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.
It didn't disappoint me. I enjoyed the portrayal of The Joker. I'm sure there'll be much debate about Ledger vs. Nicholson (as well as endless Batman/Alternate Universe Joker-on-Joker slashfic).
I also enjoyed that there wasn't any silly microwave/waterborn silliness. I know, I know, comic book movie. But still...
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Loved the movie, loved the portrayal of the Joker, just one question. Who is the next Batman Villian? Since Ledger presumably rendered the Joker unportrayable (literally, I can't imagine anyone being able to even come close), I imagine they'll use someone else from the Batman universe, but who? My guess is the Riddler.
As best I can tell, he gave him purpose. Dent was crushed by the loss of his love, his loss of control, and his disfigurement. The Joker gave him purpose (revenge on those who gave up Dawes and Dent) combining it with his sense of justice (they were corrupt cops he'd wanted to bust before). Now with nothing left to lose, he could go after them on his own terms. The change (or revealing of his true nature) began with his interrogation of Scarecrow.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I think that was the point -- the Joker even commented that the descent to madness takes just a little push. That's what the hospital scene was -- Harvey was holding it together even through everything that happened until a little push, then his whole personality crumbled around him.
One thing I noticed, and liked, was the fairly obvious nod to the old comics when it came to how they handled Two-Face's disfigurement.
The bit with the back side of the mouth, looking like he's going "grrrr!", and the eyeball floating in the socket - that look is pretty much lifted straight from some of the old Batman comics, as far as how Two-Face looked.
It kinda sent a chill up my back - when he first turns his head, I had a flashback to my youth when I was big into comics, remembering how Two-Face was illustrated back then.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Because Heath Ledger deserves one.
This is not a troll, but a legitimate question. I have only seen the trailers of the new Batman movie. I have read in a lot of places that the joker character is is very good.
However, from what I have seen on the trailer, the joker does not seems crazy like the one impersonated by Jack Nickolson. Thus my question to the people that have seen the movie would be, Is the Joker character by Ledger better than the one by Nickolson?
And to the compic purists (I am not one of them...) which of the two characterisations is closer to the one in the comics?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Yes, without question. Ledger's Joker actually acts legitimately crazy, complete with the tongue thing. You can tell that he is rational in his own mind, and not trying to be funny, as Nickilson's Joker tried to be.
You really have to see it to understand what I mean. It really is the best villain I've seen.
Many state that Ledger's Joker is a world of difference better than Nicholson's. But how does he compare with the comic book's Joker?
As you've stated yourself, there were quite a few different comic book jokers. I think this joker is closest to the one in the killing joke, in that his aim is to force batman to face his own madness.
The Killing Joke portrays the Joker as a normal joe who is trying to get ahead and ends up in a vat of chemicals and becomes the insane criminal everyone knows.
Kind of. The storyline in the killing joke was admittedly, by the Joker himself, not his true origin. He said that he prefers his past to be multiple choice, and that he himself doesn't quite remember exactly what happened to him.
Similarly, we don't witness the origin of the Joker in this movie, and that's a good thing. The Joker also tells two conflicting stories of how he got his scars, which fits with what the joker said in the killing joke.
There are other variations of the Joker, some showing him as completely off his rocker, others showing him as super sane but highly dangerous. Which is the most accurate? And which version does Ledger portray?
Depends on how you choose to define "accurate." I always prefer the interpretation of a villain that is most realistic, so to me, the best interpretation of the joker is one where he is a psychopath, and thus is able to laugh at his very violent antics. Ledger portrays a highly intelligent complete psychopath, and his relationship to Batman is much more interesting than the usual, "I do bad stuff and try to escape the hero who is trying to stop me." He wants Batman to stop him. It's very cool.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Ledger's Joker seems to have been based on Mark Hammill's Joker in the edgier of the animated episodes/movies.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
I second this. The Keaton / Nicholson films took place in a world that was Willy Wonka-esque. You had to just roll with it and say "oh, it's a movie!" to believe it. I unashamedly did, and I loved those movies for years (okay, the Burton ones.). Chris Nolan just took a flamethrower to the old ones and said "No. This is right here and right now." and created something insanely beautiful.
Jack was completely over the top and all "Look at me! Look at me!" and Ledger played it as "You look at me and I'll gut you..." His Joker is what I imagine it would be like to have a camera crew following Jeffrey Dahmer or J.W. Gacy around. He's just pure, undiluted id waiting for a chance to set you on fire and giggle as you scream.