am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by The Joker

The serious atmosphere of the movies didn't make any of the other Nolan villains nearly as creepy as Joker. Not even Scarecrow. Heath's Joker was naturally menacing and creepy. He made Nicholson look like a boy scout.

Well, I guess this is quite subjective and I don't agree with that.

Which is something the Joker is proud of in the comics and flaunts it.

I guess this is different, too. It seems to me that Ledger's Joker is simply a disturbed guy who feels bad deep inside and wants to fix this by trying to prove something. Nicholson's Jack Napier starts out as an insecure guy who is then transformed into someone who doesn't care anymore.

(I never had a problem with Nicholson's Joker being a criminal before. The Red Hood was a criminal and even in the first Joker story he's taking revenge on a cop who brought him into jail so I guess it makes sense)

He advertised his smilex product on TV. Heath's Joker had plenty of casual moments. The way he casually shoots the bus driver in the bank, the Cop guarding Dent, the traffic Cop outside his truck etc.

Perhaps.

One of the best parts about him.

Within the 80s context I think "The Killing Joke" was pretty much out-of-character for the Joker. I never understood why he is suddenly out there, getting melancholic and trying to prove that he isn't that bad.

(On a side not, Death In The Family features the blandest Joker characterization ever)

Not insecure. Just proving a point. There's a difference.

Well, probably proving a point to make himself feel better. At least what it seems like to me. We don't know.

Lets see:

- Grissom
- The two mob guys
- Two models
- TV newscaster
- Six reported deaths on the news (then Batman foils his smilex scheme)
- A few people at the parade (can't have been many because they were all still swarming around his float after Batman took the balloons away, and you don't see any corpses in the street)
- Bob

Heath's Joker killed his henchmen in the bank robbery, Gambol's henchman, Gambol, the Chechen, the copycat Batman, the two "Harvey Dent" Cops, Commissioner Loeb, Judge Surillo, the traffic Cop, X number of Cops in the big chase (Cop cars, helicopter etc), X number of Cops with his fat crazy henchman with the cell phone in his stomach and the two paramedics in the Police Station explosion, Lau, the two Cops guarding Dent in the hospital.

I guess there are a few more kills to Nicholson, depends on if they were really killed or not.

Bottom line: I am not the biggest Ledger fan, I also don't like "The Dark Knight" anymore. No one is going to convince me otherwise.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

HA! Thank you.

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I was going to mention the themes but I got tongue-tied.

Tongue tied? Burton's themes aren't complex at all.

No, Nolan's themes aren't that dark. Dark for a PG-13 movie, maybe. The tone was not striving for darkness. About as dark as Speed, or any other mainstream action/crime thriller. Really, what was so dark? That Joker was terrorising the city? Been done in countless movies. Batman's girlfriend dieing? Was hardly dark at all, in fact I cheered when she died. The movie wasn't serious.

If you don't consider any of that dark and serious then you obviously have no idea what dark and serious is. Watching someone get blown up mid sentence, corpses slamming against a window, watching a man scream in pain as half his face is on fire etc. This is dark stuff. The Dark Knight even got some complaints for being too dark:

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/dark-knight
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/...-no-kids_N.htm

You want to see dark in tone, I suggest go watch The Crow (1994).

That's certainly darker than Burton's movie I'll give you that.

And how is that so different to Joker terrorising Vicki Vale in her apartment? Or Joker talking to a burnt out corpse? In fact, I find those scenes way creepier.

Because both of those scenes were comical. What did he do in Vicki's apartment that was so scary to her? ***** about her running off with Batman in the middle of their date lol?

As for the talking to the corpse scene, the "corpse" looked hilarious, like one of those dummies that jump out at you on carnival spookhouse rides lol.

But that was all part of Joker's plan to escape.

So?

Him scarring Alicia was just a random thing he did for kicks.

No, he was because he thought he was an artist. "I'm no Picasso but do you like it?"

Plus:

-Eckhardt

He wasn't the Joker there.

-the people in the museum

That was knockout gas. Even the script says Vicki was the only one left conscious in the museum.

-Joker's test subject "I get a grin, again and again.."

Right on that one.

-Alicia

She killed herself.

I'm not sure because it's hard to tally up all the numbers if you want to consider both onscreen and offscreen kills.

You can only tally the kills we see or hear about. I mean do you want me to add the double homicide Gordon mentioned in relation to Joker's antics at the end of Batman Begins, and god knows how many more homicides he committed in the time frame between BB and TDK?

Neither was wearing facepaint, sporting facial scars and killing people with knives.

Semantics. He was sporting a clown image as the Joker does, and leaving victims with smiles as he does.

Disfiguring women and making them wear masks is something he never does. That's just a rip off of another Batman villain, like killing Bruce's parents was a rip off of Joe Chill lol.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Well, I guess this is quite subjective and I don't agree with that.

Your agreement is not necessary

I guess this is different, too. It seems to me that Ledger's Joker is simply a disturbed guy who feels bad deep inside and wants to fix this by trying to prove something. Nicholson's Jack Napier starts out as an insecure guy who is then transformed into someone who doesn't care anymore.

You're kidding. Nicholson's Joker was the most insecure of all.

"Batman? BATMAN? Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in where man dressed up as a BAT gets all of my press?"

"We were having dinner. I was a man doing well with a beautiful woman. Without so much as an apology you RAN OFF with that sideshow phony"

"I have given a name to my pain and it is Batman"

"HE STOLE MY BALLOONS!!!!"

In fact his smilex ploy looked like a sad attempt to get more attention than Batman. He was like an angry insecure kid competing with his brother for mommy's attention. I won't even get into his sad attempts to try and woo Vicki lol. Ledger's Joker was arrogant and cock sure of himself all through TDK. Never once does he get upset and throw a tantrum like Nicholson's Joker did. The ONLY time you ever see a glimmer of defeat on his face and see him annoyed is when the ferries don't blow each other up. Even then he gets the last laugh by telling Batman what he did to Dent.

(I never had a problem with Nicholson's Joker being a criminal before. The Red Hood was a criminal and even in the first Joker story he's taking revenge on a cop who brought him into jail so I guess it makes sense)

Neither did I.

Within the 80s context I think "The Killing Joke" was pretty much out-of-character for the Joker. I never understood why he is suddenly out there, getting melancholic and trying to prove that he isn't that bad.

It's not that he was trying to prove that he isn't that bad. He knows exactly what he is. He wanted to prove it's easy to turn anyone as good and as sane into what he is. He chose Gordon to prove that.

It's probably his most infamous and popular story, too.

Well, probably proving a point to make himself feel better. At least what it seems like to me. We don't know.

In between taking over the Gotham underworld to bring Gotham what he called a better class of criminal, and ensuring Batman is kept around for his personal amusement.

I guess there are a few more kills to Nicholson, depends on if they were really killed or not.

Like I said to OutRiddled, we can only tally what we see and hear about.

Bottom line: I am not the biggest Ledger fan, I also don't like "The Dark Knight" anymore. No one is going to convince me otherwise.

Nobody is trying to change your mind. As I said your agreement is not necessary

[milost]

Hate to do this to you Joker (I don't really want to contradict or counter you, since we seem to be on the same page about most things but this thread), but the people in the Museum actually are dead, not knocked out as far as the film itself is concerned. The Museum employees on the steps clearly have rigamortis (their legs are straight up, not releaxed) and the patrons are all wide eyed, face first into their meals. If they were knocked out, they wouldn't look that way, especially the black woman and elderly woman.

There's also the fact that The Joker even says, "I make art till someone dies *looks around the museum*, see? Ha Ha".

He killed them all. That line isn't even in the script either.


The script says Vicki is the only one left conscious, sure, but it also states that Joker wants Bob to leave Edvard Munch's "THE SCREAM" (in the actual film, it's Bacon). In the script, Batman also gets his cape caught in the Batwing wreckage (Sam Hamm hated the idea of Batman wearing a cape). There's also the whole sequence with the Mayor. The final film is much, much different.




Also, Alicia is debatable. "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs". I'm inclined to believe that, based on his personality alone that he killed her.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by milost

Hate to do this to you Joker (I don't really want to contradict or counter you, since we seem to be on the same page about most things but this thread), but the people in the Museum actually are dead, not knocked out as far as the film itself is concerned. The Museum employees on the steps clearly have rigamortis (their legs are straight up, not releaxed) and the patrons are all wide eyed, face first into their meals. If they were knocked out, they wouldn't look that way, especially the black woman and elderly woman.

There's also the fact that The Joker even says, "I make art till someone dies *looks around the museum*, see? Ha Ha".

He killed them all. That line isn't even in the script either.


The script says Vicki is the only one left conscious, sure, but it also states that Joker wants Bob to leave Edvard Munch's "THE SCREAM" (in the actual film, it's Bacon). In the script, Batman also gets his cape caught in the Batwing wreckage (Sam Hamm hated the idea of Batman wearing a cape). There's also the whole sequence with the Mayor. The final film is much, much different.

Fair enough. I can buy that.

Also, Alicia is debatable. "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs". I'm inclined to believe that, based on his personality alone that he killed her.

But why would he want to kill her? She was what he called a living work of art. I can't see him destroying something he created and thought was great art.

[milost]

Thanks man.

Originally Posted by The Joker

But why would he want to kill her? She was what he called a living work of art. I can't see him destroying something he created and thought was great art.

Alicia was old news at that point though. Think about it, Vicki was a new "canvass" for the Joker and he said it himself at the museum, "I make art till someone dies".

He's a twisted little ****. He did what he needed to with Alicia (disfigured her and traumatized her) then moved on. Had his way with her so to speak. That's why I think he seems to be so infatuated with Vicki, his next victim. She's beautiful and intelligent, pretty much the perfect person to ruin for your new, twisted philosophy. With the Joker I don't think "I found a new girl Bobby" means that he's going to take her out for a nice dinner. More like destroy her face with acid and mess her up mentally, like he did with Alicia. I don't think the Joker cares for women too much honestly, they're probably nothing more to him than those paintings that he destroyed in the museum.


Let's remember his line to Grissom, "you SET ME UP, over a WOMAN". I don't think Alicia meant that much to him, she was pretty much an object to be had, a thing. Nothing more. It's also pretty evident with the ****** way he treated her.


If he's capable of killing his right hand man, someone that would take a bullet for him, I think he's pretty capable of throwing Alicia out of a window. He's trying to ensnare Vicki, what's he going to say? That he did it?











Oh, and I love what you stated about the Joker being insecure, because it's all true. He is peeved that this freak, Batman, the thing that made him who he is, is stealing his limelight. I mean, there are interpretations that hate and despise Batman and wouldn't mind seeing him dead. Not all of the interpretations want him to live or think he's "fun". I like how in '89, the two of them are the exact opposites. Batman is mysterious and doesn't want to be out in the spotlight whereas the Joker cherishes it. They're antithesis of each other.



That's one of the things I like about the Joker in The Dark Knight. They change it up a bit. At first, he genuinely wants to kill Batman. "It's simple, we kill the Batman". But once he starts to see how he is and realizes that he isn't Dent, but just BATMAN, something clicks and he can't bring himself to kill him. I think that's just as valid.

And like the Nicholson Joker, you can tell he relishes BEING the Joker. "I like this job, I LIKE IT". You can see his enthusiasm in all of his television broadcasts as well.

[The Joker]

I don't think Alicia meant that much to him either. I'm not saying he cared about her or anything lol.

But I don't buy that he just killed her because he took a fancy to Vicki. If he did then she'd be dead the moment he decided to get himself a new girl. She was a work of art to him. In fact he compared her to himself by saying "Now like me she's a living work of art". Unless he has a habit of destroying things he thinks are great art, which he doesn't since he told Bob to spare that creepy looking painting he liked in the museum, there's no reason not to take him at his word that Alicia killed herself. Which lets face it is more plausible given to what he did to her face.

As for killing Bob, he took his frustration out on Bob because according to him none of his men told him that Batman was capable of stealing his balloons like that. So he punished his right hand man. We knew his reasoning for it. We're not given any reason to believe he killed Alicia.

[milost]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I don't think Alicia meant that much to him either. I'm not saying he cared about her or anything lol.

But I don't buy that he just killed her because he took a fancy to Vicki. If he did then she'd be dead the moment he decided to get himself a new girl. She was a work of art to him. In fact he compared her to himself by saying "Now like me she's a living work of art". Unless he has a habit of destroying things he thinks are great art, which he doesn't since he told Bob to spare that creepy looking painting he liked in the museum, there's no reason not to take him at his word that Alicia killed herself. Which lets face it is more plausible given to what he did to her face.

As for killing Bob, he took his frustration out on Bob because he nobody told him that Batman was capable of stealing his balloons like that. We knew his reasoning for it. We're not given any reason to believe he killed Alicia.

True, but that's before the apartment.


At the museum, he wants Vicki to record his work or some crazy stuff doesn't he? Of course he'd show off Alicia. But you're right, I agree that we don't know for sure that he killed her. If anything, he might have drove her to it. He scarred her face and psychologically and emotionally ruined what she was before (to the point that she has to be carried in by the goons and just sounds completely odd). Perhaps she really couldn't take it anymore and threw herself out of a window. Maybe he's telling the truth.


But then again, we should never take the Joker for his word (neither of them), should we? It's always some kind of game or fun that the Joker is trying to pull, even if it doesn't make sense to us. The character isn't exactly coherent, that's what makes the Joker in general so great. I mean, he constantly contradicts himself in the comics, cartoons and films. He doesn't seem too disappointed or sad telling Vicki the news does he? I mean that "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" and that little sinister giggle he does after PUNCHING the mask tells me he had a hand in her demise.


I don't take anything the Joker says literally anyway. Some people seem to think that he really loves Vicki or something, that he wants to woo her. I don't see that. He clearly just wants to **** with her like when he's leaving her apartment. He's like "won't you join me in a weep", then he notices her expression and just breaks down laughing giving her that point and expression like "the jokes on you, babe!" before doing that little bird dance thing he does before finally leaving.



Not sure if you watched the making of features on the blu ray, but I love Nicholson's insight on the Joker in the film.


"He's not wired up the same way. This guy has survived nuclear waste immersion here."

That about sums it up really.









Oh, and you're right about Bob. He's clearly taking his frustrations out on him. My point is though, the Joker doesn't really have an attachment to anyone or anything. Not his "artwork", not his men, not his right hand man, nothing really. So it's not out of the question that he simply got sick of Alicia and killed her. He's apathetic for the most part. Even the Ledger Joker is similar. I LOVE when he spits and mocks his goon when he gets electrocuted by Batman's mask. That's another great Joker moment.



I really don't see how Outriddled can love the Nicholson Joker, but not like the Ledger Joker. Surely there's SOMETHING there in TDK Joker that Outriddled can enjoy and appreciate.

[OutRiddled]

Heath's Joker had his moments. "Very poor choice of words" "Does Harvey know about you and his little bunny?" What I didn't like was his attempt to prove a point with his 'social experiment' (I also think those scenes were badly acted and executed poorly, on the part of the people on the boat). It's like Nolan is trying to be clever by referencing current events, setting up Joker as this anarchist/terrorist in the vein of 9/11. I thought it was very anti-climactic, also.

Why not have Joker cause chaos for no reason like Jack Nicholson's did? (ok, he was trying to out-show Batman, but that's about all there was to it). I know he did something similar in The Killing Joke, but that was more about trying to drive Commissioner Gordon mad, not forcing a large group of people to commit mass murder to save their own skins.

A couple of other little nitpicks, but overall I enjoyed Heath Ledger's performance. That and Tom Hardy's Bane are the best things about Nolan's Batman trilogy.

I still prefer Nicholson as the Joker, though.

[Snow Queen]

^^^Heath's Joker had the same goals of the Joker in The Killing Joke on a larger scale. It wasn't about driving Gordon mad in this version, in TDK it's about bringing Harvey down to his level and also showing everyone else that they're like him and that "when the chips are down, these civilized people; they'll eat each other".

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

^^^Heath's Joker had the same goals of the Joker in The Killing Joke on a larger scale. It wasn't about driving Gordon mad in this version, in TDK it's about bringing Harvey down to his level and also showing everyone else that they're like him and that "when the chips are down, these civilized people; they'll eat each other".

I know what it was about. It was just executed poorly. Why would they not blow eachother up? Because of the inner goodness of people, is that the point? No crook tried to get the detonator because they were afraid of the big black guy? You had the conservative guy on the other boat, suddenly get a change of heart? It was corny.

Is it some thinly veiled reference to the War on Terror? That people are willing to participate in mass murder to save themselves because of fear of what the 'terrorists' might do?

But it wasn't about turning these people 'mad' and 'like him' IE: a psychotic killer. It was about driving people from fear to go along with mass murder (hence the not too subtle reference to the Iraq war, etc).

I suppose I can agree on Two-Face, since he did get half his face burnt off (although bizarrely he doesn't seem to care at all about this in the movie) and his fiance gets killed. But we see little signs of the madness that is supposed to already have been brewing in him, only when he was threatening Joker's henchman, but that wasn't enough for me to see him go totally vigilante and even willing to kill little kids. But it was all just because he was trying to avenge Rachel, not really because he had become like the Joker. I just found all this a little too convenient for the plot.

Compare this to Two-Face's origin in the classic BTAS episode. Harvey was clearly already insane. Not because his girlfriend was being threatened, but because he just was. All it took was his scarring to push him over the edge. It wasn't caused by Joker killing his girlfriend. LAME, Nolan, LAME.

We get little of Two-Face's backstory in The Dark Knight. Only that he's fighting corruption, has a nickname "Harvey Two-Face" (and we never find out why) and is engaged with Rachel Dawes. His Two-Face was more of a vigilante, seeking to make things right, than an outright criminal or madman like the Joker.

So, again, I don't see the point. It's not illustrated as well as in The Killing Joke. Where he tries to drive Gordon mad but fails. In The Dark Knight, he succeeds with Harvey (driving him to madness or criminality), so does that mean that the Joker is right or wrong? This is never addressed in the movie.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I know what it was about. It was just executed poorly. Why would they not blow eachother up?

If you watch the movie it's painfully obvious. The convicts were beaten to it because one of them tossed it out the window. The regular citizens didn't want that kind of slaughter on their conscience. Sure they were all shouting for someone else to press the button, but when push came to shove nobody in good conscience could do it.

Simple.

Is it some thinly veiled reference to the War on Terror? That people are willing to participate in mass murder to save themselves because of fear of what the 'terrorists' might do?

It's not a thinly veiled reference to anything. It is what it is. They didn't blow each other up because nobility prevailed. A noble convict got rid of the detonator and none of the citizens could bring themselves to blow up all of those people.

But it wasn't about turning these people 'mad' and 'like him' IE: a psychotic killer. It was about driving people from fear to go along with mass murder (hence the not too subtle reference to the Iraq war, etc).

Did you watch this movie with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears? Joker's point was that when push came to shove they'll be just like him. "Their morals, their code....it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be".

Not hard to miss these things when you pay attention. But you somehow seemed to have been watching an entirely different movie based on your skewed perceptions of the plot.

I suppose I can agree on Two-Face, since he did get half his face burnt off (although bizarrely he doesn't seem to care at all about this in the movie)

"Do you think I want to escape from this? There is no escape from this"

and his fiance gets killed. But we see little signs of the madness that is supposed to already have been brewing in him, only when he was threatening Joker's henchman, but that wasn't enough for me to see him go totally vigilante and even willing to kill little kids. But it was all just because he was trying to avenge Rachel, not really because he had become like the Joker.

Lets see, Dent kidnaps and terrorizes a Joker accomplice with a gun simply because Rachel's life was threatened. That alone tells you that this guy would go to extremes just because someone he cares about was simply threatened.

Add to that he's handed over to Joker's men by the COPS, gets half his face burned off, and Rachel is murdered. There's people who have lost their sanity and gone over the edge for far less than that.

I just found all this a little too convenient for the plot.

That's funny coming from the guy who thinks the Batman movie where Batman and the Joker conveniently created each other is the best one.

We get little of Two-Face's backstory in The Dark Knight. Only that he's fighting corruption, has a nickname "Harvey Two-Face" (and we never find out why) and is engaged with Rachel Dawes.

He got his coin from his father, he has a history of investigating bent Cops on Gordon's force while he was in Internal Affairs. How much more back story into Harvey Dent did you want? That's more than they gave Bruce Wayne or Jack Napier in Batman '89.

His Two-Face was more of a vigilante, seeking to make things right, than an outright criminal or madman like the Joker.

You mean Two Face seeking retribution against people who he thinks wronged him? Now where have I seen that before?






Let me guess, you'd have been more enthralled watching Dent pull off some corny robbery of the 2nd Bank of Gotham of 2 million dollars at 2am or something like that right?

It's not illustrated as well as in The Killing Joke.

It's illustrated better because the Joker succeeds on someone in this case.

Where he tries to drive Gordon mad but fails. In The Dark Knight, he succeeds with Harvey (driving him to madness or criminality), so does that mean that the Joker is right or wrong? This is never addressed in the movie.

It proves he was right. That's why Batman takes the blame for Dent's crimes. "The Joker cannot win".

Again obvious and you missed it.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

If you watch the movie it's painfully obvious. The convicts were beaten to it because one of them tossed it out the window. The regular citizens didn't want that kind of slaughter on their conscience. Sure they were all shouting for someone else to press the button, but when push came to shove nobody in good conscience could do it.

Simple.

Too simple.

It's not a thinly veiled reference to anything. It is what it is. They didn't blow each other up because nobility prevailed. A noble convict got rid of the detonator and none of the citizens could bring themselves to blow up all of those people.

We are talking about life and death, here. I don't believe that no one would try to act. This was just too convenient for the plot and poor writing.

Did you watch this movie with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears? Joker's point was that when push came to shove they'll be just like him. "Their morals, their code....it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be".

So he goes all Jigsaw killer on us? By forcing people to kill others to save themselves? I don't buy it.

"Do you think I want to escape from this? There is no escape from this"

That's not what I got from it - maybe he meant because he had already killed people, that there was "no escape".

Even in Two-Face's first issue, his appearance ****ed him up, and made him even more psychotic. I never got that vibe from The Dark Knight.

Lets see, Dent kidnaps and terrorizes a Joker accomplice with a gun simply because Rachel's life was threatened. That alone tells you that this guy would go to extremes just because someone he cares about was simply threatened.

Many people would do that if their loved one was seriously threatened. I wanted to see why he was nicknamed "Harvey Two-Face".

Add to that he's handed over to Joker's men by the COPS, gets half his face burned off, and Rachel is murdered. There's people who have lost their sanity and gone over the edge for far less than that.

I'll grant you that, he became a revenge obsessed vigilante killer, willing to go extremes to get his version of justice. But it wasn't the dual personality Two-Face that most of us know. Even Batman Forever got this aspect right. It was barely even hinted at in The Dark Knight.

That's funny coming from the guy who thinks the Batman movie where Batman and the Joker conveniently created each other is the best one.

Batman '89 wasn't planned to be the beginning of this huge franchise. It was a self-contained movie. Hence, the need to tie up loose plot threads to make it coherent.

He got his coin from his father, he has a history of investigating bent Cops on Gordon's force while he was in Internal Affairs. How much more back story into Harvey Dent did you want? That's more than they gave Bruce Wayne or Jack Napier in Batman '89.

Something to make his descent into madness more believable.

You mean Two Face seeking retribution against people who he thinks wronged him? Now where have I seen that before?






Let me guess, you'd have been more enthralled watching Dent pull off some corny robbery of the 2nd Bank of Gotham of 2 million dollars at 2am or something like that right?

He wasn't just a vigilante in the comics. Of course, he sought revenge. Even in Batman Forever, he was trying to get revenge on Batman.

It's illustrated better because the Joker succeeds on someone in this case.

It proves he was right. That's why Batman takes the blame for Dent's crimes. "The Joker cannot win".

Again obvious and you missed it.

Not in the same way as The Killing Joke. Joker never actually does anything with Dent, only steer him towards the revenge path against the corruption that led to his tragedies.

In Killing Joke, he shoots Gordon's daughter and tortures him with images of her wounded body.

In The Dark Knight, I can't remember the exact dialogue but all he does is convince Dent that Gordon and the police are responsible.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Not in the same way as The Killing Joke. Joker never actually does anything with Dent, only steer him towards the revenge path against the corruption that led to his tragedies.

In Killing Joke, he shoots Gordon's daughter and tortures him with images of her wounded body.

In The Dark Knight, I can't remember the exact dialogue but all he does is convince Dent that Gordon and the police are responsible.

You're completely forgetting or ignoring the fact that Joker set up the whole scenario that led to Rachel's death and Harvey's scarring. The biggest trick Joker plays in the whole film is switching those addresses on Batman. He knew exactly what he was doing.

He manipulated everything to get Dent to do what he wanted.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Too simple.

No, just human nature, which is often simple.

We are talking about life and death, here. I don't believe that no one would try to act. This was just too convenient for the plot and poor writing.

Someone did try to act, and then he could not go through with it. How did you miss that?

So he goes all Jigsaw killer on us? By forcing people to kill others to save themselves? I don't buy it.

You don't buy what? That Joker wanted to prove that people will turn into mass murderers just to save their own skin? What's not to believe? That everyone is rotten enough to kill hundreds of people because they personally want to live?

That's not what I got from it - maybe he meant because he had already killed people, that there was "no escape".

He was pointing at the scarred side of his face when he said it. What else do you think he meant by doing that?

Even in Two-Face's first issue, his appearance ****ed him up, and made him even more psychotic. I never got that vibe from The Dark Knight.

I did. From the moment he screamed silently when he saw the scarred coin, when he turned around and told Gordon he was not sorry, not yet etc. I could tell he was completely gone over the edge.

Many people would do that if their loved one was seriously threatened.

Many people would kidnap someone in an ambulance, take them to an alley, tie them up, and terrorize them with a gun?

Pull the other one it's got bells on it.

I'll grant you that, he became a revenge obsessed vigilante killer, willing to go extremes to get his version of justice. But it wasn't the dual personality Two-Face that most of us know. Even Batman Forever got this aspect right. It was barely even hinted at in The Dark Knight.

Wrong again. The whole concept of his revenge was based on the 50/50 chance. Duality of whether you live or die, just like the 50/50 chance he and Rachel had.

To quote Two Face in BTAS: "Chance is everything. Whether you're born or not. Whether you live or die. Whether you're good or bad"

That was the basis of Dent's revenge spree.

Batman '89 wasn't planned to be the beginning of this huge franchise. It was a self-contained movie. Hence, the need to tie up loose plot threads to make it coherent.

It's got nothing to do with being a self contained movie. It's about good writing. Nothing would have changed if the murderer of Bruce's parents was not the Joker, only that it would have made for a less contrived convenient script than what we got in Batman '89.

Something to make his descent into madness more believable.

See how sane you feel when you're betrayed, half your face is burned off and someone you love is murdered.

He wasn't just a vigilante in the comics. Of course, he sought revenge. Even in Batman Forever, he was trying to get revenge on Batman.

He wasn't a vigilante in TDK either. He was just someone killing people who he think personally wronged him. It was revenge, not vigilantism. Batman's a vigilante. Dent wasn't.

Not in the same way as The Killing Joke. Joker never actually does anything with Dent, only steer him towards the revenge path against the corruption that led to his tragedies.

LOL yeah apart from causing his disfigurement and kill his girlfriend, yeah he didn't do a thing to him.

In Killing Joke, he shoots Gordon's daughter and tortures him with images of her wounded body.

That's not nearly as bad as what he did to Dent in TDK. At least Barbara lived and Gordon walked away sane and physically unharmed.

In The Dark Knight, I can't remember the exact dialogue but all he does is convince Dent that Gordon and the police are responsible.

Dent was already convinced of that. He was out for revenge on Gordon before Joker ever set foot in that hospital:

Gordon: "I'm sorry, Harvey"
Dent: "No. No you're not. Not yet"

Joker added some fuel to the fire and put a gun in his hand to do the job. But he didn't let the Joker off the hook either. Joker got the gun put to his head and the toss of the coin for his life just like everyone else Dent went after.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I wanted to see why he was nicknamed "Harvey Two-Face".

Someone who is two-faces presents themselves one way while acting in a different way. Harvey presented himself as being an honest man, yet he investigated cops behind their back - that's what internal affairs does. Clearly this was not lost on the cops themselves:

GORDON: "If I didn't work with cops you investigated while you were making your name at IA, I'd be working alone."

Hence the name Harvey Two-Face.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

You're completely forgetting or ignoring the fact that Joker set up the whole scenario that led to Rachel's death and Harvey's scarring. The biggest trick Joker plays in the whole film is switching those addresses on Batman. He knew exactly what he was doing.

He manipulated everything to get Dent to do what he wanted.

Oh, did he? That's not made entirely clear in the movie. It could be the mob wanting revenge, and Joker just giving them ideas. It's not really explained.

Originally Posted by The Joker

No, just human nature, which is often simple.

Made simple for these scenes, at least.

Someone did try to act, and then he could not go through with it. How did you miss that?

That was one person. It was a whole boatload full of people.

You don't buy what? That Joker wanted to prove that people will turn into mass murderers just to save their own skin? What's not to believe? That everyone is rotten enough to kill hundreds of people because they personally want to live?

That's just survival instinct. It's like Joker is taking a page out of Saw and is going all Jigsaw on us.

He was pointing at the scarred side of his face when he said it. What else do you think he meant by doing that?

Ok, fair enough.

I did. From the moment he screamed silently when he saw the scarred coin, when he turned around and told Gordon he was not sorry, not yet etc. I could tell he was completely gone over the edge.

Because his woman died. The annoying, two-timing *****.

Many people would kidnap someone in an ambulance, take them to an alley, tie them up, and terrorize them with a gun?

Pull the other one it's got bells on it.

You don't know what you would do if someone you care about was threatened.

Wrong again. The whole concept of his revenge was based on the 50/50 chance. Duality of whether you live or die, just like the 50/50 chance he and Rachel had.

That's all well and good but that's not supposed to why Two-Face uses his coin. He's two personalities, and cannot decide, so he lets the coin decide.

To quote Two Face in BTAS: "Chance is everything. Whether you're born or not. Whether you live or die. Whether you're good or bad"

That was the basis of Dent's revenge spree.

If by basis you mean moral justification, then ok.

It's got nothing to do with being a self contained movie. It's about good writing. Nothing would have changed if the murderer of Bruce's parents was not the Joker, only that it would have made for a less contrived convenient script than what we got in Batman '89.

Only in the sense, that it didn't follow the comic books. I don't expect 100% fidelity to the comic lore. The same thing with Joker creating Two-Face. Don't you think that's a little too convenient, plot-wise? Same thing, but they're movies not comic books and sometimes they have to change things.

See how sane you feel when you're betrayed, half your face is burned off and someone you love is murdered.

I'm just disappointed we never got to see 'Big Bad Harv' and his split personality.

He wasn't a vigilante in TDK either. He was just someone killing people who he think personally wronged him. It was revenge, not vigilantism. Batman's a vigilante. Dent wasn't.

He takes the law into his own hands, so he's a vigilante.

LOL yeah apart from causing his disfigurement and kill his girlfriend, yeah he didn't do a thing to him.

Joker didn't do it personally, he had the mob do it for him.

That's not nearly as bad as what he did to Dent in TDK. At least Barbara lived and Gordon walked away sane and physically unharmed.

Dent was already convinced of that. He was out for revenge on Gordon before Joker ever set foot in that hospital:

Gordon: "I'm sorry, Harvey"
Dent: "No. No you're not. Not yet"

Joker added some fuel to the fire and put a gun in his hand to do the job. But he didn't let the Joker off the hook either. Joker got the gun put to his head and the toss of the coin for his life just like everyone else Dent went after.

Yeah, but besides orchestrating certain events with the mob, that's all he did. "Madness is like gravity. All you need is a little push." He was trying to give Dent that "little push".

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Someone who is two-faces presents themselves one way while acting in a different way. Harvey presented himself as being an honest man, yet he investigated cops behind their back - that's what internal affairs does. Clearly this was not lost on the cops themselves:

GORDON: "If I didn't work with cops you investigated while you were making your name at IA, I'd be working alone."

Hence the name Harvey Two-Face.

Fair enough.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Made simple for these scenes, at least.

Hence the realistic nature of it. I wonder how you'd feel with the decision in your hands of blowing up hundreds of people.

That was one person. It was a whole boatload full of people.

Several people made a go for it. The ship crew guy was all like "Stay back". Then they voted on it. Then they were all yelling for the button to be pushed. Then nobody could go through with it.

That's just survival instinct. It's like Joker is taking a page out of Saw and is going all Jigsaw on us.

It's not survival instinct. Jigsaw never put hundreds of lives into someone's hands.

Because his woman died. The annoying, two-timing *****.

Come back to me when you have valid mature arguments to offer on this one.

You don't know what you would do if someone you care about was threatened.

But apparently you do. Happened to you has it? It would be the standard response according to you to do what Harvey did lol. You hear that kind of thing happening all the time don't you lol.

That's all well and good but that's not supposed to why Two-Face uses his coin. He's two personalities, and cannot decide, so he lets the coin decide.

No, in the comic Two Face uses the coin because he believes in chance. It's nothing to do with the split personality side not being able to agree or decide. He thinks it's all 50/50.

If by basis you mean moral justification, then ok.

Yes, moral justification. Just like in those comic scans I posted above. Dent thinks he's morally right punishing Batman and Gordon for 'crimes' against him.

Only in the sense, that it didn't follow the comic books. I don't expect 100% fidelity to the comic lore. The same thing with Joker creating Two-Face. Don't you think that's a little too convenient, plot-wise? Same thing, but they're movies not comic books and sometimes they have to change things.

No, it's not convenient because Joker deliberately set out to break Dent. It wasn't a coincidence, or a convenience like in Batman '89 where the guy who killed Bruce's parents 20 years ago would conveniently become the Joker.

It reeked of plot contrivance, too, because it was added last minute by Burton during the writers strike, and even Sam Hamm didn't like it:

"Many observed that Burton was more interested in the Joker rather than Batman in terms of characterization and screen time. Comic book fans reacted negatively over the Joker murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne. In the comic book, Joe Chill is responsible. Writer Sam Hamm, who is a comic book fan, said it was Burton's idea to have the Joker murder Wayne's parents. "The Writer's Strike was going on," Hamm continued, "and Tim had the other writers do that. I also hold innocent to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave," he reasoned. "Fans were ticked off with that, and I agree. That would have been Alfred's last day of employment at Wayne Manor."

http://destinyosbourne.hubpages.com/hub/the-batman

I'm just disappointed we never got to see 'Big Bad Harv' and his split personality.

So am I, but what we got was still excellent.

He takes the law into his own hands, so he's a vigilante.

Every villain in Batman's rogues gallery are vigilantes then by your logic then since they've all gotten revenge on someone for wronging them at one time or another lol.

Joker didn't do it personally, he had the mob do it for him.

"Your men. Your plan"

Joker did it to him. Are you going to argue semantics of him using the circus freaks to drag Gordon around and strip him and hold him down on the carnival train, too, in TKJ instead of doing it himself?

Yeah, but besides orchestrating certain events with the mob, that's all he did. "Madness is like gravity. All you need is a little push." He was trying to give Dent that "little push".

What do you mean that's all he did? It was his plan. Everything that happened to Dent was by Joker's scheme. Do you hold Osama Bin Laden any less accountable for 9/11 just because he didn't personally fly those planes into the Twin Towers? Or Hitler any less accountable because he didn't personally murder every Jew in WW2?

Honestly of all the weak arguments.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Hence the realistic nature of it. I wonder how you'd feel with the decision in your hands of blowing up hundreds of people.

Several people made a go for it. The ship crew guy was all like "Stay back". Then they voted on it. Then they were all yelling for the button to be pushed. Then nobody could go through with it.

It's not survival instinct. Jigsaw never put hundreds of lives into someone's hands.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Just because a guy says "stay back", I don't think would keep people at bay if they were about to get blown up. These movies are not based in realism. They are no more realistic than Schumacher's.

Come back to me when you have valid mature arguments to offer on this one.

My point was the characterisation of Rachel Dawes made that scene much less powerful than it could have been.

But apparently you do. Happened to you has it? It would be the standard response according to you to do what Harvey did lol. You hear that kind of thing happening all the time don't you lol.

Well it has happened in a lot of movies and tv shows. Because the plot of wife/girlfriend in danger from bad guys has been done countless times.

No, in the comic Two Face uses the coin because he believes in chance. It's nothing to do with the split personality side not being able to agree or decide. He thinks it's all 50/50.

No, it's not convenient because Joker deliberately set out to break Dent. It wasn't a coincidence, or a convenience like in Batman '89 where the guy who killed Bruce's parents 20 years ago would conveniently become the Joker.

You're really reaching here. Yeah, Batman '89 did not write it as well. It's still the same thing about changing things around that aren't in the comic. What difference does it make if it's Joker instead of Joe Chill that kills Bruce's parents? Same if Joker is responsible for creating Two-Face instead of Maroni. Same difference.

Every villain in Batman's rogues gallery are vigilantes then by your logic then since they've all gotten revenge on someone for wronging them at one time or another lol.

I wouldn't say that, since Two-Face is unique in that he has a perverted sense of justice.

"Your men. Your plan"

Joker did it to him. Are you going to argue semantics of him using the circus freaks to drag Gordon around and strip him and hold him down on the carnival train, too, in TKJ instead of doing it himself?

What do you mean that's all he did? It was his plan. Everything that happened to Dent was by Joker's scheme. Do you hold Osama Bin Laden any less accountable for 9/11 just because he didn't personally fly those planes into the Twin Towers? Or Hitler any less accountable because he didn't personally murder every Jew in WW2?

Honestly of all the weak arguments.

No, no, no.... The mob was going after Dent because he was trying to put them behind bars. I thought this was well established, because they even try and kill Dent in the beginning (the court room scene).

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

They are no more realistic than Schumacher's.

[OutRiddled]

What is so realistic about them, honestly? Just because they use real locations as a backdrop? Because they're not overly stylised and more generic in tone?

[Brain Damage]

You say generic, I say grounded in reality. Not hyper-realistic by any stretch of the imagination, but grounded in reality.

If you honestly believe that the Schumacher films (where there is a man who needs an ice suit to survive, a device that sucks intelligence from people's brains, a woman who has the power to control pheromones and kill people with a kiss) are just as grounded in reality as Nolan's films then you are either:

a.) high as balls
b.) trolling
c.) didn't watch the same movies I did

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

You say generic, I say grounded in reality. Not hyper-realistic by any stretch of the imagination, but grounded in reality.

If you honestly believe that the Schumacher films (where there is a man who needs an ice suit to survive, a device that sucks intelligence from people's brains, a woman who has the power to control pheromones and kill people with a kiss) are just as grounded in reality as Nolan's films then you are either:

a.) high as balls
b.) trolling
c.) didn't watch the same movies I did

"Grounded in reality"? What kind of 'reality' do you live in?

Fear gas? A secret organisation of ninjas that topples great empires through history? A guy who can walk around with half his face gone and eyeball completely exposed and not get infected or anything? A flying hovercraft? A guy that can take painkillers and gain super strength? A vehicle that can jump from rooftop to rooftop? A weapon that can turn an entire city's water supply to gas?

Do I need to go on?

Yeah, Nolan's are so realistic. If anything, they are even LESS realistic than Schumacher's, because at least Schumacher goes the more fantastic route, instead of trying to make it a realistic setting.

[Brain Damage]

Nerve gases exist in real life. Organizations that topple or attempt to topple great empires are documented throughout history. Burn victims survive even some of the most horrific burns imaginable. Vehicles similar in design and function to the Tumbler and the Batpod and The Bat exist in real life. Maybe I'll give the Microwave Emitter, but even that is something I can see being developed in the real world.

Are the things you mentioned real? No. But their starting off point is always something that actually exists. Nolan took concepts from the real world, expanded them and added an element of the fantastic. Hence, grounded in reality.

Name me ONE person who requires anything even remotely similar to Freeze's ice suit to survive. Name me ONE person who can do anything remotely similar to Ivy's pheromone control/deadly kiss. Name me ONE device that works remotely like Nigma's machine.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Nerve gases exist in real life. Organizations that topple or attempt to topple great empires are documented throughout history. Burn victims survive even some of the most horrific burns imaginable. Vehicles similar in design and function to the Tumbler and the Batpod and The Bat exist in real life. Maybe I'll give the Microwave Emitter, but even that is something I can see being developed in the real world.

Are the things you mentioned real? No. But their starting off point is always something that actually exists. Nolan took concepts from the real world, expanded them and added an element of the fantastic. Hence, grounded in reality.

Name me ONE person who requires anything even remotely similar to Freeze's ice suit to survive. Name me ONE person who can do anything remotely similar to Ivy's pheromone control/deadly kiss. Name me ONE device that works remotely like Nigma's machine.

I can play that game too. Cryogenics is a real science, like what Freeze was studying. Yes, a real science.

Pheromone's are real, and yes, they have attempted to reproduce the effects, I'm sure.

Nygma's machine is just virtual reality.

It's all science fiction, just like in Nolan's films.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I can play that game too. Cryogenics is a real science, like what Freeze was studying. Yes, a real science.

Pheromone's are real, and yes, they have attempted to reproduce the effects, I'm sure.

Nygma's machine is just virtual reality.

It's all science fiction, just like in Nolan's films.