksonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally I thought that was part of it's brilliance... the director didn't feel the need to explain everything. I hate it when movies try to wrap everything up in neat little bows so the audience doesn't have to think (a little.. not like the independent films where the entire story is a brain puzzle).

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  11. Re:Three Words by porges · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, if I remember it right, Lucius totally effed up. The accountant only said that he knew that Wayne Enterprises had created the Batmobile; he hadn't necessarily concluded that Wayne was Batman! Obviously the script doesn't realize this. Or maybe I heard it wrong.