The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman > Batman World

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-29-2014, 11:56 PM   #701
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Of course I have proof he knew. If he read the comic book like he claims then he knew. How could he miss it?
Well since his age is never stated and you're really just making guesses about how old you think he looks..

Quote:
Jack Napier was not a master criminal. He was a hood for Carl Grissom, the mob boss of Gotham, with a record of jail incarcerations.
"No. 2 guy" of the most powerful crime gang in Gotham.
Quote:


Since Joker is clearly in his 30's, he's not middle aged. So Nicholson's Joker is way off the mark. He's 50.
Again, agree to disagree. And you can clearly see in some of those comic panels posted by Timed that he looks much older than 30's.



Quote:
Yes he is. Don't you know your comic book trivia?
He was based on The Man Who Laughs, played by Conrad Veidt. Not Conrad Veidt the actor.



Quote:
You are so hung up on the original story. DC showed what he looked like under the hood later on, so we know he was a young man. Just because something was not seen in the original story doesn't invalidate it.
DC also retconned his origin into a family man forced into crime instead of a master criminal. So if it was a retcon, how can you tie it into the original origin story?

Quote:
If anything Batman '89 is inconsistent with the original story because it gave Joker a definitive name, back story, and didn't even have the Red Hood schtick.
I never claimed it was, I'm only mentioning the similarities.



Quote:
How in the name of god was in control of the situation there? What was stopping Harvey from killing him? He didn't know that:

1. Harvey was going to decide his fate with a coin toss

2. Or that the coin would come up good side.

He also had no idea that Batman would not run him down in the street, or save him when he threw him off the building. Why do you think he stopped laughing when Batman saved him? Because it wasn't funny. He realized he failed to make him break his one rule again. Hence why he said to him "You truly are incorruptible aren't you" when Batman pulled him up.
His goal was corrupt Harvey Dent, so it was all part of his plan. Hence, he was in control. He also was trying to get Batman to break his one rule, hence he was also in control.

Yeah, he stopped laughing after Batman pulled him up? So? Don't know what you're trying to prove here.
Quote:
No offense but you are either being stupid or deliberately argumentative because you are 100% factually wrong here. Nobody would back you up on that.
Sorry you feel that way. If you can prove that I'm factually wrong then I will not hesitate to back down but you have yet to prove anything.



Quote:
Joker was not in control of the situations in TDK either. Difference is he's fearless and Nicholson wasn't.
Already covered that point above.


Quote:
But you quoted my point about 2008 when you said it.
Did I? My mistake, then.



Quote:
Their looks are exactly the same. They both look terrified, and guess what, they both scream in terror when they fall, too.

There's no grey area here. He was scared in both scenes.
Ok, if you can't tell the difference, then I cannot help you.



Quote:
It would certainly help show that you're not just making this up, that other people have actually noticed it, too.
Fact is, all this Nicholson-bashing only started happening around the time The Dark Knight was being made, as if an attempt to re-write history. Before, Nicholson's performance never needed defending.

CountOrlok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2014, 11:59 PM   #702
Fudgie
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,197
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timed View Post
No, sorry. Unless the Joker was smoking crack or doing drugs in the 1940s, a 20-35 year old shouldn't have excessive wrinkles and bags under their eyes. He looks like a straight up, gaunt, creepy old man in that scene where he's at his desk plotting. The Joker through most of his entire 70s run looked like a middle aged man with that face and that receding hair line which *gasp* the Nicholson Joker had in spades. Dark Knight Returns Joker is set in a future? And? It's still a valid example. Batman and Joker aren't always 20 or 30 in their respective stories.
Ehhh if you make a story in the future of the usual timeline then the characters are gonna look older. That's how time and nature work heh.

Joker looks like a 30's man in those pics you posted. Soz but he does. Only old one is your TDKR one. He's supposed to look soooo much older there cos it's a 10 year leap ahead.

Quote:
]BTAS Joker is fearless? Then why is he screaming for Batman and looking like he's about to piss himself in "The Last Laugh"? "B-BATMAAAAAN, you wouldn't let me fry would you!?!" BTAS Joker is fearless? How come in the "Joker's Favor" he's scared when Charlie Collins (a nobody) is threatening to kill the both of them? I seem to recall him literally hiding behind Batman's cape. There's even other scenes, like Mad Love, where Batman punches him and he's screaming into the smoking stack. If he's fearless, they could have fooled me.
Because they'd be pathetic deaths. Some loser blows him up? Dies after tripping up on a hose? Loser unfunny death.

Quote:
Joker, "not wanting to get a lickin'"? Joker looks terrified in the Killing Joke panel when Batman bursts through the mirrors at the carnival. He looks pathetic with his slack jawed mouth screaming "AAAAAAAAA!" at the top of his lungs. If Joker is fearless, why is he shaking in the last panel you quoted? Surely he's used to a Batman beating and could just laugh it off, ala, Ledger Joker?
Bats surprised his ass by jumping out at him through a mirror. Not the same as sitting across from him at a table having a chin wag and getting under his skin by telling him he knows he loves Rachel and he's got her hostage heh.

Fudgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 12:00 AM   #703
Timed
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
(To Timed)

^Amen.

It'd be pretty boring if the Joker only had a handful of expressions at his disposal and only really laughed. I like seeing him express joy, pain, sadness, etc. even if it's simply a ruse to get the upper hand on his adversary.

I like Ledger's fearless portrayal of the Joker, but there's nothing wrong with the Nicholson portrayal struggling on that latter as the weight of the gargoyle pulls him down. It's completely normal as he's about to get his comeuppance. He's done, and he knows it. He has this huge slab ripping at his leg while he's dangling 700 feat in the air. At that point in time, I don't see how that would be "funny" or amusing to him. He's not getting the last laugh (even though he sort of does). He's not going to live another day to terrorize the city or Batman, he's going to plummet to his death anti-climatically. Atleast with the Ledger Joker, he knew that by having Batman throw him off, he'd be breaking his one rule. That is funny and poetic. He'd be breaking Batman. The Batman Nicholson Joker was up against? He wanted to see him dead. There's nothing funny about that. There is no punch line. Hence, he feared meeting his demise. That doesn't make him any less "Joker". If it does, than BTAS Joker isn't Joker. Cesar Romero Joker isn't Joker. Killing Joker Joker isn't Joker. etc. etc.

Bottom line, there is no definitive Joker. If we're going to get on the Nicholson Joker for being portrayed by a middle aged actor that doesn't look like the 35 year old from the comics and is afraid of dying, then how about we rip Ledger's Joker who wasn't permanent white (like 90% of the interpretations), had zero gag gimmicks (other than the cool shoe knife) long, greasy hair, and looked like a damn urchin? Or how about Cesar Romero with his mustache? Or the BTAS Joker with his fat looking zoot suit and shoddy early 90s animation?

They're all the Joker and they all have their moments where the character shines through. No more, no less.

Timed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 12:06 AM   #704
Timed
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudgie View Post

Because they'd be pathetic deaths. Some loser blows him up? Dies after tripping up on a hose? Loser unfunny death.
And the one of the Joker almost falling into the fire after he tripped on a cord and screaming for Batman's help? Or Batman punching him through the air into a smoke stack?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudgie View Post
Bats surprised his ass by jumping out at him through a mirror. Not the same as sitting across from him at a table having a chin wag and getting under his skin by telling him he knows he loves Rachel and he's got her hostage heh.

He's still screaming.

If he were simply "surprised", then why didn't Moore or Bolland use "gah" or "gasp". Nah, his tongue is out and he's screaming at the top of his lungs. That's not fearless, he's afraid.

But you know what? Who cares? That doesn't take away from the Killing Joke Joker does it? Why shouldn't Batman catch the Joker off guard at times and scare the **** out of him? Does Joker emoting these different feelings make the character "inaccurate" or a puss? No. It makes him human. I love that panel of Batman crashing through and scaring him. It's one of the best moments in that book.


Last edited by Timed; 04-30-2014 at 12:09 AM.
Timed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 12:10 AM   #705
Fudgie
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,197
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timed View Post
And the one of the Joker almost falling into the fire after he tripped on a cord and screaming for Batman's help? Or Batman punching him through the air into a smoke stack?
Yeah what about 'em? Joker tripping over himself and falling into a smoke stack after he was just humiliated by Harley for coming closer to killing Bats than he did ain't a way to bow out. Not funny.

Quote:
He's still screaming.

If he were simply "surprised", then why didn't Moore or Bolland use "gah" or "gasp". Nah, his tongue is out and he's screaming at the top of his lungs. That's not fearless, he's afraid.
A scream of surprise. Peeps can scream in surprise for more than just a gah or ahh.

Quote:
But you know what? Who cares? That doesn't take away from the Killing Joke Joker does it? Why shouldn't Batman catch the Joker off guard at times and scare the **** out of him? Does Joker emoting these different feelings make the character "inaccurate"? No. It makes him human. I love that panel of Batman crashing through and scaring him. It's one of the best moments in that book.
Nope I am all for Joker showing some emotions. He shows anger, hate, laughter, and sometimes even surprise or a quick fright.

Fudgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 12:16 AM   #706
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 38,015
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
Well since his age is never stated and you're really just making guesses about how old you think he looks..
Educated guesses. You're not going to try and tell me he looks older than 30 in that TKJ origin. Nobody would.

Quote:
"No. 2 guy" of the most powerful crime gang in Gotham.
That's not a criminal mastermind. That's a glorified henchman to the boss.

Quote:
Again, agree to disagree. And you can clearly see in some of those comic panels posted by Timed that he looks much older than 30's.
No those pics look exactly like the Veidt pics. In his 30's.

Quote:
He was based on The Man Who Laughs, played by Conrad Veidt. Not Conrad Veidt the actor.
What's the difference lol? The character was played by Conrad Veidt. It was his face it was modeled after.

Quote:
DC also retconned his origin into a family man forced into crime instead of a master criminal. So if it was a retcon, how can you tie it into the original origin story?
Because it was not a retcon. It was the declaration that Joker remembers his past in different ways, as stated in the story itself. It was not invalidating the original story. It was never declared as the official Joker origin. The original story can just be interpreted as Joker remembering he was a criminal mastermind and not a family man. That's DC sell on the character. Multiple origins he remembers differently, with one common factor besides the chemical bath origin; he was a young man in them.

Quote:
I never claimed it was, I'm only mentioning the similarities.
Which is the chemical bath origin. Same as TKJ and the original Red Hood tale.

Quote:
His goal was corrupt Harvey Dent, so it was all part of his plan. Hence, he was in control. He also was trying to get Batman to break his one rule, hence he was also in control.
You're contradicting yourself now. You've just been telling me he knew Batman would not kill him, so how can be be trying to get Batman to break his one rule if he knew he never would?

He was not in control of anything. He was trying to get them to turn killer. If he was in control he wouldn't have to try, and in Batman's case fail.

But you're missing the point. Joker was fearless of death in this. He was not afraid to die.

Quote:
Yeah, he stopped laughing after Batman pulled him up? So? Don't know what you're trying to prove here.
Really you don't? You don't get that he stopped laughing when he realized Batman wasn't going to let him fall to his death? That flew over your head?

Quote:
Sorry you feel that way. If you can prove that I'm factually wrong then I will not hesitate to back down but you have yet to prove anything.
"You truly are incorruptible aren't you". There you've been proven factually wrong. Why would he say that after Batman just saved him when he threw him off a building? Even if you blindly ignore Joker spent the movie trying to turn people into killers, that line itself tells all.

Quote:
Ok, if you can't tell the difference, then I cannot help you.
There is no difference to tell. He looks scared in both scenarios. He is afraid to die in both, and that's why he screams when he falls in both situations.

Quote:
Fact is, all this Nicholson-bashing only started happening around the time The Dark Knight was being made, as if an attempt to re-write history. Before, Nicholson's performance never needed defending.
Actually that's not true. Someone posted a link from Burton in another thread dated 2007 before TDK's release, where Burton said his Batman movies got ragged on back in the day, and still do today. He seemed annoyed/upset by it, and told everyone to lay off him.

But what has that got to do with you being unable to show anyone else sharing this view about his attempt to smile?

__________________
"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; 04-30-2014 at 12:40 AM.
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 12:17 AM   #707
Timed
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudgie View Post
Yeah what about 'em? Joker tripping over himself and falling into a smoke stack after he was just humiliated by Harley for coming closer to killing Bats than he did ain't a way to bow out. Not funny.
Alright then, good. If that's the case, you should have no problem with the Nicholson Joker falling to his death.

The gargoyle ripping at his leg and falling before Batman and Vicki ever get a chance isn't funny. That's not a way for him to bow out, especially after he thought he was going to get away with it and watch Batman plummet to the street below.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudgie View Post
A scream of surprise. Peeps can scream in surprise for more than just a gah or ahh.
Except the expression doesn't look like surprise, it looks like full blown fear. Unless you're underestimating what Bolland was going for with that panel of course. If he was simply shocked or surprised, only his eyes would be wide open. He wouldn't be screaming like a girl looking into Batman's eyes.

If you want example of surprise, look at The Dark Knight Returns where Batman throws the batarang into his eye. That's surprise. And you know what? He didn't even scream.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudgie View Post
Nope I am all for Joker showing some emotions. He shows anger, hate, laughter, and sometimes even surprise or a quick fright.
Oh, a quick fright? I thought the Joker was fearless now? He shouldn't have have any fright, right? That would be against the character.

Timed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 12:21 AM   #708
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 38,015
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Timed just got banned....

__________________
"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 04-30-2014, 12:37 AM   #709
shauner111
Side-Kick
 
shauner111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 11,395
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

The whole point of the Ledger and Bale scene, is that Joker is no longer in control of the situation. He's panicked for the first time. See, he thought 1 ferry would blow up the other but nothing happened. The look on his face says it all when Batman rubs it in. Joker then panics and tries to blow em all up (we're not sure if he was going to blow up the remaining one anyhow, but in that moment he's fed up)...

Batman throws him off the roof and Joker is laughing because he thinks he is going to die. HE WANTS TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF BATMAN. This is literally the entire point of the scene. He is fearless with zero control of the situation, thinking he broke Batman. Batman catches him and in that instant, Joker stops laughing. He actually starts groaning as Batman pulls him up.

Literally the entire point of Joker/Ledgers final scene of the movie.

Also, i think we're just saying that we see Joker being younger when he meets the Batman. In 89' he's 50 years old when he becomes the Joker and dies the same age. He's meeting Batman for the first time as a middle-aged man. Especially back 25 years ago (not counting the 1940s clothes which makes it even more dated) where fifty was considered to be a lot older than todays standards. Nowadays you have the "50 is the new 40!" etc. Jack wasn't exactly in Downey shape for his age. He was getting pudgy and could easily pass for 50-odd.

Of course we're aware that he was older in certain comics. But most of the time that ive seen Joker, he was in his 20s, 30s, maybe 40.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
......that does not look anything like an attempt at smiling to me.

What about you, Shauner, does it look like it to you?
Not at all. There's no way that's a smile from where im sitting. He's hanging on for dear life. He's just using it as his argument but that's only because Jack literally has a damn smile stuck on his face from the makeup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudgie View Post
Heh that's because he was. CountOrlok is in denial because he doesn't want his fav Joker to look like a fraidy cat. It's like trying to argue Batman didn't look pissed when he was beating up the J-Man for killing his folks. It's soooooo obvious. Joker was bricking it on that ladder.
Exactly, i dont even see why it's a discussion.

shauner111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 12:48 AM   #710
AnneFan
Hathaway #1
 
AnneFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 15,304
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by shauner111 View Post
Not at all. There's no way that's a smile from where im sitting. He's hanging on for dear life. He's just using it as his argument but that's only because Jack literally has a damn smile stuck on his face from the makeup.
Indeed. The very thought Joker was smiling in that scene is ludicrous. He's terrified, vainly holding onto the ladder waiting for the inevitable to unfold. One just has to watch the scene. It's in stark contrast to the 'party man' we see earlier in the film. No music, balloons or fanfare. Just a terrified man falling into the darkness alone.

__________________
I dreamed a dream and "it came true."
- Anne Hathaway, actress in a supporting role winner 2013 Oscars.

Rio 2 - Song One - Interstellar - The Intern - Alice 2
AnneFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 02:22 AM   #711
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Educated guesses. You're not going to try and tell me he looks older than 30 in that TKJ origin. Nobody would.
Honestly, I wouldn't say any which way unless you can give me a quote by Alan Moore or something confirming it.

Quote:
That's not a criminal mastermind. That's a glorified henchman to the boss.
So why did Commissioner Gordon say "If we get our hands on him we'll get Grissom?", obviously he was more important than just a "glorified henchman".

Quote:
No those pics look exactly like the Veidt pics. In his 30's.



What's the difference lol? The character was played by Conrad Veidt. It was his face it was modeled after.
Elements of the character's roots include a photo of actor Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine (a man with a disfigured face, giving him a perpetual grin) in the 1928 film The Man Who Laughs, which was seen by Finger, and a joker playing card provided by Robinson. Finger said that he was also inspired by an image in Steeplechase Park at Coney Island, and Robinson cited his 1940 sketch as the source of the Joker's design.

Conrad Veidt wasn't the only inspiration for his look.


Quote:
Because it was not a retcon. It was the declaration that Joker remembers his past in different ways, as stated in the story itself. It was not invalidating the original story. It was never declared as the official Joker origin. The original story can just be interpreted as Joker remembering he was a criminal mastermind and not a family man. That's DC sell on the character. Multiple origins he remembers differently, with one common factor besides the chemical bath origin; he was a young man in them.
That wasn't until The Killing Joke, which was published in March 1988. Batman was in production around the same time, at which point the script had already been written, the actors cast, etc.. Even if Burton had read the comic, he wouldn't have had enough time to incorporate many elements into the movie.

Quote:
You're contradicting yourself now. You've just been telling me he knew Batman would not kill him, so how can be be trying to get Batman to break his one rule if he knew he never would?

He was not in control of anything. He was trying to get them to turn killer. If he was in control he wouldn't have to try, and in Batman's case fail.

But you're missing the point. Joker was fearless of death in this. He was not afraid to die.
I already told you, Batman had already saved him once, why would not think Batman would do it again? Even if he didn't, he was trying to get Batman to break his one rule, he was in control the whole time. And even if he failed, he still had his "ace in the hole" - Harvey Dent.



Quote:
Really you don't? You don't get that he stopped laughing when he realized Batman wasn't going to let him fall to his death? That flew over your head?
He stopped laughing because he failed to get Batman to break his one rule, yet he still had an "ace in the hole" - Harvey Dent.


Quote:
"You truly are incorruptible aren't you". There you've been proven factually wrong. Why would he say that after Batman just saved him when he threw him off a building? Even if you blindly ignore Joker spent the movie trying to turn people into killers, that line itself tells all.
Because his plan through the whole movie was to corrupt Batman, and for a moment he thought he succeeded, but didn't. But even then, he still had his "ace in the hole", so he was in control the whole time.



Quote:
There is no difference to tell. He looks scared in both scenarios. He is afraid to die in both, and that's why he screams when he falls in both situations.
And yet, even though he screams, he is found dead with a smile on his face, so..



Quote:
Actually that's not true. Someone posted a link from Burton in another thread dated 2007 before TDK's release, where Burton said his Batman movies got ragged on back in the day, and still do today. He seemed annoyed/upset by it, and told everyone to lay off him.

But what has that got to do with you being unable to show anyone else sharing this view about his attempt to smile?
Burton comes across to me as being humble about Batman's success. But you are right about the criticism, it was criticised for being too dark, for the movie being too much about Joker, it was too much style over substance, lack of suspense, etc..

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/batman-1989


Quote:
Originally Posted by shauner111 View Post
The whole point of the Ledger and Bale scene, is that Joker is no longer in control of the situation. He's panicked for the first time. See, he thought 1 ferry would blow up the other but nothing happened. The look on his face says it all when Batman rubs it in. Joker then panics and tries to blow em all up (we're not sure if he was going to blow up the remaining one anyhow, but in that moment he's fed up)...

Batman throws him off the roof and Joker is laughing because he thinks he is going to die. HE WANTS TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF BATMAN. This is literally the entire point of the scene. He is fearless with zero control of the situation, thinking he broke Batman. Batman catches him and in that instant, Joker stops laughing. He actually starts groaning as Batman pulls him up.

Literally the entire point of Joker/Ledgers final scene of the movie.
But he knew he still had the "ace in the hole", Harvey Dent. Even if his plan to corrupt Batman failed, he still had a back-up plan, meaning he was still in control the whole time.

Quote:
Also, i think we're just saying that we see Joker being younger when he meets the Batman. In 89' he's 50 years old when he becomes the Joker and dies the same age. He's meeting Batman for the first time as a middle-aged man. Especially back 25 years ago (not counting the 1940s clothes which makes it even more dated) where fifty was considered to be a lot older than todays standards. Nowadays you have the "50 is the new 40!" etc. Jack wasn't exactly in Downey shape for his age. He was getting pudgy and could easily pass for 50-odd.

Of course we're aware that he was older in certain comics. But most of the time that ive seen Joker, he was in his 20s, 30s, maybe 40.
Burton was mainly drawing from the early 1940's comics, though, where Joker looks to be middle-aged. Jack Nicholson was middle-aged when he made Batman '89 (you can debate all day how old he looks, but fact is he was only about 50). So it made perfect sense.

Quote:
Not at all. There's no way that's a smile from where im sitting. He's hanging on for dear life. He's just using it as his argument but that's only because Jack literally has a damn smile stuck on his face from the makeup.
I already made my case but I'll re-iterate:

*the difference between the Napier falling and Joker falling scene - facial expressions are clearly different (you can see this even with the makeup for Joker)

*Joker laughs at first when his leg gets tied to the gargoyle

*He has a look of shock after he he looks down and sees he is going to fall, after that he is simply trying to hang on to the ladder

*He tries to smile, you can see that in how he is moving his face, but the strain of the gargoyle is too much for him, it is literally impossible for him to laugh or smile at this point (same thing if Ledger was in the same position), simply due to physics

*He dies with a smile on his face.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AnneFan View Post
Indeed. The very thought Joker was smiling in that scene is ludicrous. He's terrified, vainly holding onto the ladder waiting for the inevitable to unfold. One just has to watch the scene. It's in stark contrast to the 'party man' we see earlier in the film. No music, balloons or fanfare. Just a terrified man falling into the darkness alone.
From the Batman 1989 script:

Joker struggles and the Gargoyle crumbles and Joker slips backward. Joker knows he's a dead man, and he smiles. He grabs for Batman's cowl and grips it as he falls. JOKER I saved the last dance for you. Both of them tumble down into the endless darkness.

http://sfy.ru/?script=batman_production

Bingo. There it is plain as day. Even though the ending isn't exactly the same as the script, the intention is proven.


Last edited by CountOrlok; 04-30-2014 at 02:27 AM.
CountOrlok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 05:15 AM   #712
AnneFan
Hathaway #1
 
AnneFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 15,304
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
From the Batman 1989 script:

Joker struggles and the Gargoyle crumbles and Joker slips backward. Joker knows he's a dead man, and he smiles. He grabs for Batman's cowl and grips it as he falls. JOKER I saved the last dance for you. Both of them tumble down into the endless darkness.

http://sfy.ru/?script=batman_production

Bingo. There it is plain as day. Even though the ending isn't exactly the same as the script, the intention is proven.
I can only judge what I see in the scene, the final cut. There, it's plain as day Joker isn't having a fun time at all.

__________________
I dreamed a dream and "it came true."
- Anne Hathaway, actress in a supporting role winner 2013 Oscars.

Rio 2 - Song One - Interstellar - The Intern - Alice 2
AnneFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 05:26 AM   #713
The Endless
WE are Groot
 
The Endless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 4,802
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Jack's Joker was great.

The great thing about the Joker is that he can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Romero's, Jack's, Hamill's and Ledger's were all valid interpretations.

Jack's/Burton's Joker still had the core essence of the Joker. In that he has a twisted sense of humour and shows society that the things they hold dear are a joke. Same as Ledger's.

You think poisoning Gothamites by sabotaging their beauty products was just coincidental? You think luring Gothamites to their deaths by throwing money at them was coincidental?

No. It was perfect for the 80s/90s. An era that was defined by materialistic, vain yuppies and the desperately poor.

Same way Ledger's Joker questioned peoples morals in desperate times. Perfect for the post 9/11 era of the 2000s.

Whether you enjoyed his performance or not is of course down to opinion. But don't try to say it wasn't a valid portrayal of the Joker. Because you'd be wrong.

Personally i thought the scene where he electrocutes the mob boss with his hand buzzer then carries on the conversation with the charred corpse was fantastically creepy and an iconic Joker moment from any medium.

__________________
People think dreams aren't real just because they aren't made of matter, of particles. Dreams are real. But they are made of viewpoints, of images, of memories and puns and lost hopes

Last edited by The Endless; 04-30-2014 at 05:30 AM.
The Endless is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 05:27 AM   #714
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnneFan View Post
I can only judge what I see in the scene, the final cut. There, it's plain as day Joker isn't having a fun time at all.
Well I already proved to you that the intention was there, in the fifth draft of the script no less, dated 6 Oct 1988 (hence one of the final drafts)..

You don't think that either Nicholson or Burton was fully aware of what was in the script?

Anyway, that's how you interpret the scene. I interpret it differently. And since you have nothing else to back up your view but your opinion, then my case holds more weight. I have shown actual evidence.

CountOrlok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 06:16 AM   #715
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 38,015
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by shauner111 View Post
Not at all. There's no way that's a smile from where im sitting. He's hanging on for dear life. He's just using it as his argument but that's only because Jack literally has a damn smile stuck on his face from the makeup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnneFan View Post
Indeed. The very thought Joker was smiling in that scene is ludicrous. He's terrified, vainly holding onto the ladder waiting for the inevitable to unfold. One just has to watch the scene. It's in stark contrast to the 'party man' we see earlier in the film. No music, balloons or fanfare. Just a terrified man falling into the darkness alone.
Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
Honestly, I wouldn't say any which way unless you can give me a quote by Alan Moore or something confirming it.
That's just you backed into a corner because you know you're wrong, so you're asking for absolutes about his age, which you know you won't get. A picture speaks a thousand words, and anyone with a functioning pair of eyes in their heads can see how young the artists drew Joker in that story and the others.

You just make strawman arguments based on hypothetical situations you know will never happen (DC giving Joker a definite age, if B'89 had as many reviews as TDK etc), that's why you use them. Like that stupid argument you made in that other thread comparing the reviews of B'89 and TDK saying you don't know how well B'89 would do if it had as many reviews as TDK. No you don't. But what you do know is based on the small handful of reviews it got, it only racked up a % in the 70's, whereas TDK has much bigger impressive number and held it's own even more with a % in the 90's.

Not to mention your claim that the TDK trilogy gets a lot of hate. Any hate it gets is a drop in the ocean. Whereas the hate for Burton's is well documented, and even caught Burton's attention.






Those are two excerpts from the book, Holy Franchise, Batman: http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Franchise.../dp/0709094132


They even address some of the complaints on the special features like Alfred taking Vicki to the Batcave, and Joker being the killer of Batman's parents. Even Sam Hamm agrees with them:

'Batman was criticized in some quarters for being "too dark". 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

Quote:
So why did Commissioner Gordon say "If we get our hands on him we'll get Grissom?", obviously he was more important than just a "glorified henchman".
Because he was his right hand man. He was a direct link to the top. That didn't make him personally the criminal mastermind. It's like how Lau the glorified accountant was the ticket to nailing the mob in TDK. He was a direct link to them.

Quote:
Elements of the character's roots include a photo of actor Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine (a man with a disfigured face, giving him a perpetual grin) in the 1928 film The Man Who Laughs, which was seen by Finger, and a joker playing card provided by Robinson. Finger said that he was also inspired by an image in Steeplechase Park at Coney Island, and Robinson cited his 1940 sketch as the source of the Joker's design.

Conrad Veidt wasn't the only inspiration for his look.
While there’s an ongoing debate over who actually created the character of Batman’s iconic nemesis The Joker (comic book artist Bob Kane, writer Bill Finger and artist Jerry Robinson have all variously claimed the idea) one aspect of his origin seems to be relatively free from dispute: that the creators drew their visual inspiration from German actor Conrad Veidt’s portrayal of the character Gwynplaine in the 1928 film The Man Who Laughs.

http://laughingsquid.com/the-origina...-conrad-veidt/

Quote:
That wasn't until The Killing Joke, which was published in March 1988. Batman was in production around the same time, at which point the script had already been written, the actors cast, etc.. Even if Burton had read the comic, he wouldn't have had enough time to incorporate many elements into the movie.
Burton would hold up The Killing Joke and say "This is what I want the movie to look like"

http://books.google.ie/books?id=PBDq...20like&f=false

Seems you're not very well versed on the movie you claim you're so obsessed over

Quote:
I already told you, Batman had already saved him once, why would not think Batman would do it again?
Batman never saved him once. That was Batman's first time saving his life. Second, even if Batman had saved his life once, the whole idea was Joker was trying to push him into being a killer. Meaning eventually he wanted to push him so far that he wouldn't save him and kill him. When Batman threw him off the building he thought he had finally achieved that.

That's a fact.

Quote:
Even if he didn't, he was trying to get Batman to break his one rule, he was in control the whole time. And even if he failed, he still had his "ace in the hole" - Harvey Dent.
He was not in control. If he was in control he wouldn't need an ace in the hole would he. If he was in control then the people of Gotham would have killed each other on the ferries, Batman would have killed him etc. But none of that happened. Dent was his back up plan in case that failed. Meaning he was not in control because he was not stupid enough to risk his whole plan on just that.

Quote:
He stopped laughing because he failed to get Batman to break his one rule, yet he still had an "ace in the hole" - Harvey Dent.
Finally the penny drops. He tried to get Batman to kill him. That's why he was laughing. Because Batman saved him when he thought he was going to let him die.

Harvey had nothing to do it with it. The laughter he did at the end of this scene was for Dent.

Quote:
Because his plan through the whole movie was to corrupt Batman, and for a moment he thought he succeeded, but didn't. But even then, he still had his "ace in the hole", so he was in control the whole time.
For the umpteenth time, Dent had nothing to do with this. This was about him trying to make Batman kill him. Plain and simple. That's why he was laughing.

That's a fact. Having Dent as an ace in the hole doesn't negate the fact he was trying to get Batman to kill him, that's why he was laughing. He thought he had succeeded.

Quote:
And yet, even though he screams, he is found dead with a smile on his face, so..
"If you gotta go, go with a smile". He cracked a smile before he cracked the pavement.

Quote:
Burton comes across to me as being humble about Batman's success. But you are right about the criticism, it was criticised for being too dark, for the movie being too much about Joker, it was too much style over substance, lack of suspense, etc..

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/batman-1989
He wasn't talking about critics specifically. He was talking people in general. Hence why he said not only was it going on back then, but it was still going on today. Fans still criticize his movies just like they did back in the day. It didn't start with TDK. That's just something you've made up to appease yourself that all this criticism is not justified when it is.

Quote:
From the Batman 1989 script:

Joker struggles and the Gargoyle crumbles and Joker slips backward. Joker knows he's a dead man, and he smiles. He grabs for Batman's cowl and grips it as he falls. JOKER I saved the last dance for you. Both of them tumble down into the endless darkness.

http://sfy.ru/?script=batman_production

Bingo. There it is plain as day. Even though the ending isn't exactly the same as the script, the intention is proven.
No it's not. There is lots of differences between that script there and the movie we got, including this. Clearly that was one of the changes that went with the script. He did not smile. Nobody except you is seeing it as a smile.

All this proves is it was changed from the script.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnneFan View Post
I can only judge what I see in the scene, the final cut. There, it's plain as day Joker isn't having a fun time at all.
Exactly. It was one of numerous changes from that outdated script he posted.

__________________
"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; 04-30-2014 at 07:00 AM.
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 07:17 AM   #716
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
You just make strawman arguments based on hypothetical situations you know will never happen (DC giving Joker a definite age, if B'89 had as many reviews as TDK etc), that's why you use them. Like that stupid argument you made in that other thread comparing the reviews of B'89 and TDK saying you don't know how well B'89 would do if it had as many reviews as TDK. No you don't. But what you do know is based on the small handful of reviews it got, it only racked up a % in the 70's, whereas TDK has much bigger impressive number and held it's own even more with a % in the 90's.
I won't deny the critical consensus. However, you have to look at it in the context of history. Batman '89 was the first of its kind, a real trailblazer that had no 'cheat sheet'. In 2008, comic book movies were commonplace (largely thanks to Batman '89). Christopher Nolan was clever to tap into the current zeitgeist and make the Batman movie most people wanted to see (IE: free from camp ala the Schumacher films, made with a seemingly greater fidelity to the source material). Then everyone jumps on the hype bandwagon and suddenly you get this retrospective like none of the previous films matter.

I like the Christopher Nolan films, and think they have their place. But there is no way I'm going to believe the critical consensus of the time, 100% of the time.

Quote:
Not to mention your claim that the TDK trilogy gets a lot of hate. Any hate it gets is a drop in the ocean. Whereas the hate for Burton's is well documented, and even caught Burton's attention.
Haven't you witnessed the backlash against the Nolan films even happening in these forums?

Quote:






Those are two excerpts from the book, Holy Franchise, Batman: http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Franchise.../dp/0709094132


They even address some of the complaints on the special features like Alfred taking Vicki to the Batcave, and Joker being the killer of Batman's parents. Even Sam Hamm agrees with them:

'Batman was criticized in some quarters for being "too dark". 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 never denied that it received criticism in many quarters. Perhaps that's why I feel the Burton films are underrated.

Quote:
Because he was his right hand man. He was a direct link to the top. That didn't make him personally the criminal mastermind. It's like how Lau the glorified accountant was the ticket to nailing the mob in TDK. He was a direct link to them.
Lau was a corrupt businessman. Napier was a gangster. Napier came up with the plan to sabotage Axis Chemicals, and had ambitions to take over the mob. A little more than just a "glorified henchman".



Quote:
While there’s an ongoing debate over who actually created the character of Batman’s iconic nemesis The Joker (comic book artist Bob Kane, writer Bill Finger and artist Jerry Robinson have all variously claimed the idea) one aspect of his origin seems to be relatively free from dispute: that the creators drew their visual inspiration from German actor Conrad Veidt’s portrayal of the character Gwynplaine in the 1928 film The Man Who Laughs.

http://laughingsquid.com/the-origina...-conrad-veidt/
Ok. I got my info on wikipedia, so you check their sources.


Quote:
Burton would hold up The Killing Joke and say "This is what I want the movie to look like"

http://books.google.ie/books?id=PBDq...20like&f=false

Seems you're not very well versed on the movie you claim you're so obsessed over
Again:

The Killing Joke - published March 1988
Batman - commenced pre-production April 1988
-filming took place Oct 1988 to Jan 1989

The Killing Joke inspiration was used for the scene where Napier sees his disfigured face for the first time.. and maybe other scenes as well, I can't remember.

But it was too close to production to make other changes. The script had already been locked in, Nicholson locked in (he was approached as early as 1986 during filming of Witches of Eastwick). Besides, Killing Joke wasn't the only influence, and Batman '89 wasn't an adaptation of Killing Joke.

So I don't get exactly what point you are trying to make.

Quote:
Batman never saved him once. That was Batman's first time saving his life. Second, even if Batman had saved his life once, the whole idea was Joker was trying to push him into being a killer. Meaning eventually he wanted to push him so far that he wouldn't save him and kill him. When Batman threw him off the building he thought he had finally achieved that.

That's a fact.
Yes, for a few seconds maybe. But so?



Quote:
He was not in control. If he was in control he wouldn't need an ace in the hole would he. If he was in control then the people of Gotham would have killed each other on the ferries, Batman would have killed him etc. But none of that happened. Dent was his back up plan in case that failed. Meaning he was not in control because he was not stupid enough to risk his whole plan on just that.
I'm sorry but this argument is bizarre to me. So his main plan failed, which he had already anticipated hence his back up plan. Just like his first attempt to get Batman to kill him, except his back up was to get captured, divert the cops and escape whilst his inside guys captured Dent and Rachel. He was in control THE ENTIRE TIME, through his deliberate planning, if one plan fails then he just falls back on another one.


Quote:
"If you gotta go, go with a smile". He cracked a smile before he cracked the pavement.
Not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here.

So he was trembling with fear but managed to smile anyway on his way to his death. Sorry, but that just does not make any sense whatsoever.



Quote:
He wasn't talking about critics specifically. He was talking people in general. Hence why he said not only was it going on back then, but it was still going on today. Fans still criticize his movies just like they did back in the day. It didn't start with TDK. That's just something you've made up to appease yourself that all this criticism is not justified when it is.
Let me get this straight. Batman was one of the biggest films of all time back in 1989. Yes, some critics didn't like it, but that doesn't negate the fact. So obviously, people liked the movie.

I never said the criticism started with TDK. I'm saying, it got a lot more criticism because of all the hype surrounding TDK.



Quote:
No it's not. There is lots of differences between that script there and the movie we got, including this. Clearly that was one of the changes that went with the script. He did not smile. Nobody except you is seeing it as a smile.

All this proves is it was changed from the script.
How do you know? That part reads exactly like the movie. It's there in black and white. And just because a few people disagree in this thread, doesn't prove me wrong.

[
Quote:
It was one of numerous changes from that outdated script he posted.
Um, that was the shooting script, dated Oct 1988 (the same month Batman commenced shooting). The main changes were that Joker doesn't pull Batman with him off the church like he does in the script, there are no bats (that was used in Batman Returns with Penguin's death) and he isn't tied to the gargoyle.. but much of the other stuff is just like in the finished film. In fact, the changes here are extremely minute:

EXT. BELLTOWER PARAPET - THAT MOMENT Helicopter HOVERS at the side of the belltower. Joker steps up onto the wall between two GARGOYLES and puts his foot onto one of the rungs of the ladder. He looks up as he hears UNEARTHLY SCREAMING FROM BELFRY. EXT. BELLTOWER PARAPET - THAT MOMENT Suddenly the AIR IS FULL OF BATS, diving and flapping all over the place. The NOISE from Batman's belt CLIMBS IN PITCH. As it does so the bats fly faster. They swarm above Joker in an ever thickening black cloud. EXT. BELLTOWER PARAPET - MOMENTS LATER The swarm of bats sweeps out and engulfs him. He SCREAMS, tries to beat them off. ON BATS Suddenly Batman steps through the cloud. He grabs Joker. Pulling him off the ladder. Batman lifts him bodily up off the ground by front of his coat. He pushes him back against a Gargoyle. Joker struggles and the Gargoyle crumbles and Joker slips backward. Joker knows he's a dead man, and he smiles. He grabs for Batman's cowl and grips it as he falls. JOKER I saved the last dance for you. Both of them tumble down into the endless darkness. EXT. CATHEDRAL TOWER - NIGHT Two bodies fall in pas de deux. Joker SCREAMS. SOUND OF WIND RUSHING BY.

CountOrlok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 07:54 AM   #717
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 38,015
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
I won't deny the critical consensus. However, you have to look at it in the context of history. Batman '89 was the first of its kind, a real trailblazer that had no 'cheat sheet'. In 2008, comic book movies were commonplace (largely thanks to Batman '89). Christopher Nolan was clever to tap into the current zeitgeist and make the Batman movie most people wanted to see (IE: free from camp ala the Schumacher films, made with a seemingly greater fidelity to the source material). Then everyone jumps on the hype bandwagon and suddenly you get this retrospective like none of the previous films matter.
First of all comic book movies are not common place thanks to Batman '89. Comic book movies have been frequent since Superman '78. The only problem is the majority of them are crap (including two of three Superman sequels). It's only when Blade and X-Men happened did the genre really pick up quality wise.

The success of Nolan's Batman movies have no bearing on the reception Batman got back in it's day, and still has today. You're acting like the consensus is it's one of the worst comic book movies of all time or something. It's not. It's just criticized for being very flawed, or too Burton like in the case of Batman Returns etc.

Nobody denies their place in history.

Quote:
I like the Christopher Nolan films, and think they have their place.
You could have fooled me. You seem to be on a one person quest to put them down every chance you get.

Quote:
But there is no way I'm going to believe the critical consensus of the time, 100% of the time.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The critical consensus has not changed. The movie is still as revered as it was when it was released. It's holding it's stance as the best CBM. It's still praised by both comic book fan and non comic book fan communities.

It even gets praise and recognition from the likes of Steven Spielberg.

Quote:
Haven't you witnessed the backlash against the Nolan films even happening in these forums?
No. Not at all. A small handful of people being critical about them on a message board is not a backlash. Far from it. A backlash implies a significant number of people, as in thousands or more, not a handful of posters on a message board lol.

If a backlash against Nolan's movies starts making it into books, on movie special features, having people associated with the movies noticing it and speaking about them etc then you can say there's a backlash against them. Until then you're talking about a few disgruntled fanboys on the net. An extreme minority.

Quote:
I never denied that it received criticism in many quarters. Perhaps that's why I feel the Burton films are underrated.
That's fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with all the criticisms they get personally, but they do get them, and got their fair share when they were released. In the days of no internet, and the people associated with the movies heard about them. Shows how significant they were.

That was my point. You were claiming the TDK trilogy gets just as much flak when it doesn't even get a quarter as much.

Quote:
Lau was a corrupt businessman. Napier was a gangster. Napier came up with the plan to sabotage Axis Chemicals, and had ambitions to take over the mob. A little more than just a "glorified henchman".
You're missing the point. Just because Napier had delusions of grandeur about his importance to Grissom, doesn't change what he was. He was just a second in command to Grissom, someone who was obviously indispensable to Grissom. Even Eckhart knew Grissom was never going to let Jack run the show because he was "an A1 nut boy".

The point is Napier, like Lau was just a means to an end to get the top bad guy. The real criminal mastermind.

Quote:
Ok. I got my info on wikipedia, so you check their sources.
I did. Here's what they said:

The Joker was originally conceived during the Golden Age of comics as an evil court jester. He made his first appearance in Batman #1 (1940). The original Joker resembled actor Conrad Veidt as he looked in the silent film "The Man Who Laughs."

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.c...ooks/joker.htm

Their second source was a broken link: http://www.monsterzine.com/200010/manwholaughs.html

Quote:
Again:

The Killing Joke - published March 1988
Batman - commenced pre-production April 1988
-filming took place Oct 1988 to Jan 1989

The Killing Joke inspiration was used for the scene where Napier sees his disfigured face for the first time.. and maybe other scenes as well, I can't remember.

But it was too close to production to make other changes. The script had already been locked in, Nicholson locked in (he was approached as early as 1986 during filming of Witches of Eastwick). Besides, Killing Joke wasn't the only influence, and Batman '89 wasn't an adaptation of Killing Joke.

So I don't get exactly what point you are trying to make.
Two things:

1. Brad Dourif was Burton's original choice for the Joker: http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-b...batman-2013-10

Dourif was in his late 30's when Batman was made. It was the studio that wanted Nicholson.

2. The success of The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke is what rekindled Warner Bros.' interest in a film adaptation of Batman in the first place: http://www.bidrevolution.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=6006

Quote:
Yes, for a few seconds maybe. But so?
What do you mean but so? You have broken a sweat trying to argue that Joker was only laughing because he knew Batman would save him. Then you do a complete 180 and say he was trying to get Batman to kill him. Then you turn around again and say he was in control just because he had Dent as an ace in the hole, as if that makes any difference to the fact he was trying to get Batman to kill him.

Do you even know what point you're trying to make any more because you've changed direction three times now.

Quote:
I'm sorry but this argument is bizarre to me. So his main plan failed, which he had already anticipated hence his back up plan. Just like his first attempt to get Batman to kill him, except his back up was to get captured, divert the cops and escape whilst his inside guys captured Dent and Rachel. He was in control THE ENTIRE TIME, through his deliberate planning, if one plan fails then he just falls back on another one.
No, he didn't ANTICIPATE it would fail, it was a back up plan in case it did. He was covering his ass in case. He was not foolish enough to rest all his chances on a fist fight with Batman as he put it.

That's not a man in control of the situation like you keep claiming. If you're in control then you can make things go your way. The moment the ferries didn't blow each other up you saw the first look of defeat and anger on Joker's face. Followed by Batman not killing him when he threw him off the building, Joker had to finally admit Batman was incorruptible.

Two failures in a row. His last throw of the dice was his ace in the hole; what he did to Dent. Do you get it now, because it can't be any simpler or clearer.

Quote:
Not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here.

So he was trembling with fear but managed to smile anyway on his way to his death. Sorry, but that just does not make any sense whatsoever.
Of course it makes sense. He knows he's a dead man but he wants to make sure he dies with a smile. That was his credo; "If you gotta go, go with a smile".

People can smile even in a fearful state.

Quote:
Let me get this straight. Batman was one of the biggest films of all time back in 1989. Yes, some critics didn't like it, but that doesn't negate the fact. So obviously, people liked the movie.
Nobody said people didn't like the movie. They're saying the movie got a lot of criticism from people for various reasons. So much so it's documented in book, on special features for the movie, Burton and Hamm have spoken about it, and in Batman Returns' case it got such a backlash that we ended up with campy Batman movies.

Quote:
I never said the criticism started with TDK. I'm saying, it got a lot more criticism because of all the hype surrounding TDK.
Where's the proof of this? We have a link pre TDK of Burton speaking about the all the criticisms his Batman movies got back then and still do today. Show me some proof that there's been an increase since TDK.

Did the ratings of the movie suddenly drop? Was there some kind of decrease in DVD sales of the movie? Did the critic score drop even lower on RT?

Give me something concrete here beyond some hearsay.

Quote:
How do you know? That part reads exactly like the movie. It's there in black and white. And just because a few people disagree in this thread, doesn't prove me wrong.
INT. BELFRY - NIGHT

Joker creeps around alone. Not sure if Batman fell. He
hides, flattened up against an archway inside the belfry.

SOUND OF CHOPPER in distance. Joker hears it.

JOKER
(into his radio)
Step on it. I'll be on the roof.

SUDDENLY, Batman appears behind Joker's shoulder. He
jerks an arm around Joker's neck, pinning him against
archway.

BATMAN
Have you danced with the devil in
the pale moonlight?

Joker jumps off the ground. He tries to get away.
Batman wraps his other arm around and, "click," hand-
cuffs himself to the Joker.

BATMAN
Well, now's your big chance.

Joker struggles. He twists and turns the handcuffs but
can't shift them. He can hardly move.

JOKER
(pulling a Joker
flower from his coat)
That was dumb. Now I'm going to
have to operate.

Joker SQUIRTS acid on the handcuffs.


EXT. BELLTOWER PARAPET - THAT MOMENT

Helicopter HOVERS at the side of the belltower. Joker
steps up onto the wall between two GARGOYLES and puts
his foot onto one of the rungs of the ladder. He looks
up as he hears UNEARTHLY SCREAMING FROM BELFRY.

EXT. BELLTOWER PARAPET - THAT MOMENT

Suddenly the AIR IS FULL OF BATS, diving and flapping
all over the place. The NOISE from Batman's belt CLIMBS
IN PITCH. As it does so the bats fly faster. They swarm
above Joker in an ever thickening black cloud.

EXT. BELLTOWER PARAPET - MOMENTS LATER

The swarm of bats sweeps out and engulfs him. He SCREAMS,
tries to beat them off.

ON BATS

Suddenly Batman steps through the cloud.

He grabs Joker. Pulling him off the ladder. Batman
lifts him bodily up off the ground by front of his coat.
He pushes him back against a Gargoyle.

Joker struggles and the Gargoyle crumbles and Joker
slips backward. Joker knows he's a dead man, and he
smiles. He grabs for Batman's cowl and grips it as he
falls.

JOKER
I saved the last dance for you.
Both of them tumble down into the endless darkness.


Oh yeah, the script reads just like the movie We all remember bats attacking Joker, Joker in handcuffs, Joker saying I saved the last dance for you as he fell with the Gargoyle etc.

Count, talk sense, mate. The whole scene was clearly rewritten.

Quote:
Um, that was the shooting script, dated Oct 1988 (the same month Batman commenced shooting).
The script of Batman '89 went through changes both pre and during production. Two of the most infamous and unpopular ones were a result of the during production changes; Vicki in the Batcave and Joker killing Batman's parents.

__________________
"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 04-30-2014, 09:32 AM   #718
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
First of all comic book movies are not common place thanks to Batman '89. Comic book movies have been frequent since Superman '78. The only problem is the majority of them are crap (including two of three Superman sequels). It's only when Blade and X-Men happened did the genre really pick up quality wise.

The success of Nolan's Batman movies have no bearing on the reception Batman got back in it's day, and still has today. You're acting like the consensus is it's one of the worst comic book movies of all time or something. It's not. It's just criticized for being very flawed, or too Burton like in the case of Batman Returns etc.

Nobody denies their place in history.
Nope, I already said that it was one of the biggest box office hits of all time (in 1989).

As for comic book movies being common place before Batman '89, this is not entirely true, besides most of these were of the camp variety:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uperhero_films

Aside from the Superman sequels, you had.. what?.. Condor Man, Swamp Thing, The Toxic Avenger and Howard the Duck??

After Batman you had TMNT, Darkman, Captain America, The Guyver, The Rocketeer, The Shadow, The Fantastic Four, The Crow, Dick Tracy, The Mask, Judge Dredd, Tank Girl, Barb Wire, The Phantom, Spawn, Steel..... before Blade in 1998.

Quote:
You could have fooled me. You seem to be on a one person quest to put them down every chance you get.
Nope, even though I agree there are flaws like all movies.



Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The critical consensus has not changed. The movie is still as revered as it was when it was released. It's holding it's stance as the best CBM. It's still praised by both comic book fan and non comic book fan communities.

It even gets praise and recognition from the likes of Steven Spielberg.
Yeah but some movies that are now considered classics were panned when they came out, or made poor box office. Blade Runner and The Thing, for example. Some movies which were considered great for their time don't hold up well today.


Quote:
No. Not at all. A small handful of people being critical about them on a message board is not a backlash. Far from it. A backlash implies a significant number of people, as in thousands or more, not a handful of posters on a message board lol.
Not just this message board, but elsewhere. I remember the hype when this came out, but since then I have noticed a backlash from many many people, pointing out it's flaws and that it was 'overrated'.

Quote:
If a backlash against Nolan's movies starts making it into books, on movie special features, having people associated with the movies noticing it and speaking about them etc then you can say there's a backlash against them. Until then you're talking about a few disgruntled fanboys on the net. An extreme minority.
The internet is the now and the future. It's more important how general audience perceive things to me 20 years from now than a bunch of elite critics. Will TDK get an audience backlash when Batman VS Superman comes out just like what happened with Batman '89? Time will tell.



Quote:
That's fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with all the criticisms they get personally, but they do get them, and got their fair share when they were released. In the days of no internet, and the people associated with the movies heard about them. Shows how significant they were.

That was my point. You were claiming the TDK trilogy gets just as much flak when it doesn't even get a quarter as much.
Give it another 20 years or so.



Quote:
You're missing the point. Just because Napier had delusions of grandeur about his importance to Grissom, doesn't change what he was. He was just a second in command to Grissom, someone who was obviously indispensable to Grissom. Even Eckhart knew Grissom was never going to let Jack run the show because he was "an A1 nut boy".

The point is Napier, like Lau was just a means to an end to get the top bad guy. The real criminal mastermind.
No, Grissom wanted him whacked 'cause he was screwing his missus. But he was too afraid to do it himself which is why he had him setup. Napier was obviously a big player in the criminal underworld of Gotham.



Quote:
I did. Here's what they said:

The Joker was originally conceived during the Golden Age of comics as an evil court jester. He made his first appearance in Batman #1 (1940). The original Joker resembled actor Conrad Veidt as he looked in the silent film "The Man Who Laughs."

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.c...ooks/joker.htm

Their second source was a broken link: http://www.monsterzine.com/200010/manwholaughs.html
They're archived links:

http://archive.today/qMAWC
http://archive.today/53Qwn
http://archive.today/VsY8I
http://web.archive.org/web/201402231...ticle&id=17182

Everything is referenced/proof read in wikipedia articles.


Quote:
Two things:

1. Brad Dourif was Burton's original choice for the Joker: http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-b...batman-2013-10

Dourif was in his late 30's when Batman was made. It was the studio that wanted Nicholson.

2. The success of The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke is what rekindled Warner Bros.' interest in a film adaptation of Batman in the first place: http://www.bidrevolution.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=6006
Well how? I don't understand. Wikipedia says The Killing Joke was published March 1988. Batman went into pre-production April 1988.

Oh, and Studios > Burton in many creative decisions on Batman '89, which is why he wouldn't have returned for the sequel unless they gave him more creative control.
Quote:
What do you mean but so? You have broken a sweat trying to argue that Joker was only laughing because he knew Batman would save him. Then you do a complete 180 and say he was trying to get Batman to kill him. Then you turn around again and say he was in control just because he had Dent as an ace in the hole, as if that makes any difference to the fact he was trying to get Batman to kill him.

Do you even know what point you're trying to make any more because you've changed direction three times now.
I don't recall saying exactly that. My actual quote was: (And btw, Heath Ledger knew Batman was going to save him, Nicholson didn't, so Heath Ledger wasn't being fearless)

Then I said:

That doesn't mean he was fearless. He was trying to win a psychological game against Batman. Crazy, but not fearless. Nicholson was not trying to prove that Batman would kill him. He had already tried to kill him twice before, yet Ledger had been saved by Batman once before, therefore it was more likely that Ledger expected Batman to save him again.

Then:

Heath Ledger was fearless because he was in control of the situation. Both when Harvey had the gun on him, when Batman almost ran him down and when Batman threw him off the building.

Ok, you got me on the "fearless" thing. The reason being that he was trying to get Batman to break his one rule. However, you can't rule out that in the back of his mind, he had a pretty good idea that Batman would not allow him to die, otherwise there would be no point to his "ace in the hole" back up plan. I think that was the point I was trying to make.
Quote:
No, he didn't ANTICIPATE it would fail, it was a back up plan in case it did. He was covering his ass in case. He was not foolish enough to rest all his chances on a fist fight with Batman as he put it.
Well if he was 100% certain then he wouldn't even bother with a backup plan, would he?

Quote:
That's not a man in control of the situation like you keep claiming. If you're in control then you can make things go your way. The moment the ferries didn't blow each other up you saw the first look of defeat and anger on Joker's face. Followed by Batman not killing him when he threw him off the building, Joker had to finally admit Batman was incorruptible.

Two failures in a row. His last throw of the dice was his ace in the hole; what he did to Dent. Do you get it now, because it can't be any simpler or clearer.
And yet his "ace in the hole" was Joker's final victory, even though he was hanging upside down and about to be arrested by SWAT, he was laughing his ass off. Why? Because Joker had WON (at least in his mind).

The difference is, Jack Nicholson LOST. He had no "ace in the hole". He was screwed. Batman won, not Joker.

Of course Ledger Joker was pissed that his plans failed, but in the end, he is laughing.. he got the last laugh, he won, he gained control.



Quote:
Of course it makes sense. He knows he's a dead man but he wants to make sure he dies with a smile. That was his credo; "If you gotta go, go with a smile".

People can smile even in a fearful state.
I don't even know how to respond to that. Absolute fear pretty much takes over a person's mind and reduces them to a quivering wreck, with no control whatsoever.



Quote:
Where's the proof of this? We have a link pre TDK of Burton speaking about the all the criticisms his Batman movies got back then and still do today. Show me some proof that there's been an increase since TDK.

Did the ratings of the movie suddenly drop? Was there some kind of decrease in DVD sales of the movie? Did the critic score drop even lower on RT?

Give me something concrete here beyond some hearsay.
No, I meant on message boards I've been on, and movie fan sites.



Quote:
INT. BELFRY - NIGHT

Joker creeps around alone. Not sure if Batman fell. He
hides, flattened up against an archway inside the belfry.

SOUND OF CHOPPER in distance. Joker hears it.

JOKER
(into his radio)
Step on it. I'll be on the roof.

SUDDENLY, Batman appears behind Joker's shoulder. He
jerks an arm around Joker's neck, pinning him against
archway.

BATMAN
Have you danced with the devil in
the pale moonlight?

Joker jumps off the ground. He tries to get away.
Batman wraps his other arm around and, "click," hand-
cuffs himself to the Joker.

BATMAN
Well, now's your big chance.

Joker struggles. He twists and turns the handcuffs but
can't shift them. He can hardly move.

JOKER
(pulling a Joker
flower from his coat)
That was dumb. Now I'm going to
have to operate.

Joker SQUIRTS acid on the handcuffs.
Quote:

EXT. BELLTOWER PARAPET - THAT MOMENT

Helicopter HOVERS at the side of the belltower. Joker
steps up onto the wall between two GARGOYLES and puts
his foot onto one of the rungs of the ladder. He looks
up as he hears UNEARTHLY SCREAMING FROM BELFRY.

EXT. BELLTOWER PARAPET - THAT MOMENT

Suddenly the AIR IS FULL OF BATS, diving and flapping
all over the place. The NOISE from Batman's belt CLIMBS
IN PITCH. As it does so the bats fly faster. They swarm
above Joker in an ever thickening black cloud.

EXT. BELLTOWER PARAPET - MOMENTS LATER

The swarm of bats sweeps out and engulfs him. He SCREAMS,
tries to beat them off.

ON BATS

Suddenly Batman steps through the cloud.

He grabs Joker. Pulling him off the ladder. Batman
lifts him bodily up off the ground by front of his coat.
He pushes him back against a Gargoyle.

Joker struggles and the Gargoyle crumbles and Joker
slips backward. Joker knows he's a dead man, and he
smiles. He grabs for Batman's cowl and grips it as he
falls.

JOKER
I saved the last dance for you.
Both of them tumble down into the endless darkness.


Oh yeah, the script reads just like the movie We all remember bats attacking Joker, Joker in handcuffs, Joker saying I saved the last dance for you as he fell with the Gargoyle etc.

Count, talk sense, mate. The whole scene was clearly rewritten.



The script of Batman '89 went through changes both pre and during production. Two of the most infamous and unpopular ones were a result of the during production changes; Vicki in the Batcave and Joker killing Batman's parents.
There are changes in every movie script during production. I am talking about what is in the movie that matches with what is in the script. The smile is there, I see it, and it's in the script. I even posted an image and the video for you:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xF0ekZztOA

Then I even pointed out where it says so in the shooting script.

I've watched that scene hundreds of times, I know what I'm talking about.

I don't know how much more blunt I can be.


Last edited by CountOrlok; 04-30-2014 at 09:42 AM.
CountOrlok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 10:16 AM   #719
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 38,015
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
Nope, I already said that it was one of the biggest box office hits of all time (in 1989).
Michael Bay's Transformers movies are some of the biggest box office hits of all time, too. That wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about general reaction to the movie. You're acting like it's seen as some low grade bad movie.

Quote:
As for comic book movies being common place before Batman '89, this is not entirely true, besides most of these were of the camp variety:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uperhero_films
It doesn't matter whether they were of the camp variety or not, they were still comic book movies.

Quote:
Aside from the Superman sequels, you had.. what?.. Condor Man, Swamp Thing, The Toxic Avenger and Howard the Duck??
Red Sonja, Howard the Duck, the three Superman sequels, Supergirl, Swamp Thing, Condor Man, The Return of Swamp Thing, The Toxic Avenger parts 1-3 etc.

That's over 12 superhero movies in the space of 10 years. That's just a mere four more movies than this:

Quote:
After Batman you had TMNT, Darkman, Captain America, The Guyver, The Rocketeer, The Shadow, The Fantastic Four, The Crow, Dick Tracy, The Mask, Judge Dredd, Tank Girl, Barb Wire, The Phantom, Spawn, Steel..... before Blade in 1998.
Hardly a bigger implosion of more comic book movies is it.

Quote:
Nope, even though I agree there are flaws like all movies.
Alright then show me a couple of posts you've made praising anything about the Nolan movies. You only have 300 odd posts.Shouldn't be hard to find.

Quote:
Yeah but some movies that are now considered classics were panned when they came out, or made poor box office. Blade Runner and The Thing, for example. Some movies which were considered great for their time don't hold up well today.
That's two different arguments you're making. You're listing two movies that gained classic status. Then you're saying movies that were once considered great don't hold up, which means they were not all that great to begin with if they can't stand the test of time.

Are you saying Batman '89 doesn't hold up?

Quote:
Not just this message board, but elsewhere. I remember the hype when this came out, but since then I have noticed a backlash from many many people, pointing out it's flaws and that it was 'overrated'.
That's just hearsay. I don't believe you've seen any significant numbers that constitute a backlash. If there was we'd have heard about it by now. I think you're just over exaggerating a loud minority you've seen.

Quote:
The internet is the now and the future. It's more important how general audience perceive things to me 20 years from now than a bunch of elite critics. Will TDK get an audience backlash when Batman VS Superman comes out just like what happened with Batman '89? Time will tell.
I'm not talking about a bunch of elite critics, I'm talking about general negative reaction, like those listed in the ones I showed you for Burton's movies. They were not critics specific, and more importantly they were reactions that happened to the movies when they were released. They have just lasted the distance. They didn't fade away over the years.

The TDK trilogy doesn't have that kind of reception. Not when they were released and certainly not now.

Quote:
Give it another 20 years or so.
Sure. See you in 20 years then.

Quote:
No, Grissom wanted him whacked 'cause he was screwing his missus. But he was too afraid to do it himself which is why he had him setup. Napier was obviously a big player in the criminal underworld of Gotham.
That's my whole point. If Grissom needed Jack, if he was a vital part of Grissom's empire, he wouldn't have had him killed off, no matter what he did. But he did because he wasn't as important as Jack liked to believe he was to Grissom.

The only reason Napier was notable was because he was a direct link to Grissom. It was Grissom they wanted. Napier was just the means to get him. Like Lau in TDK was the means to get the mob.

Quote:
They're archived links:

http://archive.today/qMAWC
http://archive.today/53Qwn
http://archive.today/VsY8I
http://web.archive.org/web/201402231...ticle&id=17182

Everything is referenced/proof read in wikipedia articles.
Oh you mean the ones that just repeat what I just showed you?

Finger, who he admitted helped him with the initial idea, had shown him a photo of actor Conrad Veidt in The Man Who Laughs.

Bill Finger and I created the Joker. Bill was the writer. Jerry Robinson came to me with a playing card of the Joker. […] But he looks like Conrad Veidt " you know, the actor in "The Man Who Laughs", by Victor Hugo. There's a photo of Conrad Veidt in my biography, "Batman & Me." So Bill Finger had a book with a photograph of Conrad Veidt and showed it to me and said, "Here's the Joker." Jerry Robinson had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This one doesn't even mention where they got inspiration from, just who claims they created Joker: http://archive.today/VsY8I

Nor does this one: http://archive.today/53Qwn#selection-937.0-937.804 It also just covers the argument of who claimed they created the Joker.

Quote:
Well how? I don't understand. Wikipedia says The Killing Joke was published March 1988. Batman went into pre-production April 1988.
Wikipedia is a website that can be edited by anyone. I can go in there now and change it to say they started filming last year if I wanted to.

Quote:
Oh, and Studios > Burton in many creative decisions on Batman '89, which is why he wouldn't have returned for the sequel unless they gave him more creative control.
I know that. You're missing the point again. Burton is the one who read TKJ. He's the one who wanted to cast Dourif, a much younger actor, as the Joker. But the studio overrode him. Meaning he was well aware Joker was a younger man. He wanted to cast a younger man.

Quote:
I don't recall saying exactly that. My actual quote was: (And btw, Heath Ledger knew Batman was going to save him, Nicholson didn't, so Heath Ledger wasn't being fearless)
Right, that was your initial argument which is nonsense. Joker did n ot know Batman would save him. If he did what the heck would be the point in even trying to make him kill him in the first place if he knew ahead of time he wouldn't?

Quote:
Then I said:

That doesn't mean he was fearless. He was trying to win a psychological game against Batman. Crazy, but not fearless. Nicholson was not trying to prove that Batman would kill him. He had already tried to kill him twice before, yet Ledger had been saved by Batman once before, therefore it was more likely that Ledger expected Batman to save him again.

Then:

Heath Ledger was fearless because he was in control of the situation. Both when Harvey had the gun on him, when Batman almost ran him down and when Batman threw him off the building.
Exactly. Two contradictions. First you say he was fearless, then you say he wasn't.

You're flip flopping all over the place on this argument that I think you've lost sight of what ever point you were trying to make.

Quote:
Ok, you got me on the "fearless" thing. The reason being that he was trying to get Batman to break his one rule. However, you can't rule out that in the back of his mind, he had a pretty good idea that Batman would not allow him to die, otherwise there would be no point to his "ace in the hole" back up plan. I think that was the point I was trying to make.
All good criminals have a back up plan just in case. You can never be 100% certain about anything, even if you think the odds of something happening are darn good.

Joker was not about to put all his chances on one thing. Because he had a back up plan just in case is not an indicator that he had a really good idea his plan would fail, and he would never break Batman.

He was just accounting for all possibilities. It's one reason why he was such a great villain.

Quote:
Well if he was 100% certain then he wouldn't even bother with a backup plan, would he?
Of course he would. Again you miss the point the movie actually spells out to you. He was not going to risk everything in a fist fight with Batman. In the remote chance he would fail, and you can tell by the surprise and then anger he had when he realized the ferries were not going to blow each other up that he had been certain they would, he would have a back up plan just in case.

Quote:
And yet his "ace in the hole" was Joker's final victory, even though he was hanging upside down and about to be arrested by SWAT, he was laughing his ass off. Why? Because Joker had WON (at least in his mind).
I know that. That was a totally separate thing to him laughing because he thought he finally broke Batman. That's the point. You were claiming he was laughing because he knew Batman would save him. That he was in control of the whole situation, when in fact he had just racked up two failures in this scene. Failing to make the ferries kill each other, and failing to make Batman kill him.

Quote:
The difference is, Jack Nicholson LOST. He had no "ace in the hole". He was screwed. Batman won, not Joker.
That's not the difference. The difference is Nicholson's Joker was afraid to die. It was not about winning or losing. He had already lost twice already before this. His smilex scheme was foiled. His plan to gas the city at the parade was foiled. Batman blew up his poison operation at Axis. He had failed at everything he attempted. Batman had won.

That was the crux of the whole fearless discussion. Ledger's Joker didn't show he was afraid of anything. Nicholson did.

Quote:
Of course Ledger Joker was pissed that his plans failed, but in the end, he is laughing.. he got the last laugh, he won, he gained control.
That's the only part of this whole analysis you've got right. He was laughing over his victory over Dent.

Quote:
I don't even know how to respond to that. Absolute fear pretty much takes over a person's mind and reduces them to a quivering wreck, with no control whatsoever.
You must be joking. People smile out of fear and terror all the time. Especially if they're trying to hide the fact they are afraid.

Quote:
No, I meant on message boards I've been on, and movie fan sites.
Yeah so you've said. You're over exaggerating a small minority.

Quote:
There are changes in every movie script during production.
Yes, and in the case of this movie, especially the scene in particular we're discussing, it's very different to the one you've posted in that script. Including this smile you keep claiming you see.

Quote:
I am talking about what is in the movie that matches with what is in the script. The smile is there, I see it, and it's in the script. I even posted an image and the video for you:

And nobody except you sees this as a smile. It looks like a strained look on his face from trying to hang on. I even asked you to show me some examples of other people who made this observation and not surprisingly you couldn't show any.

You're seeing something that isn't there.

Quote:
Then I even pointed out where it says so in the shooting script.

I don't know how much more blunt I can be.
An out dated script with a ton of changes to the actual movie we got, including this smile you keep saying you see. It's not there. It went out with the handcuffs, the dialogue when Joker falls, and a million other things changed from that scene and the movie in general.

__________________
"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; 05-01-2014 at 12:39 AM.
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 12:41 AM   #720
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

I see this thread has been moved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post

Michael Bay's Transformers movies are some of the biggest box office hits of all time, too. That wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about general reaction to the movie. You're acting like it's seen as some low grade bad movie.
Hell no.. you or I must have misinterpreted something the other said.

Quote:

It doesn't matter whether they were of the camp variety or not, they were still comic book movies.
I'm talking mainstream, not low budget/obscure titles. The Toxic Avenger series are Troma movies, for pete's sake.



Quote:
Red Sonja, Howard the Duck, the three Superman sequels, Supergirl, Swamp Thing, Condor Man, The Return of Swamp Thing, The Toxic Avenger parts 1-3 etc.

That's over 12 superhero movies in the space of 10 years. That's just a mere four more movies than this:



Hardly a bigger implosion of more comic book movies is it.
You know I left out a bunch of other movies from that list. The Batman and TMNT sequels, for example.



Quote:
Alright then show me a couple of posts you've made praising anything about the Nolan movies. You only have 300 odd posts.Shouldn't be hard to find.
Batman Begins - I like Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, the Scarecrow hallucinogenic sequences, the sets (particularly The Narrows), Joe Chill as the killer like the comics, more seeing Bruce as a kid, Liam Neeson, how Batman got his gadgets, the flying sequences, the tumbler like the tank in TDKR..

The Dark Knight - Heath Ledger as Joker, Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent, the car chase scene, the IMAX shots..

The Dark Knight Rises - Tom Hardy as Bane, some aspects of the plot, the more faithful depiction of Catwoman..

Quote:

That's two different arguments you're making. You're listing two movies that gained classic status. Then you're saying movies that were once considered great don't hold up, which means they were not all that great to begin with if they can't stand the test of time.

Are you saying Batman '89 doesn't hold up?
No I mean look at the Academy Awards for Best Picture over the decades and you tell me if many of those movies still hold up and are highly regarded today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy...r_Best_Picture



Quote:
That's just hearsay. I don't believe you've seen any significant numbers that constitute a backlash. If there was we'd have heard about it by now. I think you're just over exaggerating a loud minority you've seen.
Well what I am supposed to do, trawl through message boards and comments trying to find every Nolan trilogy bashing post I can find and post it here?



Quote:
I'm not talking about a bunch of elite critics, I'm talking about general negative reaction, like those listed in the ones I showed you for Burton's movies. They were not critics specific, and more importantly they were reactions that happened to the movies when they were released. They have just lasted the distance. They didn't fade away over the years.

The TDK trilogy doesn't have that kind of reception. Not when they were released and certainly not now.
The Nolan movies have received plenty of just criticism, just like the Burton films. You can read it here on superherohype.com.

Quote:
That's my whole point. If Grissom needed Jack, if he was a vital part of Grissom's empire, he wouldn't have had him killed off, no matter what he did. But he did because he wasn't as important as Jack liked to believe he was to Grissom.
If he wasn't important than why would Grissom concoct such an elaborate scheme to set him up so that he could take him down? If he was so unimportant, why not just kill him himself or get one of his goons to do it?

Quote:
The only reason Napier was notable was because he was a direct link to Grissom. It was Grissom they wanted. Napier was just the means to get him. Like Lau in TDK was the means to get the mob.
Lau just controlled the mob's money. Napier was a central figure in the actual mob. Napier was a wanted criminal in Gotham, also, who did all the mob's dirty work basically.



Quote:
Oh you mean the ones that just repeat what I just showed you?

Finger, who he admitted helped him with the initial idea, had shown him a photo of actor Conrad Veidt in The Man Who Laughs.

Bill Finger and I created the Joker. Bill was the writer. Jerry Robinson came to me with a playing card of the Joker. […] But he looks like Conrad Veidt " you know, the actor in "The Man Who Laughs", by Victor Hugo. There's a photo of Conrad Veidt in my biography, "Batman & Me." So Bill Finger had a book with a photograph of Conrad Veidt and showed it to me and said, "Here's the Joker." Jerry Robinson had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This one doesn't even mention where they got inspiration from, just who claims they created Joker: http://archive.today/VsY8I

Nor does this one: http://archive.today/53Qwn#selection-937.0-937.804 It also just covers the argument of who claimed they created the Joker.
It depends whose story you want to believe, really.

Around the same time, Robinson also brought in a playing card he’d drawn with an image of a sinister, smiling jester—the original inspiration, he says, for the Joker.


http://archive.today/qMAWC#selection-545.10-545.176




Quote:
Wikipedia is a website that can be edited by anyone. I can go in there now and change it to say they started filming last year if I wanted to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Quote:
I know that. You're missing the point again. Burton is the one who read TKJ. He's the one who wanted to cast Dourif, a much younger actor, as the Joker. But the studio overrode him. Meaning he was well aware Joker was a younger man. He wanted to cast a younger man.
Dourif was about the same age as Michael Keaton at the time, late 30s. Tim Curry and Willem Dafoe were apparently also considered. Willem Dafoe being early 30s at the time better supports your argument.



Quote:
Right, that was your initial argument which is nonsense. Joker did n ot know Batman would save him. If he did what the heck would be the point in even trying to make him kill him in the first place if he knew ahead of time he wouldn't?
He must have known there was a chance (as Batman saved him once before). Even 9 to 1. Still counts.

Nicholson's Joker? Batman already tried to kill twice, and even said "I'm going to kill you." Chance Batman would save him? ZERO.



Quote:
All good criminals have a back up plan just in case. You can never be 100% certain about anything, even if you think the odds of something happening are darn good.

Joker was not about to put all his chances on one thing. Because he had a back up plan just in case is not an indicator that he had a really good idea his plan would fail, and he would never break Batman.

He was just accounting for all possibilities. It's one reason why he was such a great villain.
If he was 100% certain his other plan would succeed, then he wouldn't need a backup plan.



Quote:
That's not the difference. The difference is Nicholson's Joker was afraid to die. It was not about winning or losing. He had already lost twice already before this. His smilex scheme was foiled. His plan to gas the city at the parade was foiled. Batman blew up his poison operation at Axis. He had failed at everything he attempted. Batman had won.

That was the crux of the whole fearless discussion. Ledger's Joker didn't show he was afraid of anything. Nicholson did.
That's because Batman was once step of Nicholson's Joker the entire time. The only thing Nicholson's Joker succeeded in was taking over the mob from Grissom.

With Ledger's Joker, it was the opposite. Ledger was always one step ahead.



Quote:
You must be joking. People smile out of fear and terror all the time. Especially if they're trying to hide the fact they are afraid.
Um, he was falling to his death, though..


Quote:
Yeah so you've said. You're over exaggerating a small minority.
Well hardcore fans who analyse these things are a small minority compared to the general population, aren't they?


Quote:
Yes, and in the case of this movie, especially the scene in particular we're discussing, it's very different to the one you've posted in that script. Including this smile you keep claiming you see.
It's different but the structure of what happens is basically the same.


Quote:
And nobody except you sees this as a smile. It looks like a strained look on his face from trying to hang on. I even asked you to show me some examples of other people who made this observation and not surprisingly you couldn't show any.

You're seeing something that isn't there.
Ok, I've already made my point on this, and finding one other person who agrees with me won't change anything, so that's all I'm going to say on the matter.



Quote:
An out dated script with a ton of changes to the actual movie we got, including this smile you keep saying you see. It's not there. It went out with the handcuffs, the dialogue when Joker falls, and a million other things changed from that scene and the movie in general.
You can't say that for %100 sure unless we get a quote from Burton or Nicholson or something.

CountOrlok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 12:47 AM   #721
Spider-Fan
Puppet tangled in strings
SHH! Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In the neighborhood!
Posts: 39,204
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Closing this thread.

Spider-Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 01:25 PM   #722
Hunter Rider
Ronin
SHH! Administrator
 
Hunter Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Snow-covered Mountain top
Posts: 141,029
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Re-opened, keep it civil folks.

__________________
"Now this life is etched in black but I wont be looking back, the rain washed out the tracks, I'll never find again"
Hunter Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 06:14 PM   #723
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Rider View Post
Re-opened, keep it civil folks.
Am I not the one being civil?

CountOrlok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 09:37 PM   #724
Mandon Knight
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Cheam, Surrey, UK
Posts: 718
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

No you are not, Nicholson is one dimensional who plays the same 'mad' scthick in every film, he has zero range. His Joker is is Jack Torrence in the Shining with make up who is in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest who was in China Town. Overated does not not even cover it.

Mandon Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 10:07 PM   #725
Mister Meddle
The Barber of Seville
 
Mister Meddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 2,385
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandon Knight View Post
No you are not, Nicholson is one dimensional who plays the same 'mad' scthick in every film, he has zero range. His Joker is is Jack Torrence in the Shining with make up who is in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest who was in China Town. Overated does not not even cover it.
What does his other movies have to do with his role as the Joker? Sure, he played a number of nutty characters (The Shining, As Good As It Gets, Wolf, etc.). But I don't understand how a resemblance among a number of roles (roles that are completely irrelevant to the character we're discussing) automatically decreases the quality to a character. Perhaps people wanted Jack to play the Joker because he was a crazy son of a ***** that played extremely convincing psychopaths (without the need of special effects, fancy background music, special lighting/camera angles, make up or disguising his voice) like none other?

By the way... Jack Torrence in the Shining was a family guy turned mad man that attempted to murder his family. Randle McMurphy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest pleaded insane to escape labor duties in prison. The Joker is.... a psychotic clown that kills for his entertainment. If you actually think he was the same in those movies then you should seriously re watch them several times.

__________________
"I'm not in this business to protect the rules, I serve justice"

Last edited by Mister Meddle; 05-26-2014 at 10:10 PM.
Mister Meddle 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 05:50 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.