Discussion in 'Batman World' started by spider-neil, Aug 25, 2006.
you've got a shiiitty attitude
Of course without nasty stuff I mean the way Spacey's character talks and acts to Batman that suit Nolan's Riddler.
There's a scene with a guy on Tv saying Riddler sent riddles about his crimes. I don't know if he send those directly to the police, but that guy certainly wasn't talking about the ones sent to Bruce Wayne.
So Carrey missed the mark with the character. Which didn't happen with Nicholson.
Funny you should say that - I was watching Seven the other night and John Doe actually talks in the kind of calm, slightly toneless voice I always imagined the Joker to talk in his first appearances. It's exceptionally creepy because all logic dictates he shouldn't be like this - you expect a drooling madman. But the Joker isn't that. Like John Doe, he's very methodical along with his theatrics. Everything is well planned.
Plus, some of the lines fitted Joker perfectly - such as Doe talking about what he was 'before' and how he 'had never been exceptional.'
THANK YOU! This in-fighting of 'mine's-better-than-yours' is just silly. And both sides are as bad as each other.
Although I appreciate what Keaton, Burton, and Nicholson, did on a whole with Batman 89, I have never really loved it. I think Nicholsons best scenes were the ones where he breaks the mirror after seeing he's now the Joker and the beginning scenes where he is a hitman.
But then again i understand that he was playing quite a different character then what we see in modern day joker comics, as a poster said above.
I never liked Tim Burton's Batman except what stood out for me was the score. Yet I can appreciate that Nicholson's performance made the Joker an unforgettable and impressive villain but I would have favored more scenes of Bruce Wayne than him to give our hero a much fuller plate.
Nicholson's laughing and ranting really got tiresome.
So I wish Ledger a lot of luck.
He also isn't very calm and toneless.
I'm pretty sure he just doesn't give a f**k.
I kinda agree here, since I always assumed that if Joker would explain anything of his backstory, he'd take a more serious tone. But just for the hell of it, I'll act confused for the third time.
In the first story, his voice was described as toneless. But, fair enough, he does lose his **** when things don't go his way.
You just love too much. I'd imagine he'd be very detached when talking about his past and want to go back to talking about how great he is.
She referenced the Joker's first appearances, which seem very much that way. Remember, the character has evolved over time, and like Batman, not always for the better.
Again, check out the early Joker appearances. He completely does "give a f**k"; Joker is first and foremost a genius. The self-destructive madness comes later - I think as a response to being foiled by Batman so many times. Or at least, that's how I'd explain it.
I flicked through the first story just to make sure my memory wasn't failing me again and yes, you're right - he goes nutso towards the end because Batman keeps stopping him and that pretty much leads into the next story where his focus is shifted towards Batman. I do wonder if they'll have a similar arc in TDK - it'd be unexpected if he was seemingly caught early on in the film, only to escape later with all guns blazing, so to speak - it sort of fits those rumours about us not seeing a 'full-on' Joker till mid-way. Notice it doesn't say we won't actually see him altogether.
I'll give the toneless thing a pass, that can be a bit creepy. But calm is certainly something I'd never associate with Joker.
This is true. I don't really mind which way they take it, both are acceptable to me.
Joker has had a few bad turns over the years, but I certainly think he's much better off now than when he first started. Joker now, IS how pretty much everyone sees Joker as.
I'm not a fan of Batman being the sole reason for Joker's abstract thinking. I'd prefer to think he already went batty after his accident. I'm fine with the whole "Batman's stopped me too many times, I MUST make it my goal to kill him" type of deal. Same plan (cause havoc and maybe get a few riches along the way), but the focus has changed (get rid of Batman).
One's opinion on wether or not he nailed it depends entirely on one's perception of what the Joker is. There is no right or wrong answer.
I've thought about this question after watching the movie somewhat recently, and I came to the conclusion that Jack was incredibly fun to watch in Batman and he did a great job and gave a somewhat unforgetable performance. It's a ball to watch! But on the whole I never really cared about the pre-Batman Begins Batman movies. The score was awesome but over all they are meh too bad movies that miscast Batman two out of four times. I love the amimated Joker the best and think that he's more jokery, but you got to give Jack huge props for crating a great fun character.
Okay, I'll agree on that one.
I can't speak for Jonah but if I was writing TDK, that's what I'd do. Character development is good.
And I didn't remember the exact wording of that article - that "full-on" Joker comment - but that is a damn good point, on your part.
Of course that's how people see Joker now, but you have to realize a couple of things. The first is that Nolan and Ledger cannot repeat what Nicholson did. That would be pointless. They need to handle the character differently. So that's one thing.
Another thing is something I like to call character development. If Joker is a static character, where's the story? He needs to evolve over the course of the story. He and Batman must have an effect on each other. Hell, even in Batman '89, Nicholson's Joker got nuttier as Batman continued to mess up his plans. I just think that Ledger's Joker should have a more noticeable shift. From the more calculated madman, to the full-on freakjob.
But crime *must* have a motive. Early Joker was all about things like robbery and murder. He didn't just randomly do stuff. Everything he did, he did for a reason. He's become obsessed over the years, but he did not start out that way. He started out doing these crimes that were almost like magic tricks. Which, again - even Nicholson's Joker had an element of that - the cosmetic killings. The difference is, Nicholson's Joker had no motive. Classic Joker always had one, and in my opinion, Ledger should have one to start with. It'd be fun to watch Joker degrade into the frothing freak we know.
That also, if you think about it, goes with Ledger's comment about Joker being like a car-crash that doesn't end or whatever it was he said.
Guess we dodged a bullet, considering modern Joker is pretty different from Nicholson's.
What would you suggest? I'm pretty fine with Batman making Joker craziER. But that means Joker still has to be bat-sh1t before that. What can possibly be more traumatizing than being in a chemical bath, and then coming out bleached? I mean, lol, doesn't get any worse than that.
Taking over. Running sh1t. Being the top dog of town. Is that not motive?
I don't read many new comics. While I hear that Infinite Crisis fixed a lot of issues with Batman's character, I gave up on the new books back in the Knightfall days and I have no interest in picking up new ones, as my collector-sense will then demand I buy a bunch of crappy issues I don't want to read, just so I wouldn't have a gap in numbers. Not going there.
Where did I say Joker shouldn't be crazy to start with? Does "calm" mean "sane"? No, I don't think so. Many crazy people can be calm. Doesn't make them not crazy.
It is, but I'm not sure how half the things Joker did in Batman '89 actually further that goal. He mostly seems preoccupied with killing people. I mean, yes, he did take over Grissom's businesses, Killed off a couple other bosses as well, etc. All makes sense. But what was the purpose of the cosmetic killings? What was the purpose of gassing the parade?
I got the idea that your version of the Joker would be a killer, but not necessarily a crazy nutjob. Only later on. If that wasn't the case, then I guess we were arguing for no reason.
Do you really have to explain those things, though? He IS crazy, after all. Not everything is going to make sense. That's what I love about the character, he's completely random at times.
Same here man. I ahted that Jean Paul Valley AzBats crap right up until Bruce came back and schooled the punk. Hush is the only full run I've read since then, although I did frequent Tony Daniel's run.
And as far as anything '89 Batman movie goes . . . I couldn't help but feel that the segments of the movie without Batman and the Joker in it were as bland and pointless as the Joker's "New asthetic" . I strongly feel that Jack did not nail the Joker but I don't blame that entirely on Jack. In both Batman and Returns (<-even more so) Burton was too focused on his "own vission' of Batman and his rogues to really worry about true character development. Both movies were made up of a few hero villain scenes and some pointless Gotham stuff. Which is why Begins was a better movie for me. Nothing was pointless in Begins. Everything had a purpose.
btw, love the new avi. Wacko and Pinky are my homiez!
Probably. I can't speak for Miranda, but I'm pretty sure her Joker is crazy, too. Just not spastic and random to start. Although only she can answer that for sure.
He is, but that's a later addition to the character. To start with, he wasn't so random. The randomness came later, and as a writer I would tend to explain the randomness as his insanity growing. I mean to start with Joker had this desire to prove that he was smarter than everybody else (crazy, sure, but a genius). So he devised those magic-trick capers to outwit everybody and prove how clever he was. There's nothing random about that. However, I believe that when Batman foils him, it does interrupt the point that Joker is trying to prove - because Batman is at least as smart as he is, and that bugs him to no end. So the dance begins and the Joker has at least one major difference from Batman - Batman truly cares about the people of Gotham City. Batman wants to protect the innocent. That's where the Joker honestly doesn't give a damn. And that's why I think the later Joker will kill anybody and do almost any damn thing, because he knows it pisses off Batman, and that, to Joker, is good fun.
I made an exception for Hush as well. I don't worship Jeph Loeb (I think he's reasonably good, but not the best), however I do love Jim Lee's art, and since Jeph Loeb was writing the story, that means, by default, that Jim Lee was going to get to draw EVERY CHARACTER in the DC Universe, so I was interested if only for that.
While I have decided not to speak ill of Burton's stuff because I'm tired of Burton fans bashing Nolan, and I think we ought to try and bridge some gaps here, it is certainly undeniable that Burton's Batman movies were, well, Burton's Batman movies. Burton has a unique style and he put that stamp all over Batman's world. You'd expect nothing less of Burton. And if you're a Burton fan then that's not a bad thing, and if you don't like Burton then it probably is a bad thing.
For me, it's not my favorite interpretation, but it's as valid as any other. I certainly do prefer Nolan's film, because it comes closer to the tone of the Batman stories that I love. And honestly, I think Nolan has a better handle on the character.
I think the dealbreaker is probably Returns, for most of us. I think the story of '89 makes pretty good sense, but Returns is pretty silly, plot-wise. I have never gotten over Penguin getting the blueprints for the Batmobile. I don't know how that would even be possible. It just felt cheap and easy. And Penguin was so... unlike the Penguin from the comics, too, it was a little distressing. When I was 12 I thought '89 seemed pretty realistic, so I was very surprised by Returns. I've read Sam Hamm's original script for Returns, and it's quite a bit better. Oddly it includes some things that the Batchlers recycled into Batman Forever, and some things that seem to have made their was into TAS as well.
[pinky]Oh, ZORT!!! Haw haw haw haw!!![/pinky]
I'm fairly certain that's what it said. I remember thinking 'but that's not the same as Mister J. not appearing.' Probably should re-check just to be sure...
THANK YOU! And I totally agree.
I thought he didn't nail Joker either... I felt as if I was watching him play as the Joker instead of developing the character and actually becoming the Joker. That's why I'm hoping Ledger does a lot of extensive study on the Joker before he starts.