The man who laughs: The Joker thread

[regwec]

Originally Posted by Damiean Dark

But would you want a non british person playing James Bond? i certainly wouldnt.

Well, Pierce Brosnan was Irish and Geoge Lazenby was Australian. I didn't like either of them, but that's hardly the point.

[itsthebatman]

You didn't like Pierce? You philistine.
The point is taken.

[uchiha_itachi]

Originally Posted by Rynan

You should also take spelling lessons before the sequel, because that sentence is atrocious.

i dont really care tbh..

[Agentsands77]

Originally Posted by itsthebatman

You didn't like Pierce? You philistine.

Not to take us off-topic, but I didn't care for him either.

[itsthebatman]

Originally Posted by Agentsands77

Not to take us off-topic, but I didn't care for him either.

Not to take us further off-topic, but this is Bond.

Certainly for his first three movies. Ddin't care for Die Another Day.
That said...

Craig is perfect.
Phew. That last post nearly killed me.

[Miranda Fox]

Originally Posted by Rynan

Is this the picture?

Yup. Thanks for digging it out.

I'm pretty sure this pic was long debunked as fan art.

Ah, okay. I wasn't sure.

[itsthebatman]

Originally Posted by Miranda Fox

Yup. Thanks for digging it out.



Ah, okay. I wasn't sure.

Wasn't there another one, for Scarecrow stage 2, that was more extreme than the finished product? It made it pretty close to being featured on film, from what I shakily recall.

[Darkest Knight]

Guard makes valid points. However, I'm still having trouble taking them seriously past his Wes Bently should've and would've been a better Batman / Bruce Wayne speech. Especially after seeing the train wreck of a bad actor he is, on screen.

[itsthebatman]

Originally Posted by regwec

I think you're being a little unfair: the reason that Nicholson figuratively bursts through the makeup is that he is such a powerhouse of a personality, anyway. His portrayal of The Joker was technically good, and the cocktail of different voices and actions he brought to bare in the part indicates a real effort, but those eyes and that voice prevented me from forgetting who the actor was. Still: not Jack's fault.

Exactly. There are some actors who are so well known and so powerful that their personality always shines through in their performance, making ti difficult to fully divorce them from the character. Robert Redford and Warren Beatty were initially tested for Superman before Christopher Reeve got the part, and the fact that he was an unknown actually helped the film: you weren't watching Warren Beatty in a Superman suit, you were watching Superman.

[The Guard]

because i was never aware of them as actors but as characters. for Nicholson/Joker, i always saw Nicholson; i never saw the Joker. it's not that they're getting "a pass"; it's that they can act. i think you nailed it with the word "performance", no matter how arbitrarily you may have plucked it from the ether and no matter how trivial you may think the word choice is, i still find it telling. Nicholson was performing; Freeman and Caine were acting. i never felt they were giving a "performance". i feel the same about Bale/Keaton.

Acting and a performance are the same damn thing. The performance is simply the result of someone acting. Even when you "becmoe" the character, certain mannerisms are going to show up in your performance.

You're not seriously telling me that you think Freeman and Caine did any better at shirking their "public images" than Nicholson did, are you? Those are two of the most well-known actors working today who have very distinct mannerisms.

think you're being a little unfair: the reason that Nicholson figuratively bursts through the makeup is that he is such a powerhouse of a personality, anyway. His portrayal of The Joker was technically good, and the cocktail of different voices and actions he brought to bare in the part indicates a real effort, but those eyes and that voice prevented me from forgetting who the actor was. Still: not Jack's fault.

Exactly. Christian Bale pretending to be Batman will always be Christian Bale pretending to be Batman, because his mannerisms come through. That's not a bad thing, though, because it's those mannerisms in part that enable him to give a good performance. If you want to believe he's the character, great. That's part of the suspension of disbelief that makes film and theatre work.

Guard makes valid points. However, I'm still having trouble taking them seriously past his Wes Bently should've and would've been a better Batman / Bruce Wayne speech. Especially after seeing the train wreck of a bad actor he is, on screen.

Apparently you have trouble with a selective memory, too. I said Wes Bentley would have made a better younger Bruce Wayne (young 20's, as the YEAR ONE script was angling for) than Christian Bale. I fully believed Bale was the better choice for an older version of the character.
And if you base Wes Bentley's acting abilities on GHOST RIDER, then I'm afraid nothing can help you. Once more: AMERICAN BEAUTY, and THE FOUR FEATHERS.

[Doc Holliday]

Originally Posted by Paste Pot Pete

What's with the zombie Clint Eastwood?

That's a ZOMBIE Clint Eastwood? I thought it was just a picture of him.

[Agentsands77]

Originally Posted by itsthebatman

Not to take us further off-topic, but this is Bond.

Too bad he couldn't deliver anything beyond his looks (which are too string-bean, pretty-boy for me anyway).

At least we agree on Daniel Craig.

[Miranda Fox]

Originally Posted by itsthebatman

Wasn't there another one, for Scarecrow stage 2, that was more extreme than the finished product? It made it pretty close to being featured on film, from what I shakily recall.

It did - a lot of people were disappointed it never made it to screen.

[Agentsands77]

Originally Posted by Miranda Fox

It did - a lot of people were disappointed it never made it to screen.

I was one of those people. I was happy with the Scarecrow as-is, but the 2nd-stage look seemed pretty awesome. I actually have the photo for the concept:

[ghost_x]

As strongly as people feel about the Jokers look, I think that that concept of Scarecrow is far worse. Maybe if it was the mask under the influence of the fear gas, but that is not scarecrow.

[Agentsands77]

Originally Posted by ghost_x

As strongly as people feel about the Jokers look, I think that that concept of Scarecrow is far worse. Maybe if it was the mask under the influence of the fear gas, but that is not scarecrow.

If you're talking about the concept I posted, the Stage 2 Scarecrow, that is the Scarecrow as viewed under the influence of fear gas. That's what the Stage 2 Scarecrow was.

[Rynan]

Originally Posted by Agentsands77

I think "Stage 2" is over hyped. There was a reason it wasn't in the film and it wasn't time issues.

[Agentsands77]

It's certainly overhyped. But it would have been cool. We never did get to see some really scary fear-gas effects, and it would have done it.

[ghost_x]

I thought for the rating of Begins there were some pretty horrific images under the fear gas, what others saw Batman as under the gas was quite nasty

[Agentsands77]

Originally Posted by ghost_x

I thought for the rating of Begins there were some pretty horrific images under the fear gas, what others saw Batman as under the gas was quite nasty

I dunno. There's been a lot scarier and more horrific than what BEGINS served up and still received a PG-13 rating.

Demon Batman was cool. But Scarecrow himself never really got the scary treatment. We got a few quick flashes, but they were never shown long enough to have that much impact.

[ghost_x]

Lingering on a scary visual for a longer period of time detracts from it's effect, I thought we saw enough to serve it's purpose

[Agentsands77]

Originally Posted by ghost_x

Lingering on a scary visual for a longer period of time detracts from it's effect, I thought we saw enough to serve it's purpose

Well, firstly, that's hardly a universal rule. And of course they shouldn't have overdone it, but they weren't even close to overdoing it. They were underdoing it, by a significant amount. They could have shown a bit more and it would have had more impact, if you ask me.

I mean, what we saw from Scarecrow wasn't scary. We saw some flashes of some stuff, but it wasn't scary. Hell, Demon Batman was creepier than any of the Scarecrow stuff, and that just ain't right.

[Rynan]

Originally Posted by Agentsands77

I mean, what we saw from Scarecrow wasn't scary. We saw some flashes of some stuff, but it wasn't scary. Hell, Demon Batman was creepier than any of the Scarecrow stuff, and that just ain't right.

But shouldn't Batman be scarier than the scarecrow?

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Rynan

But shouldn't Batman be scarier than the scarecrow?

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Agentsands77]

Originally Posted by Rynan

But shouldn't Batman be scarier than the scarecrow?

Not necessarily. Why would he be? In appearance, Scarecrow is already more scary than Batman is. Batman is largely scary because of the actions and aura, not necessarily the look. At the very least, both should look equally scary under fear gas.