The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman > Batman World

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-23-2013, 01:41 PM   #526
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,509
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutRiddled View Post
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.
That's not the point. You said nobody made an attempt to go towards that detonator besides that one guy. They did.

Quote:
These movies are not based in realism. They are no more realistic than Schumacher's.


Quote:
My point was the characterisation of Rachel Dawes made that scene much less powerful than it could have been.
It was plenty powerful. Even if you didn't like Rachel, it wasn't that it was Rachel that was dying that made it so powerful, it was that Bruce and Dent were both losing the woman they love. It was the effect on them that makes it powerful.

Like the death of Bruce's parents. Nobody gives a damn about Thomas and Martha. It's the effect of their death on Bruce that makes their death so powerful.

Quote:
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.
A villain trying to destroy a whole city has been done countless times in movies and TV shows, too. That doesn't make it any more realistic either.

Cite me some real world examples of cases like this.

Quote:
Oh look it's a scan of Harvey Kent who is blaming Maroni's two headed coin for what happened to him. Yeah that's totally the standard canon version of Dent's back story. He blames a coin for his misfortune

Quote:
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.
It's not the same difference. The Batman and Joker situation in Batman '89 was written as a miraculous contrived coincidence that Batman and the Joker created each other 20 years apart accidentally.

The Joker breaking Dent was intentional.

Quote:
I wouldn't say that, since Two-Face is unique in that he has a perverted sense of justice.
So does Poison Ivy. She thinks it's justice to kill people who have harmed Mother Nature. She's no more a vigilante than Two Face.

Quote:
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).
Yeah, the mob were after Dent. But Joker wasn't approached by them to take care of Dent. They got him to deal with Batman.

Chechen: "We put word out that we'll hire the clown. He was right. We have to fix real problem: Batman"

Joker went after Dent himself for his own sick ends.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 02:39 PM   #527
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,029
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Man, OutRiddled, I'm all for people having a different opinion, but you are just making it WAY too easy for The Joker to stomp all over your arguments. I can tell you really don't like TDK because you don't seem to remember it that well at all and probably haven't watched it in a long time. Not gonna help you in a debate.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 04:46 PM   #528
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

OutRiddled should watch Dark Knight again. He's an '89 Batman fan obviously, like a lot of us, surely he'd be able to find great thing in The Dark Knight? Yeah, they're different from each other, but a good different. There's also some great similarities as well.

And it's like, in the process of trying to piss on Dark Knight, you're crapping on '89 Batman as well by bringing up short comings man. Lol

milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 02:35 AM   #529
OutRiddled
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 507
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

I know it pretty well. It's just that I haven't seen it (TDK) for at least a year or so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
That's not the point. You said nobody made an attempt to go towards that detonator besides that one guy. They did.
I'm imagining a mad rush for people to try and grab it. I'm seeing chaos, because in a situation like that, normal rules are thrown out of the window. I actually agree with Joker on this one. The movie tries too hard to make its point about the 'inherent goodness' of people.



Quote:


Quote:
It was plenty powerful. Even if you didn't like Rachel, it wasn't that it was Rachel that was dying that made it so powerful, it was that Bruce and Dent were both losing the woman they love. It was the effect on them that makes it powerful.

Like the death of Bruce's parents. Nobody gives a damn about Thomas and Martha. It's the effect of their death on Bruce that makes their death so powerful.
I gave a damn, and actually that's one thing Nolan did well is showing Bruce's parents.

But the love story is the weakest part of these films. The chemistry was lacking, and the change of actress didn't help either.

It would be better if I actually gave a damn about the character, also.
Quote:
A villain trying to destroy a whole city has been done countless times in movies and TV shows, too. That doesn't make it any more realistic either.

Cite me some real world examples of cases like this.
Haha, the original point was that I wanted them to show more of Harvey's slide into madness. This is just getting so much into semantics that it's ridiculous.
Quote:


Oh look it's a scan of Harvey Kent who is blaming Maroni's two headed coin for what happened to him. Yeah that's totally the standard canon version of Dent's back story. He blames a coin for his misfortune
I don't know what's in the holy bible of canon but that's Two-Face's first appearance ever.

Yes I know, you will only consider certain comic books you like to have any relevance. Disregarding everything else.


Quote:
It's not the same difference. The Batman and Joker situation in Batman '89 was written as a miraculous contrived coincidence that Batman and the Joker created each other 20 years apart accidentally.

The Joker breaking Dent was intentional.
It's not that contrived. They both live in the same city. One is a notorious criminal and member of a crime gang. It's entirely plausible that Jack Napier's long list of crimes includes murdering The Waynes. Why not? What makes it so hard to believe?


Quote:
So does Poison Ivy. She thinks it's justice to kill people who have harmed Mother Nature. She's no more a vigilante than Two Face.
Poison Ivy is just crazy.



Quote:
Yeah, the mob were after Dent. But Joker wasn't approached by them to take care of Dent. They got him to deal with Batman.

Chechen: "We put word out that we'll hire the clown. He was right. We have to fix real problem: Batman"

Joker went after Dent himself for his own sick ends.
Two-Face: Going to join your wife? Do you love her?
Salvatore Maroni: Yes.
Two-Face: Did you ever wonder what it would be like to listen to her die?
Salvatore Maroni: Look, take it up with the Joker. He killed your woman. He made you - like this.
[gestures at Harvey's face]
Two-Face: The Joker's just a mad dog. I want whoever let him off the leash.

OutRiddled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 03:16 AM   #530
Snow Queen
Side-Kick
 
Snow Queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,376
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutRiddled View Post
It's not that contrived. They both live in the same city. One is a notorious criminal and member of a crime gang. It's entirely plausible that Jack Napier's long list of crimes includes murdering The Waynes. Why not? What makes it so hard to believe?
It's contrived because then the son of the people he murdered goes on to become Batman...who then just so happens to run across Napier and drop him into chemicals so they can be arch enemies. How is this not contrived?

Snow Queen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 05:44 AM   #531
OutRiddled
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 507
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
It's contrived because then the son of the people he murdered goes on to become Batman...who then just so happens to run across Napier and drop him into chemicals so they can be arch enemies. How is this not contrived?
How is that contrived? They both live in the same city. He's a notorious gangster. Of course Batman is going to go after him. He was Grissom's right hand man.

OutRiddled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 07:43 AM   #532
Brain Damage
Everything Under the Sun
 
Brain Damage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,861
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutRiddled View Post
How is that contrived? They both live in the same city. He's a notorious gangster. Of course Batman is going to go after him. He was Grissom's right hand man.
This notorious gangster who HAPPENED to be the one to kill Bruce's parents, who also HAPPENED to be the only gangster Batman drops in a vat of acid.

The fact that they live in the same city does not make it any less contrived.

__________________
WHO APPOINTED THE BATMAN?

Free Original Music
Brain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 09:20 AM   #533
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

I think the "I made you, you made me first" element works quite well personally.


Who cares if it's a coincidence? It's not like there aren't major coincidences in real life. Long lost siblings seperated at birth finding each other by happenstance, living through a seemingly unliveable accident.

So Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered by an unknown, ruthless mob member (the mob is a major problem and source of corruption in Gotham).

Bruce Wayne becomes Batman as an adult and has a mission to eradicate the crime and corruption in Gotham.

Doesn't it make sense that he would eventually run into Grissom's right hand man? Gordon even states, "if we get Napier, we get Grissom".

So Batman pursues Napier and his men at Axis, taking them down one at a time. Napier almost gets away but his personality gets the better of him. He just HAD to shoot down Eckhart. Batman moves in on him and Napier tried to take him down. The rest is history. Napier didn't even want to go to Axis "the fumes in that place". He knew it was risky and dangerous.



They were going to run into each other eventually considering they were in opposing sides. Napier had aspirations for being at the top of the criminal food chain, Bruce had aspirations of becoming Batman and taking his kind down.


Last edited by milost; 03-24-2013 at 09:27 AM.
milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 10:28 AM   #534
OutRiddled
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 507
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

I can't remember but wasn't Joe Chill Falcone's guy in Batman Begins? I can't remember why Falcone wanted him dead.

But there you have, the major crime boss of Gotham City, indirectly involved in the death of Bruce's parents coming from god Nolan.

Just like in Batman '89, Grissom being indirectly involved, with his guy Napier gunning down Bruce's parents.

Bruce Wayne goes to kill Joe Chill when he is an adult. Batman goes to kill Joker once he finds out about his parents.

So Joe Chill just HAPPENED to be involved with Falcone? What a contrived coincidence. Oh wait, Nolan is god. Never mind.

OutRiddled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 10:50 AM   #535
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,509
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutRiddled View Post
I'm imagining a mad rush for people to try and grab it. I'm seeing chaos, because in a situation like that, normal rules are thrown out of the window. I actually agree with Joker on this one.
It doesn't matter what you're imagining. You're talking about an incredible situation where hundreds of lives are placed in your hands. It's easy to sit and watch this in a movie and say I'd do this or that.

The convicts actually showed the mad rush situation since you're being so pedantic. The guards had to fire their guns into the air to keep them back.

Quote:
The movie tries too hard to make its point about the 'inherent goodness' of people.
Yeah, which is why the golden boy of Gotham is the one who succumbs to the Joker's madness.

Quote:
Joker, Penguin, Ivy and Two Face >>>>>> Jack Nicholson



Quote:
I gave a damn, and actually that's one thing Nolan did well is showing Bruce's parents.
I don't believe you. Give me three reasons why you cared about Martha and Thomas so much, and were so affected by seeing them die.

Quote:
But the love story is the weakest part of these films. The chemistry was lacking, and the change of actress didn't help either

It would be better if I actually gave a damn about the character, also.
That's your loss. You didn't like Rachel. Your loss.

http://www.empireonline.com/features...aracters/5.asp

Quote:
Haha, the original point was that I wanted them to show more of Harvey's slide into madness. This is just getting so much into semantics that it's ridiculous.
Haha you're the one who brought it to this "They show it lots of movies and TV shows" point. You're the one desperately reaching for semantics in this discussion.

Quote:
I don't know what's in the holy bible of canon but that's Two-Face's first appearance ever.
I know, and it's ridiculous and not canon in his characterization. That happened with several of the major villains. Or would you have liked Burton to have had Catwoman with no costume, no Selina Kyle name, and just a high class thief called The Cat who likes to fleece rich old ladies by dressing up as an old lady herself?

Because that's Catwoman's first appearance.

Quote:
Yes I know, you will only consider certain comic books you like to have any relevance. Disregarding everything else.
I only disregard the rubbish that was written off. Like Harvey blaming a coin for his misfortunes. Why did the Batman writers not stick to such a compelling characterization like that I can't imagine lol.

Quote:
It's not that contrived. They both live in the same city. One is a notorious criminal and member of a crime gang. It's entirely plausible that Jack Napier's long list of crimes includes murdering The Waynes. Why not? What makes it so hard to believe?
Well lets see, in a city as crime ridden as Gotham, out of all the criminals in it, the one that just happens to create Batman is the same one Batman happens to turn into the Joker years later? It was a cheap plot device added in at the last minute by Burton during the writers strike to make it personal between Batman and Joker for the ONE confrontational scene they have in the entire movie.

That's the definition of lazy contrived writing. It's no wonder Sam Hamm and the fans hated it.

Quote:
Poison Ivy is just crazy.
LOL whereas Two Face is as sane as they come.

Quote:
Two-Face: Going to join your wife? Do you love her?
Salvatore Maroni: Yes.
Two-Face: Did you ever wonder what it would be like to listen to her die?
Salvatore Maroni: Look, take it up with the Joker. He killed your woman. He made you - like this.
[gestures at Harvey's face]
Two-Face: The Joker's just a mad dog. I want whoever let him off the leash.
Two-Face: "Why was it me who was the only one who lost everything?"
Batman: "....it wasn't"
Two-Face: "The Joker CHOSE ME!!!!"
Batman: "Because you were the best of us. He wanted to prove that even someone as good as you could fall"
Two-Face: "And he was right"

His line to Maroni was simply in reference to who hired Joker to go after Batman in the first place. Everything Joker did was his choice. His plans and his decisions. Or do you think when the mob hired Joker they intended for him to let Batman live because Joker got his jollies challenging him, burn all of their money, and take over their gangs lol?

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 03-24-2013 at 04:20 PM.
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 01:13 PM   #536
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Well lets see, in a city as crime ridden as Gotham, out of all the criminals in it, the one that just happens to create Batman is the same one Batman happens to turn into the Joker years later? It was a cheap plot device added in at the last minute by Burton during the writers strike to make it personal between Batman and Joker for the ONE confrontational scene they have in the entire movie.

That's the definition of lazy contrived writing. It's no wonder Sam Hamm and the fans hated it.

You really hate that Joker? How come?



I never understood the criticisms about "letting Vicki into the Batcave" or having the Jack Napier be the one that murders Thomas and Martha Wayne. I mean sure, it's probably out of this idea of "comic fidelity", but back in 1989, I thought it worked. Up until that point, I figured it was just playing out like the comics pretty much. Except, instead of the Red Hood we got a more "realistic" mob hood. Then I remember wondering why Bruce looked so shocked at "ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light". Then that great, sad, scene of Bruce remembering back to his final walk with his parents, the "Childhood remembered" theme playing, the shadows of the two ("two?!?") gangster hoodlums and Jack Napier being revealed, saying the line.


I'm not a huge fan of ridiculous twists (my tirades on TDKR are proof of that), but I thought that one worked, added more gravitas to the relationship and was a nice change for THIS interpretation.


Do I prefer a nameless thug killing off the Wayne's (not even Joe Chill per se)? You betcha, but for what it was, for a singular device for a Batman film, I thought it worked pretty nicely. There isn't a bias there either, because I prefer the Batman/Joker relationship in other mediums like BTAS. But with the film, I loved the, then new, concept of Batman, not only creating the Joker, but the Joker creating Batman.


It doesn't really feel like they just plugged that in there for the hell of it. I really think it enhanced the story where it found a nice middle ground between what Sam Hamm had and what Burton originally wanted. I mean, didn't Burton originally want Thomas, Martha and Bruce in halloween costumes and having the Joker (not Jack Napier) come along with an ice cream car and mow them down? Some weird crap like that? Now THAT is bad.


But with Hamm's original intention, what is there? What's the resolution? Batman and Joker just duke it out, we don't get to ever see what created Batman and the Joker just dies? That certainly seems anti-climatic doesn't it? I know all about the writers strike and Warren Skaaren (with Burton) rewrites and I really think what they ended up with was the best case scenario. Burton had his reasoning for it, it connects and wraps it up to a satisfying conclusion. The third act.





I mean you guys didn't like that whole "Childhood Remembered" scene? The eerie, dream like quality of Bruce Wayne's vivid memories, Napiers sadistic, grinning face? The same sadistic face on those monitors? You guys hate that? I love what Begins does with showing us Thomas Wayne, Bruce falling in the well, the theater. This is the first time we really started to see the origin fleshed out and it was nice knowing more about his parents. When it comes to the ACTUAL crime though, of Bruce's parents getting killed, I feel like '89 takes the cake.


They're strolling along the streets, looking happy (especially Bruce). They're eating popcorn, they just enjoyed a great film together. Then it slowly begins to change and Bruce's life and innocence is swept from under him. It's like those great comic images of the Wayne's walking back from the Mask of Zorro, where Bruce is playing out the adventure in his head, smiling and happy in the care of his parents . . . until tragedy strikes.

With Begins, Bruce is already afraid. He doesn't seem like a very happy kid, even before his parents die. He's full of fear, he falls into a well, he's afraid of bats, he can't handle the play, he looks afraid in the alley. Then when his parents are dead and he's at the GCPD, he looks just as afraid as when we first saw him. It's fine, but there isn't that transition.

Begins does a lot of things better in terms of origin, but I'd argue that the actual event of his parents being murdered is much better with '89, and you wouldn't really have that happen without the Jack Napier/Joker twist.



- "look at the look on his face, it's the same look he had in front of city hall"

- "could you get the file on my parents please Alfred"



It didn't feel like Burton and Co. just plugged that in there for the hell of it. Contrived by definition is "deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously", and I'd argue that the actual twist is spontaneous and natural and has actual MEANING.



We even see, waaaaaay back in the first act when we think Batman and the Joker are pretty much just their comic counterparts that, in the police criminal files of Jack Napier, is a mug shot of the young Jack Napier. It's purposely covered up and hidden, with Napier's current, modern mug shot. All Bruce has to do is LITERALLY move that picture while he's looking through his background and find the face of the person that murdered his parents.



If this "Napier creates Batman" concept was just convoluted and thrown in there for the hell of it, why would Burton throw that in there? Why take a mug shot photo of the actor that portrays young Jack Napier, slip it behind of mug shot of Jack Nicholson, and have the shot linger on it a bit before Bruce covers it up with other important records?




Why include all these signs of Bruce's pain and emotional anguish like going back to the street when his parents are killed and laying the roses (a "business meeting" he tells Vicki). Why "ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light". Why Batman giving Napier knowing looks as he's slipping and the ambiguity and mysteriousness of the two's relationship prior to the third act?


It doesn't feel like fluff to me. The climax at the Cathedral does a bit (typical third act problems) but the relationship between the hero and villain was done really well, taking it a step further with the idea that these two are the antithesis of each other.




As for Vicki Vale being let into the Batcave, what is exactly wrong with that? All throughout the film, Alfred keeps wanting Bruce to "pursue a normal, happy life" (hmmm, sound familiar?) Then this woman, Vicki Vale comes into his life. Alfred encourages him to go down that path, but Bruce is too preoccupied with his Batman persona.

Vicki Vale is infatuated with not only the mystery of Batman, but Bruce Wayne as well. She even stalks him when she thinks something is up when he isn't at his "business meeting". She's a photo journalist after all, she pursues information and news. We see her getting closer and closer to knowing that Bruce is Batman. From the pictures to her apartment where Bruce Wayne vanishes after being shot.


Then, Knox has the files that she's been desperately looking for. They find that Bruce Wayne's parents were "murdered in that alley". Then it clicks, she gets it. Bruce Wayne is Batman. She abruptly leaves and Knox tells her to "not get personal".



Is it really that contrived or a stretch that she goes back to Wayne Manor, tells Alfred that she knows and demands to see Bruce Wayne? She cares about him and loves him, says as much. What's the problem here? Why is "Alfred letting Vicki into the Batcave" such a no-no?

1. Alfred wants Bruce to have a happy life

2. Vicki loves Bruce and has been following him around after getting suspicious after the whole "business trip" lie that Alfred accidentally ruins









It's not like this is John Blake is it? We don't even see Blake following Bruce around, we're not even familiar with him at the time, he's a brand new character. Atleast with Vicki, we saw her investigating the situation, following Bruce around with the camera, interacting with him and Batman. Putting two and two together.


Is '89 that much in the wrong with those two common complaints? Surely TDKR's are far worse? The John Blake reveal, Alfred quite contrived and unnatural story of going to Italy looking for Bruce to have a happy life that's plugged into Begins, the whole Bane/Talia/Ra's Al Ghul story.


And even The Dark Knight, my favorite Batman film. One that I defend constantly from criticism. Nobody thinks it's a coincidence or contrived when the Joker is at the MCU, holding Stephens hostage with a group of cops huddled around him. Then, the bomb in the holding cell goes off and everyone around the Joker is knocked out (we see them later, especially Stephens) . . . except of course, the Joker?

Or how about the other films with so much happenstance? The Ra's/Ducard twist (is that really as bad as Joker being the the murderer of Bruce's parents). Maroni's involvement with Joe Chill aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Crane who is working for the League of Shadows?


How about the Penguin just being able to override politics and running for mayor when it's not even election time? Is that not convoluted as well. There's also those DAMN Batmobile Blue prints that he somehow got.


I don't even want to start with all the contrived nonsense with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.




Everyone of the Batman films have them some are harmless, some work, some are really, really awful. Is the Jack Napier killing and Vicki Vale in the Batcave really that bad?


Last edited by milost; 03-24-2013 at 01:20 PM.
milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 01:47 PM   #537
Snow Queen
Side-Kick
 
Snow Queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,376
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutRiddled View Post
How is that contrived? They both live in the same city. He's a notorious gangster. Of course Batman is going to go after him. He was Grissom's right hand man.
So, you find it not contrived that the killer of Bruce's parents, that he doesn't even know the name of, just so happens to be the one guy he drops into chemicals and becomes his arch enemy?

Want to know a simple way to make this not contrived? Bruce learned his identity when he was young but Napier was untouchable due to Grissom owning the police force. So, when he's Batman, he goes out to find Napier specifically because he killed his parents. A few changes and the problem is solved.

And Joe Chill was just a desperate man, as Ra's says, "Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal". Falcone wanted Chill dead because they shared a cell in prison together and Chill was going to testify against Falcone in court. He never worked for Falcone, he just shared a cell with him.

Snow Queen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 01:55 PM   #538
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post

And Joe Chill was just a desperate man, as Ra's says, "Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal". Falcone wanted Chill dead because they shared a cell in prison together and Chill was going to testify against Falcone in court. He never worked for Falcone, he just shared a cell with him.

One could argue that them being in a cell together and Falcone's hit woman coming along, shooting down Chill the second before Bruce gets to is a contrived coincidence? Could they not?

Certainly no worse than Batman going in to save the man that killed his parents that he doesn't recognize that would become the Joker.



For the record, I don't have a problem with the Chill/Court/Falcone scenario, nor the "you made me, I made you first" scenario. The fact that the LoS ends up conveniently being involved with Gotham and Bruce and the twist with Ra's doesn't even bug me. There's also what I stated above (doubt anyone reads that), with the Joker holding Stephens at the MCU. The blast knocks out EVERY single cop on the floor and the Joker is the last one standing. Coincidence? Contrived?



There are much more grievous coincidences, most of which are in TDKR (Blake, Bane, Ra's Talia, LOS, Alfred going to Italy, etc.) and Batman Returns (Penguin blue prints).


Last edited by milost; 03-24-2013 at 02:00 PM.
milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 02:11 PM   #539
Snow Queen
Side-Kick
 
Snow Queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,376
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

^^^Convenient that it occurred right before Bruce was about to shoot him? Perhaps. But the difference is that Falcone made the judge make the trial public to get Chill into the open so he could do just that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
And even The Dark Knight, my favorite Batman film. One that I defend constantly from criticism. Nobody thinks it's a coincidence or contrived when the Joker is at the MCU, holding Stephens hostage with a group of cops huddled around him. Then, the bomb in the holding cell goes off and everyone around the Joker is knocked out (we see them later, especially Stephens) . . . except of course, the Joker?
Just to clarify, I'm not responding to your TDKR points because I know someone else is going to come along and do that soon enough anyway. But I'll take these few. Now, is it contrived? Joker knows that Gordon would bring him back to the MCU, presumably from Harvey calling it his fortress it's got a bit of a reputation for that. As for the bomb part, the fact that Joker's the only one standing still confuses me a bit so I can't defend that one since I agree with it. Contrived though? I wouldn't say so. But it is something that's just not right, in my opinion. But, I wouldn't use contrived as the word.

Quote:
Or how about the other films with so much happenstance? The Ra's/Ducard twist (is that really as bad as Joker being the the murderer of Bruce's parents). Maroni's involvement with Joe Chill aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Crane who is working for the League of Shadows?
You find it contrived that the leader of the LOS would go find recruits himself and train them? Ra's seemed quite the hands on type from what I've read in comics as well. Why lie about his identity? Because he's no longer a target. He controls the league through a puppet and people wouldn't target him as they may if they knew he was in charge.

Alternately, Ra's al Ghul is a title. Depends which you would rather believe.

I believe you mean Falcone here, right? Well, personally I don't see a problem with the two sharing a prison cell for a while. But, if you think it's contrived, sure. I'd agree with you if Falcone and Bruce had a prior history though. But, seeing as Bruce only seeks Falcone out after Falcone kills Chill, I don't see it as contrived.

What's contrived about Crane working for the LOS? Or do you mean Falcone working with Crane? How is that contrived? Crane and Ra's were using the man in control of the docks to bring in shipments of their drugs under the nose of the law.


Quote:
How about the Penguin just being able to override politics and running for mayor when it's not even election time? Is that not convoluted as well. There's also those DAMN Batmobile Blue prints that he somehow got.
Oh, God that was horrible. That entire movie though, I can't stand it.

Snow Queen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 02:37 PM   #540
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,029
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Joker being the killer of Bruce's parents worked in an operatic, fairy tale sort of way. I very much liked the Waynes' murder scene and found it haunting.

But yes, it's contrived and it funnels the film into a simple revenge fueled third act in which Batman tells The Joker point blank, "I'm going to kill you." That's not to say it doesn't work. It worked for what it was. But I like my Batman/Joker relationship to be more of a war of ideals that escalates and gets personal, not something that was personal from the start.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 02:59 PM   #541
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
^^^Convenient that it occurred right before Bruce was about to shoot him? Perhaps. But the difference is that Falcone made the judge make the trial public to get Chill into the open so he could do just that.

Yeah. Bruce is right there, about to fire. He's even ahead of the hit-woman until she passes ahead through the crowd. He's close, he's gonna do it, and, BLAM, didn't get the chance.


I feel that's convenient, a coincidence. Don't you? Yes, Falcone paid the Judge to get her out there, but at the exact second Bruce is about to do it.


It's a moot point though because, well, we wouldn't get the story we got would we? Same with Batman. It's whatever the writers write.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
Joker knows that Gordon would bring him back to the MCU, presumably from Harvey calling it his fortress it's got a bit of a reputation for that.
Yup. No arguments there. Dent was seriously doubtful of holding Lau at the MCU. With what was going on in Gotham, who could blame him?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
As for the bomb part, the fact that Joker's the only one standing still confuses me a bit so I can't defend that one since I agree with it. Contrived though? I wouldn't say so. But it is something that's just not right, in my opinion. But, I wouldn't use contrived as the word.

So you think it's not right an unnatural that he's the only one left standing in the same room of a group of people (that all just so happen to get knocked out, not even die).


That is contrived isn't it?


Contrived


1. Deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
2. Giving a sense of artificiality



It's deliberately created to get the Joker out of the MCU with Lau. You also stated that it feels just plain odd.


The Dark Knight is my favorite Batman film, The Joker is my favorite villain, but having him be the last one standing in a blast from another building is crazy. Especially when they're all close to the Joker, including Stephens. So they just all passed out on the floor? Sure the explosion was shocking and unexpected, but they just got knocked out while the Joker strolled off with Lau and taking the cop cars too boot?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
You find it contrived that the leader of the LOS would go find recruits himself and train them? Ra's seemed quite the hands on type from what I've read in comics as well. Why lie about his identity? Because he's no longer a target. He controls the league through a puppet and people wouldn't target him as they may if they knew he was in charge.

Alternately, Ra's al Ghul is a title. Depends which you would rather believe.

I believe you mean Falcone here, right? Well, personally I don't see a problem with the two sharing a prison cell for a while. But, if you think it's contrived, sure. I'd agree with you if Falcone and Bruce had a prior history though. But, seeing as Bruce only seeks Falcone out after Falcone kills Chill, I don't see it as contrived.

What's contrived about Crane working for the LOS? Or do you mean Falcone working with Crane? How is that contrived? Crane and Ra's were using the man in control of the docks to bring in shipments of their drugs under the nose of the law.


How it's all connected is coincidental, especially when Gotham and the Himalayas are worlds apart. It makes the world feel a lot smaller, doesn't it? Now again, I have no problem with it, Ra's says himself, "we have infiltrated every level of its infrastructure".

But let's look at something,


Bruce falls into a well and is afraid of bats. That fear leads to him leaving the opera theater with his parents. When they go out, Joe Chill kills them in cold blood, he's soon caught. Joe Chill did it out of desperation and poverty. It's implied and stated by Ra's that they sought to cripple Gotham financially, creating Joe Chill's everyday. Thomas and Martha Wayne tried to combat the very thing that killed him, and it's all because of Ra's and the LoS.

Now, not only that, but Joe Chill was in prison with Falcone. Falcone blabbed and can't risk Chill blabbing too. So, on the court day, the big day for Bruce Wayne, the day he's going to shoot down the guy that murdered his parents, Falcone has paid off Judge Fayden so that his hitwoman can blow away Joe Chill. She does this literally seconds before he gets the chance.


Now, NOT ONLY THAT, but Bruce runs off to go and find himself and is found by none other than Ra's Al Ghul himself. The guy that was connected/responsible to the death of his parents inadvertently (with the financial and poverty scheme). Bruce trains with this man, then finds, to his horror, their big plan is not to restore world order, but to take down his home city. GOTHAM city. A city in which, Ra's and the League are already involved with the likes of several of the people Batman runs into on his own. Crane, Falcone (who are both puppets).

Everything just happens to fall into place in a nice big convenient circle where everyone's actions are connected.

The death of Thomas and Martha Wayne aren't the big picture anymore. It isn't a petty crime of a desperate man, there's a BIGGER picture there. One in which the League of Shadows are the main cause.




Do you see what I'm getting at when I say it's a crazy coincidence? The whole "world" of Batman Begins is interconnected by coincidence and happenstance, but Batman dropping Jack Napier, creating the Joker, the guy that killed his parents decades before creating him is too much? That doesn't seem right, does it?


I mean, we can explain everything in '89, just like I did above with Begins. Jack Napier, a young mobster, kills Thomas and Martha Wayne and spares Bruce. He sadistically threatens the boy before running off (the papers read UNIDENTIFIED GUNMAN, LEAVES CHILD UNHARMED). Bruce is traumatized, the Batman persona emerges and he fights crime and corruption in Gotham City. This corruption includes boss Carl Grissom, a mob boss that controls most of Gotham and the GCPD. His right hand man is none other than Jack Napier, the man that killed Bruce Wayne's parents.

After an anonymous tip (Carl Grissom tipping off the police that his man Jack Napier is at Axis Chemicals), the cops want to pursue Jack Napier because if they can catch him, they can connect everything to Grissom and throw the book at him (Harvey Dent).

Batman moves in to bring Jack Napier down. He goes to Axis Chemicals, carefully subduing each and every thug. He gets to Jack Napier, the main man everyone wants to get to Grissom who is nearing the exit sign. Instead of simply leaving though, Jack lingers and gets his revenge on Lt. Eckhart. Batman moves in, Jack fires, and Batman deflects it with his armor gauntlet and the bullet flies through Napier's face. He falls over the rail, Batman loses his grip, and he takes the plunge creating the Joker.



We know the rest of the story, Batman vs. Joker. Even before Bruce looks into it, he has a hunch that Joker and Napier are one in the same. He gets all the files on Napier (a file that contains a mugshot of a young Jack Napier, one that Bruce is too preoccupied to see while he's trying to combat the Joker's plans). In an encounter with the Joker, Bruce recognizes the trait from decades earlier, a man grinning at him sadistically with a pistol and his line. It snaps the memory, the reason Batman even exists. Bruce looks into it further, fully understanding that the man that killed his parents long ago is the same man that his poisoning his city and is a threat to everyone's well being. The same man that's haunted his dreams is the same man he's been battling and foiling. The same man who's face is staring at him from the several monitors of his computer.





That's all I'm getting at. I'm not trying to bring down Begins to raise up '89, or vice versa. I'm just saying, it's pretty much the same thing and that all these Batman films have coincidences and there are Batman films that are far, far more crazy with tons of coincidences and contrition going on. And if we're going after it for "comic accuracy". Well, Joker killing Bruce's parents is no more comic accurate than, "Ra's The League of Shadows train Bruce Wayne and decades earlier, they were the cause of financial poverty and desperation and inadvertently caused the death's of Bruce Wayne's parents". And Penguin being a Gotham sewer freak thrown out by his parents instead of a weapons dealer is no more accurate than Bane being a Gotham sewer freak who was released from prison by the LoS instead of a self-made, honorable man.


See what I mean?










Oh, and fun fact. The guy that created HENRI DUCARD in the comics (Ra's Al Ghul in the Begins film) was Sam Hamm. Sam Hamm was the writer that wrote most of '89 Batman.




"I made you, you made me first".


Last edited by milost; 03-24-2013 at 03:08 PM.
milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 03:54 PM   #542
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,509
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
You really hate that Joker? How come?
Several reasons:

1. There's no natural progression to this revelation in the story. Good twists in movies have hints peppered throughout the movie subtle enough to fly under the radar. The first time it's hinted is when Bruce recognizes the dance with the devil line in Vicki's apartment, then 2 minutes later we have him flashbacking to his parents' death and Jack Napier being the killer. All of this in the last half hour of the movie.

2. What purpose did it serve Joker or Batman or the story in dropping this in at the last minute? Neither character benefited from this revelation. It didn't add any dimension or layers to them or the story.

3. It was done to make it personal between Batman and the Joker. Unnecessary. Batman already dropped Joker into the chemicals. It's already personal between them. Joker had murdered loads of Gotham citizens. He has kidnapped Bruce's girlfriend. Batman had plenty of reasons to beat the hell out of him without the whole "I'm going to kill you. You killed my parents. I made you but you made me first" BS. Dropping it in at the last quarter that Joker also created Batman reeked of last minute plot contrivance, which it WAS:

Quote:
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

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 03-24-2013 at 04:14 PM.
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 03:56 PM   #543
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,029
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
Oh, and fun fact. The guy that created HENRI DUCARD in the comics (Ra's Al Ghul in the Begins film) was Sam Hamm. Sam Hamm was the writer that wrote most of '89 Batman.

"I made you, you made me first".
Heh, love the irony of that.

I think the difference is, in Begins the coincidences all add interesting layers to the story but aren't drawing attention to themselves. With B'89, it draws attention to it and almost prompts you to think, "Wow that's a crazy coincidence that the Jack Napier created the Batman and then years later Batman created him. It's fate!"

It's just a different type of storytelling. I liked it in B'89, and all stories have contrivances by nature. But in Begins they just feel more organic as the plot unfolds. Even though the LOS set events in motion decades prior that led to the Waynes' murder, it doesn't suddenly become a personal revenge story for Bruce. It doesn't take center stage. It's still dealing with the themes of the Waynes' wealth, how they affected the city, etc.

In Batman 89, it takes center stage. And it worked. But it's almost meant to be a huge coincidence. At least with the LOS in Begins it's more like, "We've been running sh** all along. You didn't know?". It feels more connected to the developing narrative and therefore like less of a coincidence.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 05:52 PM   #544
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post

1. There's no natural progression to this revelation in the story. Good twists in movies have hints peppered throughout the movie subtle enough to fly under the radar. The first time it's hinted is when Bruce recognizes the dance with the devil line in Vicki's apartment, then 2 minutes later we have him flashbacking to his parents' death and Jack Napier being the killer. All of this in the last half hour of the movie.


I thought there was personally. Let me try to persuade you or atleast show you where I'm coming from. Maybe I'm looking too far into it, but hear me out. Tell me what you think man. I've put some time in this. I wish I had a blog to express it.










Pic 1

"You're an A1 nutboy and Grissom knows it." (Jack's eyes start twitching like a lunatic after being called crazy) - to - "You know, this guy I know, Jack . . .bad wiring I guess." (The Joker's eyes start twitching like a lunatic after being called crazy)



Pic 2


"That's the same look on his face, the face in front of city hall." (Bruce looking at disbelief and disgust as the mafia and cops are mowed down by Joker's men) - to - "He watched the whole thing happen in front of him, poor kid. I wonder what something like this does to someone."



Pic 3



"Here's the file you requested" (On Jack Napier) - to - "Do you have the file on my parents?"




Pic 4



Young Jack Napier mug shot on the left, Present Jack Napier mug shot on right - to - Bruce Wayne covering up the past mug shot being preoccupied with the Joker's files and history.



Pic 5



Vicki follows Bruce to the street his parents were killed on. Bruce is visiting the site on the anniversary of their death, placing roses where they died (this is right before the City Hall shoot out by the way) - to - Flashback of Bruce watching in horror as his parents are gunned down on the very same street




Pic 6



"Have you ever danced with the Devil by the pale moon light" - Joker sadistically smiling and holding a gun to Bruce Wayne - to - "Have you ever danced with the Devil by the pale moon light" - Napier sadistically smiling and holding a gun to young Bruce Wayne




Pic 7



First confrontation, Batman vs. Jack Napier - to - Final confrontation, "You idiot, you dropped me into that vat of chemicals! YOU MADE ME! Remember?"









I'd say some of those are subtle enough to fly under the radar and still show that, throughout the film that it was their intent. Especially with that police file that has a young Jack Napier mug shot. Vicki's apartment is where it all culminates. Where Bruce and the Joker meet. Before that, we saw Batman and Napier and Batman and Joker interacting. It was the final piece before we find out that Bruce Wayne and Jack Napier met before . . . .


This has been discussed before also, but not on boards I don't think. I felt just like Siskel on the matter.





Back in 1989, Siskel and Ebert had the same discussion. Siskel bought the character relationships with Batman between Joker and Vicki while Ebert didn't.








http://youtu.be/nZ3taEufae0









@5:10





"She knew. I think there are indications throughout the picture that these people know who they are in other lives, in other alteregos in situations. It's very true between the Batman and Jack Napier in the beginning of the film when they give each other knowing looks, they're setting up a battle for the future."









Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
2. What purpose did it serve Joker or Batman or the story in dropping this in at the last minute? Neither character benefited from this revelation. It didn't add any dimension or layers to them or the story.


It made it more personal. Prior to that, Batman and the Joker were duking it out as they had in the comics. Batman dropped him in the vat of chemicals and Joker emerged. Rising to the top of the criminal underworld and poisoning the city with his demented philosophy about death and arts. Batman started with low level thugs and robberies, works his way up to the mob after noticing Gordon's abrupt disappearance at his social function, goes after Jack Napier, and then, of course the Joker.

After the reveal though, it's not just about apprehending and stopping the Joker, the psychotic madman that's threatening innocent civilians. It's also about avenging his parents against the man who made him what he is now. It adds a symbolic dynamic. The Joker created Batman and Batman created the Joker. They're both psychotic and similar in some ways (even though Batman wouldn't admit to it), but how they deal with it is completely different. The Joker acts out in public, publicly threatens the well being of the city. He murders and destroys. He wants to disfigure Gotham because of his own insecurities.

Batman, who was created out of the trauma of losing his parents and childhood, does the exact opposite. He acts out by fighting crime, the very thing that created him. From petty goons to criminal masterminds such as the Joker, he feels compelled to do it as if it's his job, which all plays into his psychosis. "Sometimes, I don't even know how to feel about this, it's just something I have to do" . . . Why, "Because no one else can".


While there are similarities like taking on extreme, symbolic alter egos (a giant evil Bat and psychotic "fun" clown), or other things "Nice place you got here, lots of space", "Nice place ya got here lots of space", the two are polar opposites. The antithesis of each other.


It also shed some light on why Bruce Wayne does what he does (the mystery slowly unfolds as Vicki discovers more and more about Bruce Wayne, which leads to Batman). Without the big reveal, how do we, as the audience, know what motivated Bruce? Why would he just have a random flashback of the death of his parents if the Joker didn't trigger it for him in the story?



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
3. It was done to make it personal between Batman and the Joker. Unnecessary. Batman already dropped Joker into the chemicals. It's already personal between them. Joker had murdered loads of Gotham citizens. He has kidnapped Bruce's girlfriend. Batman had plenty of reasons to beat the hell out of him without the whole "I'm going to kill you. You killed my parents. I made you but you made me first" BS. Dropping it in at the last quarter that Joker also created Batman reeked of last minute plot contrivance, which it WAS:



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


Personal for the Joker. He's clearly upset about what Batman had done to him.


For Batman? It's another job for him. What did the Joker to do him personally other than terrorizing Vicki Vale? Before the reveal, before the Joker, Batman was going after criminals, from Grissom to the Napier . When the Joker emerged as the main threat against the city, he was looking to take him down, REGARDLESS if he killed his parents or not. Batman is clearly not driven by revenge in the film until the third act. Prior to discovering what happened, he was dealing with other criminals much like Batman in the comics does. The two guys on the roof? He immobilizes and threatens them, doesn't kill. All the men at Axis chemicals? Carefully and strategically subdued. He even leaves one hanging for the police from his grapple gun. Joker's men who follow him after the museum? None of them killed.


Once he discovers that Joker is the same man who killed his parents though, the gloves are off, the gauntlets are thrown and it's personal. Just one more reason to stop this mad man. He's been thwarting the Joker's plans prior to the twist. Cracking his chemical code, giving it to the police, slowly becoming an ally of the city, much to the Joker's dismay. But no more games. He zeroes in on Axis Chemicals, blows it to hell and pissed when the Joker manages to get away.

In the final act, it's not like he just mows the Joker down. He stops the Joker's smylex holocaust first to protect the crowd/city, then goes in for him. The rest leads to their final confrontation.




Yeah, he has other reasons to beat the snot out of the Joker but with the city now safe (no more chemicals, no more threats), but this is personal for him. This is the man who killed his parents, took away his life, made him who he is. It's no different from Begins or other comic stories where Bruce finds out who the murder was and goes off seeking revenge.

The Joker on the other hand, is clearly intimidated by Batman, walking back from him. He shrugs off Batman's accusations and proclaims "how childish can you get", and is looking for a way out.





I know all about the rewrites which is all stated in the Batman Blu Ray documentary (from Sam Hamm himself even). It was a rewrite, it was a change. But that doesn't make it bad, in my opinion. What was the original resolution in Sam Hamm's original draft? I bet it wasn't as good as this one.


When this is brought up, I don't think it's ever about "not fitting the film". I think it does work in the film. The film is operatic, even the Cathedral at the end practically screams Phantom of the Opera. I think the criticism goes back to the fidelity to the comics. Back in 1989, people didn't know what to expect, and fans knew that Joker didn't kill Batman's parents. So of course they wouldn't agree with it and question it. Same with Vicki. "OH MY GOD, THEY LET HER IN THE BATCAVE, SHE KNOWS! That doesn't happen! Joker killed Batman's parents? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO."




For the actual film, I think it's fine. For the record. This isn't me stating that I think Batman '89 Batman/Joker relationship is superior, or that I think "my" version of Batman had Joker killing his parents. That's not what I'm saying. I much prefer the popular canon where it's a nameless thug, hidden in an alley or Joe Chill. I'm just saying, for what it is, as it's own interpretation, I dig it and understand it. I can see what Burton was going for.

Back in 1989, I went in without prior knowledge. There wasn't even the slightest hint that it was going to happen. Then when it hit, and we saw that smiling Napier, I was shocked. I didn't know what to think. Then I went back and watched it again (I've seen this film so many times) and saw all those little things I wasn't looking for or paying attention to.


Different strokes for different folks, but for me, I bought it. I thought it was a clever little way of changing it up. It's probably something we'll never see again. Yeah, I prefer the Batman and Joker relationship in Dark Knight (though I still think Keaton is a better Batman), but that doesn't keep me from not seeing the brilliance in the first Batman film. It's one of my favorites, right up there with Dark Knight (which is my #1).


Last edited by milost; 03-24-2013 at 06:08 PM.
milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 07:04 PM   #545
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,509
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
I thought there was personally. Let me try to persuade you or atleast show you where I'm coming from. Maybe I'm looking too far into it, but hear me out. Tell me what you think man. I've put some time in this. I wish I had a blog to express it.
Of course I'll have a look at what you've written.

Quote:
Pic 1

"You're an A1 nutboy and Grissom knows it." (Jack's eyes start twitching like a lunatic after being called crazy) - to - "You know, this guy I know, Jack . . .bad wiring I guess." (The Joker's eyes start twitching like a lunatic after being called crazy)
I'm sorry, but I don't buy an unnoticeable eye twitch as a clue lol. No offense. Especially when he doesn't do any eye twitches when that fat mob guy calls him crazy, or when Vicki says he's insane. It's not a consistency. Not that I really noticed any eye twitches and I sincerely doubt anyone else did either.

Quote:
Pic 2

"That's the same look on his face, the face in front of city hall." (Bruce looking at disbelief and disgust as the mafia and cops are mowed down by Joker's men) - to - "He watched the whole thing happen in front of him, poor kid. I wonder what something like this does to someone."
I don't get this one. The look of disbelief on Bruce's face at City Hall was due to the fact that Jack Napier was still alive.

Quote:
Pic 3

"Here's the file you requested" (On Jack Napier) - to - "Do you have the file on my parents?"
Again no offense but that one is really reaching. Asking Alfred for files. You think that's telling the audience anything about the death of his parents? No way.

Quote:
Pic 4

Young Jack Napier mug shot on the left, Present Jack Napier mug shot on right - to - Bruce Wayne covering up the past mug shot being preoccupied with the Joker's files and history.
The picture is too obscured. It could be anyone on that photo and not the guy they used in the flashback.

Quote:
Pic 5

Vicki follows Bruce to the street his parents were killed on. Bruce is visiting the site on the anniversary of their death, placing roses where they died (this is right before the City Hall shoot out by the way) - to - Flashback of Bruce watching in horror as his parents are gunned down on the very same street
I don't get this one either. It was not the same street. Bruce's parents were killed in a back alley. Not on City Hall steps.

Quote:
Pic 6

"Have you ever danced with the Devil by the pale moon light" - Joker sadistically smiling and holding a gun to Bruce Wayne - to - "Have you ever danced with the Devil by the pale moon light" - Napier sadistically smiling and holding a gun to young Bruce Wayne
Yes, the scene that was part of the rewrites. The scene where Bruce realizes he killed his parents.

What's your point?

Quote:
Pic 7

First confrontation, Batman vs. Jack Napier - to - Final confrontation, "You idiot, you dropped me into that vat of chemicals! YOU MADE ME! Remember?"
Yeah so? How is grabbing him that way in the Axis scene a hint Jack killed his parents lol?

Quote:
I'd say some of those are subtle enough to fly under the radar and still show that, throughout the film that it was their intent. Especially with that police file that has a young Jack Napier mug shot. Vicki's apartment is where it all culminates. Where Bruce and the Joker meet. Before that, we saw Batman and Napier and Batman and Joker interacting. It was the final piece before we find out that Bruce Wayne and Jack Napier met before . . . .
I'm sorry, man, but I don't agree with one iota of this. All you've done is take some eye twitches, an obscured photo we can't see properly, and a surprised look on Bruce's face because Napier was still alive and spun a yarn about how all of this is clues to the audience that Joker killed his parents.

I think you've put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. Subtle hints are things like Miranda Tate saying to Bruce about restoring balance to the world. Not things like unnoticeable inconsistent eye twitches and hidden photos.

Quote:
This has been discussed before also, but not on boards I don't think. I felt just like Siskel on the matter.

Back in 1989, Siskel and Ebert had the same discussion. Siskel bought the character relationships with Batman between Joker and Vicki while Ebert didn't.
Ebert is on the ball in this case.

Quote:
"She knew. I think there are indications throughout the picture that these people know who they are in other lives, in other alteregos in situations. It's very true between the Batman and Jack Napier in the beginning of the film when they give each other knowing looks, they're setting up a battle for the future."
What knowing look?

Quote:
It made it more personal.
Needlessly. And in a terribly contrived way. Batman didn't need the added personal incentive to track down his parents killer. He was already tracking down a killer who was killing Gotham. That's all he needs with the Joker. The man of law and order vs the man who inflicts chaos.

That's more natural beautiful symmetry than a "I made you but you made me first" scenario. How did Batman handle the mission of stopping the Joker any differently to how he would have handled it if Joker had not killed his parents?

Would he have taken out Axis? Would he have gotten rid of the poison gas balloons? Would he have gone after Joker up that church to save Vicki?

Yes, yes, and yes!

I really don't see any point in addressing the rest of what you said because I've already said the same things to OutRiddled several times. I'd just be repeating myself.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 03-24-2013 at 07:08 PM.
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 07:06 PM   #546
FeedOnATreeFrog
A Metal Gear reference
 
FeedOnATreeFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,116
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

I haven't read this thread, but I also didn't like Nicholson's Joker. I just didn't like the movie in general.

He did a great performance though.

FeedOnATreeFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 07:31 PM   #547
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post

I'm sorry, but I don't buy an unnoticeable eye twitch as a clue lol. No offense. Especially when he doesn't do any eye twitches when that fat mob guy calls him crazy, or when Vicki says he's insane. It's not a consistency. Not that I really noticed any eye twitches and I sincerely doubt anyone else did either.

The fat mob guy and Vicki aren't getting personal with him though about his insanity or anything about Jack, are they? Eckhart is ripping him, Jack personally, telling him that he'll never take Grissom's place and that Grissom is fully aware that Jack is a nutjob. They know his history. That clearly hits a nerve, eye twitching, shoving Eckhart's head against the wall.

Bruce Wayne takes this one step further after reading all about him in his files, talking about his being a "bad kid that liked to hurt people", "bad wiring", "not being able to see the train coming". Then what does Joker do? He starts losing it. He ends up losing his cool and blows Bruce away.


And yeah, Jack/Joker never does that twitch again, except in these two instances. Same shots, same "you're crazy Jack" accusations.



http://youtu.be/83jMJaLcSA4?t=55s

http://youtu.be/9OufCgFZCyU?t=18s




You don't see Nicholson's left eye going crazy in either of those clips? In HD? You think that's just a coincidence? I'm the only one that's seeing it and imagining it?


Did you notice the same crazy eye in the Dark Knight that Ledger does in the mob scene when Gambol rips him? (It's his right eye instead of Nicholson's left)




Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
I don't get this one. The look of disbelief on Bruce's face at City Hall was due to the fact that Jack Napier was still alive.


But Vicki even says, "that's the same look on his face at City Hall" when she sees the police report and headline.


Couldn't it be both things? We see Bruce, seeing Napier, and we also have Vicki's perspective.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Again no offense but that one is really reaching. Asking Alfred for files. You think that's telling the audience anything about the death of his parents? No way.

No, that's a lead way to the Jack Napier file.



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
The picture is too obscured. It could be anyone on that photo and not the guy they used in the flashback.



C'mon Joker, atleast give me this one. Please?


Look at this. Why would ANYBODY else be in Jack Napier's police criminal records file? That's Napier's personal file. Why would some random person be in there? Especially when there are other profile shots in there of present day Jack.




http://www.batman-online.com/feature...ng-jack-napier







You're telling me that's not Hugo Blick? The same hair line, the same eye brows? That's not young Jack Napier? Even the last digit, "7" of his ID is the same!










Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Yeah so? How is grabbing him that way in the Axis scene a hint Jack killed his parents lol?

I go into it more, especially with the Siskle/Ebert review. But I see you quoted that too.




Guess we can't agree on everything. Oh well. We seem to have the same exact view point on The Dark Knight, Ledger Joker, the faults of TDKR and the lame criticisms OutRiddled goes on and on about. Just not Batman 1989 I guess.



For me, I thought the Nicholson Joker and Batman 1989 was fine. Really good stuff. I didn't know it bothered you so. I could see when it's brought up to put things like Ledger Joker and Dark Knight down, (like Riddled continues to do), but, whatever. Like I said, I love The Dark Knight the most, Ledger is my favorite Joker, but I don't get the criticism towards Nicholson Joker or Batman '89 as a whole. I guess this how people must feel when I'm ripping on how convoluted, contrived and messy TDKR is.


Last edited by milost; 03-24-2013 at 07:37 PM.
milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 08:58 PM   #548
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,029
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
I guess this how people must feel when I'm ripping on how convoluted, contrived and messy TDKR is.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:51 AM   #549
OutRiddled
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 507
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
It doesn't matter what you're imagining. You're talking about an incredible situation where hundreds of lives are placed in your hands. It's easy to sit and watch this in a movie and say I'd do this or that.

The convicts actually showed the mad rush situation since you're being so pedantic. The guards had to fire their guns into the air to keep them back.
And there was that one big black guy who was like "give it to me" . Sorry, but I found that a bit ridiculous.

Quote:
Joker, Penguin, Ivy and Two Face >>>>>> Jack Nicholson

Jack Nicholson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heath Ledger



Quote:
I don't believe you. Give me three reasons why you cared about Martha and Thomas so much, and were so affected by seeing them die.
Because Nolan actually showed the relationship between Bruce and his parents. Something no other film has done.

Quote:

That's your loss. You didn't like Rachel. Your loss.

http://www.empireonline.com/features...aracters/5.asp
She was a poorly written character. Even more so than Vicki Vale or Chase Meridian. At least they had some life in them.

Quote:
I know, and it's ridiculous and not canon in his characterization. That happened with several of the major villains. Or would you have liked Burton to have had Catwoman with no costume, no Selina Kyle name, and just a high class thief called The Cat who likes to fleece rich old ladies by dressing up as an old lady herself?

Because that's Catwoman's first appearance.
What's wrong with including that? It would have been a good nod to the comics. I was disappointed that Batman didn't say the "PAPA SPANK" line. Damn Nolan and his political correctness.

Quote:
I only disregard the rubbish that was written off. Like Harvey blaming a coin for his misfortunes. Why did the Batman writers not stick to such a compelling characterization like that I can't imagine lol.
It was Maroni's coin... the guy who threw acid in his face, creating Two-Face.



Quote:
Well lets see, in a city as crime ridden as Gotham, out of all the criminals in it, the one that just happens to create Batman is the same one Batman happens to turn into the Joker years later? It was a cheap plot device added in at the last minute by Burton during the writers strike to make it personal between Batman and Joker for the ONE confrontational scene they have in the entire movie.

That's the definition of lazy contrived writing. It's no wonder Sam Hamm and the fans hated it.
It wasn't "cheap". It was written as a Batman Vs Joker movie. It was presenting Batman and the Joker as two sides of the same coin. Joker chasing after Vicki (which you keep complaining about) was just another example of this.

Quote:
Two-Face: "Why was it me who was the only one who lost everything?"
Batman: "....it wasn't"
Two-Face: "The Joker CHOSE ME!!!!"
Batman: "Because you were the best of us. He wanted to prove that even someone as good as you could fall"
Two-Face: "And he was right"


His line to Maroni was simply in reference to who hired Joker to go after Batman in the first place. Everything Joker did was his choice. His plans and his decisions. Or do you think when the mob hired Joker they intended for him to let Batman live because Joker got his jollies challenging him, burn all of their money, and take over their gangs lol?
But it was the mob that got Dent. As Joker was being held in the cell, he couldn't have been responsible. I forget the exact lines of dialogue but Joker mentions in the police station something about those people working for Maroni. Then there's also this:

The Joker: You know. I don't want there to be any hard feelings between us, Harvey. When you and, uh...
Harvey Dent: Rachel!
The Joker: Rachel were being abducted. I was sitting in Gordon's cage. Now, *I* didn't rig those charges.
Harvey Dent: Your men. Your plan.
The Joker: Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... *do* things.

OutRiddled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:39 AM   #550
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,509
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutRiddled View Post
And there was that one big black guy who was like "give it to me". Sorry, but I found that a bit ridiculous.
No need to apologize. It's better than watching a black guy who looks like Ray Charles make a punching bag out of Batman in a church tower

Quote:
Jack Nicholson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heath Ledger


Quote:
Because Nolan actually showed the relationship between Bruce and his parents. Something no other film has done.
It showed two brief scenes with his parents. Barely enough time to get to know them as characters. Bruce never even interacted with his mother. LOL the only line she had in the movie was "What's wrong, Bruce?".

Quote:
She was a poorly written character. Even more so than Vicki Vale or Chase Meridian. At least they had some life in them.
Vicki Vale was shrieking damsel in distress character. Chase Meridian was a laughable caricature who was supposed to be a professional shrink who throws herself at Batman on the roof of Police HQ.

If you consider these better written characters then your standards are so low they're practically sitting in hell

Quote:
What's wrong with including that? It would have been a good nod to the comics.
Let me get this straight: You're saying you wanted Catwoman portrayed with no costume, no Selina Kyle name, and just some pretty thief who robs rich old ladies?

OutRiddled, just when I thought your arguments couldn't get any weaker you surprise me with this one. Congratulations.

Quote:
It was Maroni's coin... the guy who threw acid in his face, creating Two-Face.
Are you as Crazy as Harvey Kent? How does an inanimate object like a coin hold the blame for what Maroni did lol?

Quote:
It wasn't "cheap". It was written as a Batman Vs Joker movie.
No, it wasn't. It was written as a Joker movie guest starring Batman. That was one of the common complaints about the movie. That Burton was clearly more interested in the Joker than Batman.

Quote:
It was presenting Batman and the Joker as two sides of the same coin. Joker chasing after Vicki (which you keep complaining about) was just another example of this.
How does that make them two sides of the same coin? Batman doesn't go around chasing random women he sees in a photo.

Quote:
But it was the mob that got Dent. As Joker was being held in the cell, he couldn't have been responsible.
How naive are you? Even Dent didn't buy that one. "Your men. Your plan".

Osama Bin Laden wasn't in New York when those planes crashed into the Twin Towers. His men and his plan though. Does that absolve him of any responsibility for 9/11?

Stop talking nonsense.

Quote:
I forget the exact lines of dialogue but Joker mentions in the police station something about those people working for Maroni.
Bruce: "Gotham needs it's true hero and I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell"

Maroni: "Take it up with the Joker. He killed your woman. He made you like this"

Dent: "The Joker chose ME!"

Gordon: "The Joker took the best of us and tore him down"

Take the hint, OutRiddled.

Quote:
Then there's also this:

The Joker: You know. I don't want there to be any hard feelings between us, Harvey. When you and, uh...
Harvey Dent: Rachel!
The Joker: Rachel were being abducted. I was sitting in Gordon's cage. Now, *I* didn't rig those charges.
Harvey Dent: Your men. Your plan.
The Joker: Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... *do* things.
OutRiddled, I am thinking at this stage you're either trying to pull my leg here, or you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer (no offense).

The Joker was feeding Harvey a load of bull to bend his mind even further. This is what he was gloating about to Batman later. "I took Gotham's white knight and I brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. Madness as you know is like gravity. All it takes is a little push".

You're also ignoring the fact that he eventually said to Harvey "When I say that you and your girlfriend was nothing personal....you know that I'm telling the truth".

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.