It is from South Park. Joke lost
Apologies, I dont watch south park.
I was making a statement. I am just perplexed that if Joker in TDK isn't the best written villain in a movie, then why make comparisons to TDK?
Because TDK is a pg-13 comic book movie, with a well written villain that delivers on all fronts.
I think it does matter that TDK was adapted from a graphic novel. Why? Because it is a lot more serious and grounded in reality. It is a lot more...graphic! As I said, if TDK was based off of Batman from the 50's and 60's, would TDK Joker still be a great character heralded by everyone if the quality of writing remained the same? I don't think so. I think they liked TDK Joker because it was something new and something terrifyingly fresh. It was a new take on the character.
A new take on the character? Hmm, not sure about that. Sure, it was an original performance but what else would one expect from a character like the joker if the film makers are trying to tell a serious story with a credible villain? The way Ledger's joker turned out is the direction it should have been heading in anyway. I suppose some people are surprised because they may not have expected it to be executed so well. Like I said, the specific source of the adaptation doesn't matter. It's batman set in contemporary times and not a period piece. Society and modern culture navigates how these stories are told and this applies to the comics heavily so when making a film now, one expects a story that is set in modern times.
Now we are getting to the meat and bones of this argument. While I agree with you to an extent, it negates your point. It negates your point that the quality of writing is what made Raimi's Spider-Man movies bad and what made Nolan's Batman movies good. You don't agree with the choices made so you think the writing is sub par.
Revise my post, there are certain changes that were made that I found to be rather obtuse but the changes were never really the focal problem. Changes are to be expected and I welcome them as long as it works and benefits the movie but the problem I have with Raiomi's movies are, that the changes he made were horribly executed. The comics and cartoons, games make certain changes all the time but for the most part, they're executed quite well. The iron man movie, Nolan's batman movies made many changes too but guess what, they were much better executed.
I loved that he brought humanity to the villains and it gave some extra depth to those characters.
And that can be a good thing. However, when your trying to humanise every villain out there it just becomes boring, predicatble and cliche. Some mystery and obscurity can work just as well if not better.
You also have to remember that the movies are an interpretation, not a direct translation. I can bet you that some Batman fans didn't like Dent being burned in a fire and think he should have been burned by acid in the courtroom. Did that make TDK worse? No. But I can bet some people hated TDK because they didn't agree with the choices. The list goes on and on.
And the key word in your paragraph is, some. Some people may not have liked it because it's a different circumstance of how Dent became 2face but in the long run, the alternative was still well written, gripping and a joy to watch why? Because the senario was well crafted and expertly executed, thus Many more people not caring or being bothered in the slightest in the way Dent became 2face. See where I'm going with this? Change isn't the problem, it's all about if the change can work well and how it's executed.
Raimi's movies are lighter fare and while I agree that Doc Ock should have been more devious...I think he worked great in SM2. It is an interpration.
Like I said, Ock wasn't badly written but he could have been handled a whole lot better and Raimi could have focused more on keeping the character consistent with the threat he posed when he killed all those scientists but in the end, Ock was reduced to just being a temporarily misguided soul. An interpretation that I for one wasn't all to impressed by.
TDK did have good writing, no one is arguing that. Ock has worked for Oscorp and Peter are personal friends with the Osbournes. That isn't a contrived connection. Norman knew Peter through Harry, that isn't a contrived connection. Brock knew Peter from the Bugle, that isn't a contrived connection. All of those have happened before in the comics! I totally agree with Sandman being contrived and it was, but that is one example. Most of the villains in Spidey's rogues gallery is connected to Peter.
- Scorpion (created by JJJ to get Spider-Man, JJJ is also Peter's boss)
- Vulture (tried to rob the Daily Bugle payroll where Peter works)
- Green Goblin (connected to Spider-Man through Harry and kills Gwen Stacy, Peter's love)
- Green Goblin 2 (Harry Osbourne, Peter's best friend)
- Doc Ock (has worked for Oscorp and even dated Aunt May!?)
- Venom (as Eddie Brock, worked with Peter at the Bugle)
to say that Raimi constantly made unnecessary connections to Peter/Spider-Man is bull when the comics that some of you use as a source to make a movie better have done it over and over again.
But those aren't deep personal connections upon the character's conception that Raimi was so vehemently trying to create in his movies. Many of the villains in the comics if they do have a connection to spidey would be because time has inevitably allowed it to be that way. Raimi on the other hand forced these connections and didn't exactly pull it off rather well.
It was badly written. But, again if your heart isn't in something because you have lost creative control and what you wanted to do isn't going to be done...shouldn't shock anyone when the writing is mediocre.
Then walk away. Burton did it with the batman movies, Greengrass has apparantly done it with the Bourne movies, heck, it's even arguable that Raimi did it with this supposed 4th spidey movie. Many directors/writers do this stuff all the time. Raimi is the director, even if he couldn't get out of not doing SM3, that's still no excuse for submitting shoddy work. Instead of crying like a baby and doing a lame job, Raimi should have just manned up and made the most of what to him was a bad situation. SM3 was a disgrace and its got nothing to do with the caharcetrs involved but with how they were handled and to my knowledge Raimi and his brother wrote the script. I'm not surprised the film was a mess.
A little known fact:
RAIMI DIDN'T WRITE SM1 and SM2.
So to blame him for the writing in SM1 and SM2 is heeeeellllllllllarious
I'm not blaming Raimi for the writing in sm1 and 2. I'm blaming him for his writing in sm3 and with regards to the first 2 movies, he was the director. He has the power and authority to make changes in the stories he himself wanted to tell and of course he has control as to how the characters are characterized. As the director, he had more control than most people give him credit for and he clearly imo just wasn't the right man for the job from the off set.
