Nepenthes
Superhero
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,067
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 58
Raider4000 said:Jack will never be toped
you've got a shiiitty attitude
Raider4000 said:Jack will never be toped
without all the nasty stuff though, I don't see the Riddler torturing innocent people. otherwise great idea
. . . and that's all you remember? I'm talking personality not plot details. btw he sent those riddles to Bruce Wayne . . . not the police.
What about that extreme personality display? What about him nonchalantly showing up in Two-Faces hideout as if he belonged there? Very Joker to me.
Leave it to SHHers to determine that in order to enjoy one performance you must hate another (who else here recalls all the Keaton-Hate when Bale was cast?). The forumers here are littler boys who get all nervous when somebody suggests Actor X could play/might play/did play Role X better than Nolan's/Burton's choice. Grow up.
The real truth is that Jack was great. He, for all intents and purposes, nailed the Joker of the Batman comics from that era. The Joker of modern comics is a little bit different, but since those comics didn't exist 20 years ago, Jack can hardly be blamed for not portraying that Joker.
Now here's a secret tip that always confuses the little boys: you don't have to hate Jack in order to like Ledger, or vice-versa. Your brain (hint: you can find it in your head) has the capacity to like more than one thing at the same time.
I like to see Kevin Spacey's Seven character development into The Riddler. I think that would suit Nolan's version of Riddler.
THANK YOU! This in-fighting of 'mine's-better-than-yours' is just silly. And both sides are as bad as each other.Leave it to SHHers to determine that in order to enjoy one performance you must hate another (who else here recalls all the Keaton-Hate when Bale was cast?). The forumers here are littler boys who get all nervous when somebody suggests Actor X could play/might play/did play Role X better than Nolan's/Burton's choice. Grow up.
The real truth is that Jack was great. He, for all intents and purposes, nailed the Joker of the Batman comics from that era. The Joker of modern comics is a little bit different, but since those comics didn't exist 20 years ago, Jack can hardly be blamed for not portraying that Joker.
Now here's a secret tip that always confuses the little boys: you don't have to hate Jack in order to like Ledger, or vice-versa. Your brain (hint: you can find it in your head) has the capacity to like more than one thing at the same time.
He also isn't very calm and toneless.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.
I'm pretty sure he just doesn't give a f**k.Like John Doe, he's very methodical along with his theatrics. Everything is well planned.
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.Plus, some of the lines fitted Joker perfectly - such as Doe talking about what he was 'before' and how he 'had never been exceptional.'
He also isn't very calm and toneless.
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.
He also isn't very calm and toneless.
I'm pretty sure he just doesn't give a f**k.
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'll give the toneless thing a pass, that can be a bit creepy. But calm is certainly something I'd never associate with Joker.In the first story, his voice was described as toneless. But, fair enough, he does lose his **** when things don't go his way.
This is true. I don't really mind which way they take it, both are acceptable to me.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.
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.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.
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).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'll give the toneless thing a pass, that can be a bit creepy. But calm is certainly something I'd never associate with Joker.
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.
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).
Guess we dodged a bullet, considering modern Joker is pretty different from Nicholson's.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.
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.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.
Taking over. Running sh1t. Being the top dog of town. Is that not motive?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.
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 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.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.
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.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?
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.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!
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.
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.