View Single Post
Old 03-27-2013, 05:45 AM   #556
Banned User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 507
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises View Post
OutRiddled, I know this is between you and The Joker here, but I'd walk away if I was debating you here. There's nothing more to say if you don't accept that the mob "turned to a man that they didn't understand". Even Maroni has regrets about what happened to Dent. They gave Joker the means to pull everything off because they were getting desperate. They brought him in to take down Batman, and Joker went off the rails. It's really that simple. Whether you're happy with how that was presented is another thing entirely, but that absolutely was the situation in the movie. You can't change the facts to support your opinion.

There's nothing wrong with preferring Nicholson, but your attempt to explain "objectively" why his was a better version of the character has been one huge fail.
This isn't debate, it's discussion. There is no "fail". Am I talking to 11 year olds here? Am I going to be PWNED OMG LOL!!!!!1111111

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
And, about him taking over the mob, we see it in part and the rest it's not hard to figure out. We see him kill Gambol, have men cut up Chenchen and feed him to his dogs, and even had Maroni running with the rest of the city by the end. Do you really think that your mob thugs will going to say no to this guy?
I know what was going on. It's just that I don't agree with it. Nolan relies too heavily on exposition to tell a story. In Batman '89, the whole thing with the mob wasn't drawn out for most of the movie. Joker killed Grissom, then took out the other mob guys that were against him. This happened in less than 15 minutes of the movie.

Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
What would you do if your best friend revealed to you he intended to murder someone? I'd give him a slap, too.
That's not the point. I told you, obvious script device.

Vicki Vale, that's a plot device. She ticks every cliche in the book. Meets the hero for the first time. Fall in love with the hero after one night in the sack. Target of the villain. Damsel in distress at every turn, complete with the annoying screaming like a banshee.
Vicki Vale was her own character, or at least more so than Rachel Dawes. We are discovering Bruce Wayne through her eyes. She is more than just a plot device. Plus I think Kim Basinger has way better acting talent.
Rachel broke the stereotype. She knew the hero since childhood. They didn't share any romantic moments in the movie until the end. Their connection and relationship was one based on years of friendship, not a one night roll in the hay. Because she was an honest D.A. in a very corrupt city, she became a natural target for the criminals, not just the hero's girl who is grabbed for the sake of being rescued.
The romantic interest knowing the hero since childhood isn't knew - it was done in Forrest Gump. It's an obvious way to introduce a character arc.

Bruce Wayne WAS a cripple. He was hobbling around on a cane because he had no cartilage in his knees.
I'm not talking about the story. That was obviously inspired by Catwoman's first appearance. She was wearing a disguise and being a thief. Batman figuring out her scheme, etc.

The difference is that Batman let her go deliberately. He wasn't made a fool of.
I have read the comic. I own it. Is there any particular page you want me to scan because none of it is going to help your case lol.
This is all about you pointing out that he is blaming a coin for what happened to him.. I think you're reading too much into it.

That doesn't make it a good characterization. Batman is supposed to be the main character. This is his first movie. He should have been front and center of the story.
That's the genius. Batman slowly emerges through the story. He isn't front and centre all the time, so as to not ruin the mystery like Nolan did.

Again how does this make them the same? Dent and Bruce both loved Rachel. That didn't make them the same.

You're clutching at straws. The only thing Batman and Joker shared in Batman '89 was the horrible contrived connection of creating each other.
And you say that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer or just pulling your leg.

It was being hinted at through the whole movie. You just weren't paying attention.

Only if you ignore the plethora of quotes I posted which TELL you in plain simple terms.

You're watching a movie about a guy who dresses like a giant bat. Elaborate plans are a drop in the ocean compared to that.

That's all you need. You forgot to add the "This is MY city" quote, too. That makes it very clear.

It doesn't matter what you want to believe. You've been making things up and missing the obvious consistently since we started this discussion. You're ignoring what the movie tells and shows you. Meaning you're being ignorant for no reason.
I won't repeat my answer, but it's obvious that Nolan likes having lots of characters and multiple plot threads going on.

Yeah, I think that the Joker's plans were a little too elaborate. It's worse than the cops not being there to arrest Joker during the parade in '89, but that's already been discussed to death.

How did Maroni know about Ramirez if he wasn't in on it? Not addressed in the movie, I believe. I have other questions about that, that I may raise at a later point.

OutRiddled is offline   Reply With Quote