The Dark Knight "Heath has created something quite terrifying" - Empire Magazine interview

[TheBat812]

Why do we need acid or bleach? Why does he have to have an accident? I think that he'll do it to himself. Bottle of cheap bleach, all over his face. Sizzle, sizzle.

acid the drug, not acid the burning ****. It actually makes a ****load of sense and is pretty realistic.

 

[StylishHokie21]

I'm still confused about the whole make-up thing.

 

[Bond]

Excellent article

 

[Attikus]

thanks for typing in...much appreciated.

Attikus

 

[Bluesummers]

Usually I would ask for scans, but this is excellent. Thanks, WelshMan!

The more I hear, the more I want to see some Heath action! I think it's strange how people keep comparing him to Nicholson. That's like saying:

"Man, Tom Cruise totally bombed War Of The Worlds! He didn't have a British accent like the original, or anything!"

 

[Bond]

Were there any pics in the article?

 

[Riven]

The more I hear, the more I want to see some Heath action! I think it's strange how people keep comparing him to Nicholson. That's like saying:

"Man, Tom Cruise totally bombed War Of The Worlds! He didn't have a British accent like the original, or anything!"

 

[El Payaso]

Usually I would ask for scans, but this is excellent. Thanks, WelshMan!

The more I hear, the more I want to see some Heath action! I think it's strange how people keep comparing him to Nicholson. That's like saying:

"Man, Tom Cruise totally bombed War Of The Worlds! He didn't have a British accent like the original, or anything!"

That's because the original guy of War of the Worlds wasn't as good as Jack's Joker .

 

[Nightwing1977]

I still find it funny how some people think they're making this new Joker to "outdo" Jack's Joker.

Yep. I never see Heath's Joker trying to outdo Jack. This is a different Joker, so there should be no comparsion.

 

[StorminNorman]

This quote annoys the hell out of me: "Fans of the comic book will realise that what we'll be seeing here is a version more of the original Joker - the pure, cold-hearted sociopath version - and the recent portrayals of him as a deeply insane man. Not the crown price of crime, the rather more harmless prankster-bank-robber of the 60's, the cesar romero version if you like, which the Jack-joker ran with for Burtons Batman."

There was nothing similar to Jack's Joker and Cesar Romero's Joker outside of look.

Jack's Joker was everything Heath's Joker was praised to be: A malicious, evil, murdering clown.

I don't mind when Nolan zombies feel the immature need to tear down a fantastic cinematic villain to make themselves feel better - but for a "respected" entertainment magazine to make the same fallacy, its absurd.

 

[El Payaso]

This quote annoys the hell out of me: "Fans of the comic book will realise that what we'll be seeing here is a version more of the original Joker - the pure, cold-hearted sociopath version - and the recent portrayals of him as a deeply insane man. Not the crown price of crime, the rather more harmless prankster-bank-robber of the 60's, the cesar romero version if you like, which the Jack-joker ran with for Burtons Batman."

There was nothing similar to Jack's Joker and Cesar Romero's Joker outside of look.

Jack's Joker was everything Heath's Joker was praised to be: A malicious, evil, murdering clown.

I don't mind when Nolan zombies feel the immature need to tear down a fantastic cinematic villain to make themselves feel better - but for a "respected" entertainment magazine to make the same fallacy, its absurd.

Man, and the next Joker in history will have the same comments.

As every new popular superhero is always praised for being "the most human of superheroes," being Batman or Spiderman or Superman. I've heard the same for all of them.

It's just things people say.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I have to speak up, too. I've said it before a few times on these boards but here I ago again: it never ceases to amaze me when I see people trying to call Jack's Joker "campy."

I mean my God, has anybody counted up the death toll lately?

1.) Thomas and Martha Wayne
2.) Lt. Eckhardt
3.) Carl Grissom
4.) Antoine Brutali
5.) Vinny
6.) The people he killed with the cosmetics stuff, all over the city
7.) ALL of the patrons of the Flugelheim Museum, excluding Vicki Vale
8.) Alicia, indirectly (he scarred her and she killed herself)
9.) All the people he gassed at the parade
10.) Bob the Goon

Not to mention the fact that he felt the need to "improve" all the art at the museum - except the more macabre stuff. He loved Vicki's photography of the Corto-Maltese War, hated all the glamor stuff.

Are we keeping track? Jack's Joker was a nihilistic bastard who believed that everything was one big joke. He had always appreciated beauty and the finer things until his own looks were spoiled - then he chose to celebrate ugliness - or rather to celebrate the fleeting, temporary nature of beauty. To show that the things we all hold dear can be taken from us. That the more valuable something is to you, the more fragile it also is.

Which is, let's be honest - Joker in a nutshell. It's a flawless representation of the character.

I see Ledger's Joker, thus far, being an equally brilliant performance - but I feel no need to tear down Jack's work in order to build up Ledger.

In fact the thrust of what Caine said (excluding the rubbish about campiness) was correct: you wouldn't want to follow Jack anywhere unless it's a night club. I've been saying all along that whatever Joker they cooked up for TDK would have to be unlike Jack's Joker. Not because there was anything wrong with Jack's Joker, but because there was NOTHING wrong with Jack's Joker - and it's not worth telling a Joker story again if you can't come up with something different.

So TDK Joker will be different from Jack's. It looks like we're getting a less refined, less foppish version of Joker (yet Joker has always been refined and foppish, no?) but the concept of Joker as a nihilistic bastard who sees everything as one big joke - who is not intimidated by anything - who just wants to make everybody else as miserable as he is... well, that concept seems to be as true of Heath's Joker as it was of Jack's.

So why make comparisons? Why not just sit back and enjoy the show?

 

[pimpster200390]

I have to speak up, too. I've said it before a few times on these boards but here I ago again: it never ceases to amaze me when I see people trying to call Jack's Joker "campy."

I mean my God, has anybody counted up the death toll lately?

1.) Thomas and Martha Wayne
2.) Lt. Eckhardt
3.) Carl Grissom
4.) Antoine Brutali
5.) Vinny
6.) The people he killed with the cosmetics stuff, all over the city
7.) ALL of the patrons of the Flugelheim Museum, excluding Vicki Vale
8.) Alicia, indirectly (he scarred her and she killed herself)
9.) All the people he gassed at the parade
10.) Bob the Goon

Not to mention the fact that he felt the need to "improve" all the art at the museum - except the more macabre stuff. He loved Vicki's photography of the Corto-Maltese War, hated all the glamor stuff.

Are we keeping track? Jack's Joker was a nihilistic bastard who believed that everything was one big joke. He had always appreciated beauty and the finer things until his own looks were spoiled - then he chose to celebrate ugliness - or rather to celebrate the fleeting, temporary nature of beauty. To show that the things we all hold dear can be taken from us. That the more valuable something is to you, the more fragile it also is.

Which is, let's be honest - Joker in a nutshell. It's a flawless representation of the character.

I see Ledger's Joker, thus far, being an equally brilliant performance - but I feel no need to tear down Jack's work in order to build up Ledger.

In fact the thrust of what Caine said (excluding the rubbish about campiness) was correct: you wouldn't want to follow Jack anywhere unless it's a night club. I've been saying all along that whatever Joker they cooked up for TDK would have to be unlike Jack's Joker. Not because there was anything wrong with Jack's Joker, but because there was NOTHING wrong with Jack's Joker - and it's not worth telling a Joker story again if you can't come up with something different.

So TDK Joker will be different from Jack's. It looks like we're getting a less refined, less foppish version of Joker (yet Joker has always been refined and foppish, no?) but the concept of Joker as a nihilistic bastard who sees everything as one big joke - who is not intimidated by anything - who just wants to make everybody else as miserable as he is... well, that concept seems to be as true of Heath's Joker as it was of Jack's.

So why make comparisons? Why not just sit back and enjoy the show?

well put good sir

 

[gwynplaine]

Good one . Nice illustration of what was being said.

 

[Mr. Socko]

That was Beautiful Keyser. You said it best.

 

[gcarlfrancis09]

I have to speak up, too. I've said it before a few times on these boards but here I ago again: it never ceases to amaze me when I see people trying to call Jack's Joker "campy."

I mean my God, has anybody counted up the death toll lately?

1.) Thomas and Martha Wayne
2.) Lt. Eckhardt
3.) Carl Grissom
4.) Antoine Brutali
5.) Vinny
6.) The people he killed with the cosmetics stuff, all over the city
7.) ALL of the patrons of the Flugelheim Museum, excluding Vicki Vale
8.) Alicia, indirectly (he scarred her and she killed herself)
9.) All the people he gassed at the parade
10.) Bob the Goon

Not to mention the fact that he felt the need to "improve" all the art at the museum - except the more macabre stuff. He loved Vicki's photography of the Corto-Maltese War, hated all the glamor stuff.

Are we keeping track? Jack's Joker was a nihilistic bastard who believed that everything was one big joke. He had always appreciated beauty and the finer things until his own looks were spoiled - then he chose to celebrate ugliness - or rather to celebrate the fleeting, temporary nature of beauty. To show that the things we all hold dear can be taken from us. That the more valuable something is to you, the more fragile it also is.

Which is, let's be honest - Joker in a nutshell. It's a flawless representation of the character.

I see Ledger's Joker, thus far, being an equally brilliant performance - but I feel no need to tear down Jack's work in order to build up Ledger.

In fact the thrust of what Caine said (excluding the rubbish about campiness) was correct: you wouldn't want to follow Jack anywhere unless it's a night club. I've been saying all along that whatever Joker they cooked up for TDK would have to be unlike Jack's Joker. Not because there was anything wrong with Jack's Joker, but because there was NOTHING wrong with Jack's Joker - and it's not worth telling a Joker story again if you can't come up with something different.

So TDK Joker will be different from Jack's. It looks like we're getting a less refined, less foppish version of Joker (yet Joker has always been refined and foppish, no?) but the concept of Joker as a nihilistic bastard who sees everything as one big joke - who is not intimidated by anything - who just wants to make everybody else as miserable as he is... well, that concept seems to be as true of Heath's Joker as it was of Jack's.

So why make comparisons? Why not just sit back and enjoy the show?

id have to agree here myself
the reason i think we hear this talk of "the old joker was camp the new one is teh brutalz", even from the actors themselves, is probably because they have talking points to stick to and certain things to emphasize. making jack's joker seem more campy is going to do nothing but drive up anticipation for heath. emphasizing the gritiness of nolan's world over and over again is just part of marketing, its done to emphasize what sets it apart from the other films and why we should see it. its more for gettng u amped to buy the ticket.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

That was Beautiful Keyser. You said it best.

Thanks. Saying things is what Keysers do best.

 

[Nivek]

yes days doos!

 

[Hole Shot]

This quote annoys the hell out of me: "Fans of the comic book will realise that what we'll be seeing here is a version more of the original Joker - the pure, cold-hearted sociopath version - and the recent portrayals of him as a deeply insane man. Not the crown price of crime, the rather more harmless prankster-bank-robber of the 60's, the cesar romero version if you like, which the Jack-joker ran with for Burtons Batman."

There was nothing similar to Jack's Joker and Cesar Romero's Joker outside of look.

Jack's Joker was everything Heath's Joker was praised to be: A malicious, evil, murdering clown.

I don't mind when Nolan zombies feel the immature need to tear down a fantastic cinematic villain to make themselves feel better - but for a "respected" entertainment magazine to make the same fallacy, its absurd.

When Jack killed people, we laughed. That's the point the magazine is making, IMO. I still love the joy buzzer scene "Antoine got a little hot under the collar."

 

[Keyser Sushi]

When Jack killed people, we laughed. That's the point the magazine is making, IMO. I still love the joy buzzer scene "Antoine got a little hot under the collar."

That's an interesting point. I did laugh every time Jack's Joker did something nasty. Interesting.

 

[Micah12345]

I'm so tired of analyzing jack's performance. I'm glad we're getting a fresh take on the character. Someone who's not afraid to follow Jack in a role or to make it his own.

 

[Crook]

That's an interesting point. I did laugh every time Jack's Joker did something nasty. Interesting.

Well plain and simple, Jack's Joker was charismatic and enthralled audiences. We LOVED him.

I think it's clear that Heath's take will involve us LOATHING Joker.

I'd prefer if he was violently gruesome while still retaining that alluring nature, but I guess we'll have another take to look forward to whenever another live-action Joker pops up.

 

[Wedge A.]

I'm confused by them saying they didn't plan on doing The Dark Knight right away. I always thought it was a planned trilogy.

 

[sasquatchs]

This is going to be a difficult task, they have to make the loss of life more meaningful and unpredictable if they're going to create a truly threatening Joker. Which means a decent build up of tension and dread for each of Joker's targeted hits, rather killing a large quantity of faceless people.

 

[Micah12345]

I'm confused by them saying they didn't plan on doing The Dark Knight right away. I always thought it was a planned trilogy.

Whenever I tell people it's possible that nolan and bale may not return for a third. (which probably means most of the supporting cast as well) people jump me and say

"hey noobtard everyone knows they're signed on for three durrrrrr"


Okay well how about at wizard world when nolan said he was burned out creatively on batman?

I think two movies is enough for nolan. He clearly wanted to do only one, and a second is a blessing.