Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Ledger's performance is not as over the top as Nicholson's. Having said that, Ledger's Joker is a far more frightening thing. He has no name, no history, no nothing. He is just a pure chaos.
As for comic accuracy, both are accurate.
Nicholson's is more akin to the Joker from the Detective Comics and Batman from the 70s and early to mid 80s. Over the top crazy and homicidal.
Ledger's is more like the Joker from Batman #1 from 1940 as well as Miller's Dark Knight Returns (1986). Chaos personified. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. Pure evil and utterly creepy. Terror for no discernible purpose aside from causing terror. I, personally, don't think it is as much like the Joker from Killing Joke (1988) as many others do.
The terror experienced by Gothamites which follows the news "The Joker is Free" in the comics I could not see Nicholson's inspiring. I can easily see Ledger's doing so.
Your comment cut off after "You see to be implu" which I take as meaning "implying".
Believe me, I am totally sincere with my utter and total lack of anything even resembling a belief that the Democrats are going to do anything aside from spend spend spend.
I was simply lamenting the state of the Republican party. I was not in any way shape or form saying or implying anything with regards to the Democratic party.
Your capacity for anything more blowing snot bubbles out of your nose while reciting bumper sticker mantras is highly questionable. Although you undoubtedly excel at drooling, that sadly is no qualifier for comprehending things which are beyond your mental abilities. While rationality is a noble goal, for someone of your obvious deficiencies, perhaps you should set your sights on something within reach such as being a laughing stock.
Depressing situation isn't it? Conservatism made the Republican Party an actual party rather than the me-tooism of the 40s and 50s. They win the House and Senate for the first time in forty years while running on an unapologetically conservative platform. Bush wins while running as some weird bleeding heart conservative.
So what do we get?
Vast increase in federal spending! Vast increase in federal power!
Del Toro is a big Dunsany fan, as I understand it.
It would be cool if he could do it all, his Dunsany influced work in Hellboy, Tolkien's Hobbit, Lovecraft's ATMoM. Seeing how long it would take to do the Hobbit, though, my guess is that ATMoM is on permanent hold.
Or is it a case of a fad (ooh, I got it from eBay!) settling down and it becomes just one way to get something (I could have gotten it cheaper on eBay, but if I need to return it, it would be a big hassle)?
Speaking of unannounced Star Wars movies, is it my imagination or is the animated Star Wars movie coming out next month about as anticipated as if it had not been announced at all?
Always nice to meet a fellow fan of that wonderful silent film. Haven't seen The Resurrected; having looked it up, I'm going to check it out.
Lovecraft's works are difficult to envision as films, for the most part. ATMoM is one of the oddest horror stories I think I've ever read; the protagonists spend huge chunks of time trying to understand the bas-reliefs. The script review indicates that deviation from the original does take place, with rather more action and some The Thing-like plotting. How anyone could make a truly faithful ATMoM film is beyond me.
But c'mon, man! Shoggoth pudding! That would be awesome:)
Remember your "little babies" comment? Now you want to pretend that you are a high road taker?
The suppression of the freedom of speech which you seek to rationalize was harmful. In seeking to extinguish dissent, those so engaged were acting to eliminate the first amendment rights purely for their own political ends.
That you approve of this sort of appalling, totalitarian action says more about your low character than any amount of your dishonest rationalizations can undo.
If you were literate, you would see these steps: 1) Citation needed for claim that conservatives were censored 2) Cited usage of the Fairness Doctrine to harass conservative opinion broadcasts 3) your post about the media not being liberal lolerZ!!!1! 4) My post stating that the media generally being referred to was the press, not opinion stuff 5) Your babies post. 6) My request for your counter 7) Your "counter".
So where was I "arguing that the left still got to place their opinions on the air, but the right never got to counter them... apparently because the Fairness Doctrine only applied to the left, and the right was incapable of using it to place their opinions on the air"?
I made no mention of the left still getting to place their opinions on the air. You brought that in. You are lying about what I said. Now, when you are lying, which as we've seen you did, you should probably do it about something other than what the person you are lying to wrote, seeing as that person may actually remember what he wrote.
Of course your dishonesty is more than skin deep as you do omit essential details from your initial attempt at a run down of the argument, which, if you were an honest person would read like this:
1) Broadcaster pays its money for a right leaning commentator 2) Broadcaster must provide same amount of time for free to left leaning commentator 3) Broadcaster can't afford to give so much time away 4) Broadcaster cancels right leaning commentator
Without your dishonesty and lies, you really don't have anything.
If memory serves, the member nations, when forming the EU were told that they could in fact leave. Seeing how utterly treacherous these scum have been regarding their patent dishonesty with the constitu... uh, treaty, I have no faith that they did anything other than lie through their teeth to get states into the union in the first place.
In the majority of those places where the people got to vote on the constitution, they voted no. There is your "what if". The politicians saw that the people were not voting the way they wanted, so they called the constitution a treaty for the express purpose of AVOIDING DEMOCRACY.
Do you comprehend what a treaty is? Any sovereign nation gets to decide on whether or not to sign onto a treaty. As a sovereign nation, they also get to decide how best to decide the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Ledger's performance is not as over the top as Nicholson's. Having said that, Ledger's Joker is a far more frightening thing. He has no name, no history, no nothing. He is just a pure chaos.
As for comic accuracy, both are accurate.
Nicholson's is more akin to the Joker from the Detective Comics and Batman from the 70s and early to mid 80s. Over the top crazy and homicidal.
Ledger's is more like the Joker from Batman #1 from 1940 as well as Miller's Dark Knight Returns (1986). Chaos personified. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. Pure evil and utterly creepy. Terror for no discernible purpose aside from causing terror. I, personally, don't think it is as much like the Joker from Killing Joke (1988) as many others do.
The terror experienced by Gothamites which follows the news "The Joker is Free" in the comics I could not see Nicholson's inspiring. I can easily see Ledger's doing so.
You know something is damn funny when merely giving saying its name elicits laughter.
And the next civil rights front is opened up...
Your comment cut off after "You see to be implu" which I take as meaning "implying".
Believe me, I am totally sincere with my utter and total lack of anything even resembling a belief that the Democrats are going to do anything aside from spend spend spend.
I was simply lamenting the state of the Republican party. I was not in any way shape or form saying or implying anything with regards to the Democratic party.
Dear illiterate half-wit,
Your capacity for anything more blowing snot bubbles out of your nose while reciting bumper sticker mantras is highly questionable. Although you undoubtedly excel at drooling, that sadly is no qualifier for comprehending things which are beyond your mental abilities. While rationality is a noble goal, for someone of your obvious deficiencies, perhaps you should set your sights on something within reach such as being a laughing stock.
Stephen Hawking changed his mind about what he wanted to eat for lunch.
"At first I thought I wanted fish," said Mr. Hawkings, "but then I decided I did not want fish. I eventually went with spaghetti."
There is much debate in science-related blogs as well as in academia about the significance of this change.
Depressing situation isn't it? Conservatism made the Republican Party an actual party rather than the me-tooism of the 40s and 50s. They win the House and Senate for the first time in forty years while running on an unapologetically conservative platform. Bush wins while running as some weird bleeding heart conservative.
So what do we get?
Vast increase in federal spending!
Vast increase in federal power!
They morphed into a me-too-but-more party.
Uncharted is a PS3 exclusive and its great.
By the time DNF ships, IBM will have this amount of processing power in your wristwatch.
Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0
I hate kittens.
Del Toro is a big Dunsany fan, as I understand it.
It would be cool if he could do it all, his Dunsany influced work in Hellboy, Tolkien's Hobbit, Lovecraft's ATMoM. Seeing how long it would take to do the Hobbit, though, my guess is that ATMoM is on permanent hold.
Where are these former eBayers going?
Or is it a case of a fad (ooh, I got it from eBay!) settling down and it becomes just one way to get something (I could have gotten it cheaper on eBay, but if I need to return it, it would be a big hassle)?
See! Pure, unadulterated awesomeness!
Yeah, he was kind of a gas bag.
Speaking of unannounced Star Wars movies, is it my imagination or is the animated Star Wars movie coming out next month about as anticipated as if it had not been announced at all?
Always nice to meet a fellow fan of that wonderful silent film. Haven't seen The Resurrected; having looked it up, I'm going to check it out.
Lovecraft's works are difficult to envision as films, for the most part. ATMoM is one of the oddest horror stories I think I've ever read; the protagonists spend huge chunks of time trying to understand the bas-reliefs. The script review indicates that deviation from the original does take place, with rather more action and some The Thing-like plotting. How anyone could make a truly faithful ATMoM film is beyond me.
But c'mon, man! Shoggoth pudding! That would be awesome :)
I guess he won't be doing his script for At The Mountains of Madness.
I was looking forward to the shoggoth merchandise... shoggoth keychains, shoggoth pudding...
I think somebody's been in the Kool-Aid again...
Never gonna get anywhere with reason here on /.
Might as well give up now.
"But you've admitted that there was no such supression."
You lie.
All you do is lie.
You are nothing more than a dishonest, lying, totalitarian sack of shit.
You are dishonest.
You are a liar.
Remember your "little babies" comment? Now you want to pretend that you are a high road taker?
The suppression of the freedom of speech which you seek to rationalize was harmful. In seeking to extinguish dissent, those so engaged were acting to eliminate the first amendment rights purely for their own political ends.
That you approve of this sort of appalling, totalitarian action says more about your low character than any amount of your dishonest rationalizations can undo.
THQ? Oh dear God...
Why could they not be humane and just take me behind the shed and shoot me in the head?
If you were literate, you would see these steps:
1) Citation needed for claim that conservatives were censored
2) Cited usage of the Fairness Doctrine to harass conservative opinion broadcasts
3) your post about the media not being liberal lolerZ!!!1!
4) My post stating that the media generally being referred to was the press, not opinion stuff
5) Your babies post.
6) My request for your counter
7) Your "counter".
So where was I "arguing that the left still got to place their opinions on the air, but the right never got to counter them... apparently because the Fairness Doctrine only applied to the left, and the right was incapable of using it to place their opinions on the air"?
I made no mention of the left still getting to place their opinions on the air. You brought that in. You are lying about what I said. Now, when you are lying, which as we've seen you did, you should probably do it about something other than what the person you are lying to wrote, seeing as that person may actually remember what he wrote.
Of course your dishonesty is more than skin deep as you do omit essential details from your initial attempt at a run down of the argument, which, if you were an honest person would read like this:
1) Broadcaster pays its money for a right leaning commentator
2) Broadcaster must provide same amount of time for free to left leaning commentator
3) Broadcaster can't afford to give so much time away
4) Broadcaster cancels right leaning commentator
Without your dishonesty and lies, you really don't have anything.
If memory serves, the member nations, when forming the EU were told that they could in fact leave. Seeing how utterly treacherous these scum have been regarding their patent dishonesty with the constitu... uh, treaty, I have no faith that they did anything other than lie through their teeth to get states into the union in the first place.
In the majority of those places where the people got to vote on the constitution, they voted no. There is your "what if". The politicians saw that the people were not voting the way they wanted, so they called the constitution a treaty for the express purpose of AVOIDING DEMOCRACY.
Do you comprehend what a treaty is? Any sovereign nation gets to decide on whether or not to sign onto a treaty. As a sovereign nation, they also get to decide how best to decide the issue.