The Dark Knight I guess joker just applies make-up after all

[ronny]

I agree with you nicky. But what I can see we do have the Joker. Permawhite or no, we do have our iconic clown, regardless of what Sidepocket thinks. He may not be Permawhite but it is clear Nolan understands the character looking clown like is important.

Listen to this man for he speaks the truth. If I'm honest I never cared wholly for the the permanenet white look. Not because it doesn't work, it does. But the whole "vat of chemicals" thing is stupid. That's just how I see it, absolutely stupid and moronic. As stupid and moronic as the penis hat he wore when he fell in. Does this mean that the history of the character should be paved over? No. But I would just love to see people giving Ledger and Nolan the chance to do something different. I am hoping that this take on the character is so successful that it maybe inspires one writer to create an alternate origin for the character. One that's less nonsensical. Plus, I like the comparisons to Gacy. That's how I always saw it too.

 

[Marx]

Listen to this man for he speaks the truth. If I'm honest I never cared wholly for the the permanenet white look. Not because it doesn't work, it does. But the whole "vat of chemicals" thing is stupid. That's just how I see it, absolutely stupid and moronic. As stupid and moronic as the penis hat he wore when he fell in. Does this mean that the history of the character should be paved over? No. But I would just love to see people giving Ledger and Nolan the chance to do something different. I am hoping that this take on the character is so successful that it maybe inspires one writer to create an alternate origin for the character. One that's less nonsensical. Plus, I like the comparisons to Gacy. That's how I always saw it too.

What really gets me is the fact that all the "diehards" wanted to see something "new and wonderful" when it came to the reboot of the Batman franchise instead of "same old same old." So...

You get a new Batmobile - "Well that's just crap because it looks nothing like a Batmobile."

You get the magnificent Michael Caine as Alfred - "Well he sucks because he looks and sounds nothing like Alfred should."

You get a reinvented FREAKING SCARY version of The Joker - "Well that's just crap because he doesn't look like Joker. There's no Permawhite skin...his face is scarred. He looks grungy. What the heck is that about?"

You get a new "Two Face" - "Why isn't his face split evenly down the middle? Why doesn't he have the two tone suit?"

I could go on and on. But I gurantee you that if these movies were an exact copy of the ones before you would be FAR from happy because "there's nothing new and exciting. It's all already been done before."

Geez! Give it a chance!

 

[Batman jr.]

What really gets me is the fact that all the "diehards" wanted to see something "new and wonderful" when it came to the reboot of the Batman franchise instead of "same old same old." So...

You get a new Batmobile - "Well that's just crap because it looks nothing like a Batmobile."

You get the magnificent Michael Caine as Alfred - "Well he sucks because he looks and sounds nothing like Alfred should."

You get a reinvented FREAKING SCARY version of The Joker - "Well that's just crap because he doesn't look like Joker. There's no Permawhite skin...his face is scarred. He looks grungy. What the heck is that about?"

You get a new "Two Face" - "Why isn't his face split evenly down the middle? Why doesn't he have the two tone suit?"

I could go on and on. But I gurantee you that if these movies were an exact copy of the ones before you would be FAR from happy because "there's nothing new and exciting. It's all already been done before."

Geez! Give it a chance!

Best post ever! Heath says thank you!

 

[Crook]

What really gets me is the fact that all the "diehards" wanted to see something "new and wonderful" when it came to the reboot of the Batman franchise instead of "same old same old." So...

So I take it by this logic ANYTHING introduced that is different from the previous movies, should be applauded simply for being "fresh"? That's just flawed.

"New" does not always equal good. And "old" doesn't always equal bad.

 

[bkey]

So I take it by this logic ANYTHING introduced that is different from the previous movies, should be applauded simply for being "fresh"? That's just flawed.

"New" does not always equal good. And "old" doesn't always equal bad.

Take the Star Wars saga for example. The originals were amazing, but the prequels definitely were sub par in comparison IMO.

 

[ronny]

Not bloody true! Revenge of The Sith was beyond reproach.

 

[bkey]

Not bloody true! Revenge of The Sith was beyond reproach.

Ok. ROTS was good compared to TPM and AOTC, which was atrocious IMO. For what they are worth aren't terrible movies, but compaired to their hype and the originals they just came up short IMHO.

 

[Mercurius]

So I take it by this logic ANYTHING introduced that is different from the previous movies, should be applauded simply for being "fresh"? That's just flawed.

"New" does not always equal good. And "old" doesn't always equal bad.

Refreshing display of logic on these boards, finally!

 

[Marx]

So I take it by this logic ANYTHING introduced that is different from the previous movies, should be applauded simply for being "fresh"? That's just flawed.

"New" does not always equal good. And "old" doesn't always equal bad.

That's not what I am saying Crook. What I am saying is that the new approach that Nolan has taken is a fresh way of interpretation. If we had had the same exact thing that has already come out, no one would be happy because it's ALL already been done before. What's so great about producing the same thing over and over and over again?

You do bring up a good point with the new Star Wars trilogy. But while it may not be superior to the originals, it's not horrible either. I LOVED "Revenge." Could it have been better yes. (I do take exception with Jar Jar Binks. I cannot stand that character and never, I mean never, will.)

 

[The Joker]

So I take it by this logic ANYTHING introduced that is different from the previous movies, should be applauded simply for being "fresh"? That's just flawed.

"New" does not always equal good. And "old" doesn't always equal bad.

Agreed

 

[regwec]

A lot of us "die hards" wanted a "new" direction for the movies, because the old ones either strayed too much from the comics, or were plain rubbish.

Some of us feel that we now have a "new" direction that strays from the comics just as much, but in a different direction. I think Nolan makes good Batmovies, and I thought that Burton made good Batmovies. But there's nothing wrong with wanting to see an adaptation with more fidelity to the source.

 

[The Shape]

So I take it by this logic ANYTHING introduced that is different from the previous movies, should be applauded simply for being "fresh"? That's just flawed.

"New" does not always equal good. And "old" doesn't always equal bad.

Well, "new" does not always equal bad, and "old" doesn't always equal good.

The truth is that for every person that wishes we could get a Batman movie that is more faithful to the comics, there is another person that loves the direction these movies and enjoys seeing a different interpretation of the characters.

There is no possible way that everyone will be pleased when a Batman movie is made.

 

[Marx]

A lot of us "die hards" wanted a "new" direction for the movies, because the old ones either strayed too much from the comics, or were plain rubbish.

Some of us feel that we now have a "new" direction that strays from the comics just as much, but in a different direction. I think Nolan makes good Batmovies, and I thought that Burton made good Batmovies. But there's nothing wrong with wanting to see an adaptation with more fidelity to the source.

I'm a "die hard" myself, but I could not be more thrilled with the new way of interpretation that Nolan has taken. Is Nolan's version perfect? Absolutely not. But it is refreshing to see a good reinterpretation of all things Batman. Alot of what works in comics, does not, will not, and can not translate well to the big screen.

Is it wrong to want to see an adaptation with more source fidelity? Absolutely not. I've never said that it was.

 

[Mercurius]

The truth is that for every person that wishes we could get a Batman movie that is more faithful to the comics, there is another person that loves the direction these movies and enjoys seeing a different interpretation of the characters.

Although I like new interpretations when they're interesting and solid (like Burton's and Nolan's), I would like to see something more faithful, too.

I would like a Batman who isn't covered in armour and yet, like n the comics, faces everything with stern methods and fearless.

And I would like to see a neat, thin and ambiguous Joker, in his flamboyant murderous style, à la Bolland.

That's not bad, I suppose.

 

[regwec]

Thought I would chime in with one more thing.

Talking with big words making yourself sound poetic so you can show your dick is bigger than others does not make you intelligent. It makes you look like an *******, and thus, ruining it for other people who actually are intelligent enough that they do not need to belittle people with a Faux Oxford Level English Professor tone in a sad attempt to sound educated.

In short, you are not actually Ra's al Ghul. You are a kid behind a computer screen. You are arguing about a fictional character in a bat suit, not quantum physics or major philosophical problems.

So stop the act kid, and have harmless fun in the fact that a guy runs around kicking criminal ass in pretend land and gives you a *****. Harmless fun. You know, the thing were you enjoy yourself without causing harm to others?

I could respond to this with some cutting satyrical flair, and show one and all what a deadly weapon sarcasm can be when wielded by a bored "kid behind a computer screen".

But you wouldn't understand any of it, and then you would become unhappy and frustrated. So to you, I will just say "ner ner ner".

To everyone else; if my "speech" annoys you, then I'm sorry. This is the way I think, and the way I write. It isn't an affectation. Look at my post count. If this wasn't the most natural way for me to communicate, then I could scarecely be bothered to maintain it.

And with that is mind- "teh Prema white is teh RULEzzzzZZZZZ!!!!!!"

 

[CaptainClown]

I don't even know where the idea of Regwec actually thinking he is Rah's came from.

 

[Saint]

I could respond to this with some cutting satyrical flair, and show one and all what a deadly weapon sarcasm can be when wielded by a bored "kid behind a computer screen".

But you wouldn't understand any of it, and then you would become unhappy and frustrated. So to you, I will just say "ner ner ner".

To everyone else; if my "speech" annoys you, then I'm sorry. This is the way I think, and the way I write. It isn't an affectation. Look at my post count. If this wasn't the most natural way for me to communicate, then I could scarecely be bothered to maintain it.

And with that is mind- "teh Prema white is teh RULEzzzzZZZZZ!!!!!!"

Bafflingly, the post you've quoted--and my response to it--have mysteriously been deleted.

 

[Solidus]

Bafflingly, the post you've quoted--and my response to it--have mysteriously been deleted.

I had a little hand in that.

He said some choice nasty things to me last night on this thread. So....

 

[namtaB]

Thought I would chime in with one more thing.

Talking with big words making yourself sound poetic so you can show your dick is bigger than others does not make you intelligent. It makes you look like an *******, and thus, ruining it for other people who actually are intelligent enough that they do not need to belittle people with a Faux Oxford Level English Professor tone in a sad attempt to sound educated.

In short, you are not actually Ra's al Ghul. You are a kid behind a computer screen. You are arguing about a fictional character in a bat suit, not quantum physics or major philosophical problems.

So stop the act kid, and have harmless fun in the fact that a guy runs around kicking criminal ass in pretend land and gives you a *****. Harmless fun. You know, the thing were you enjoy yourself without causing harm to others?

LMAO

 

[CaptainClown]

he insulted solidus! my soldius?! what was the topic on? Is it about how we seemingly all ganged up on him?

 

[Solidus]

he insulted solidus! my soldius?! what was the topic on? Is it about how we seemingly all ganged up on him?

LOL, he said something about me......pleasuring myself with comics and stuff. If you get my drift.

 

[regwec]

Yeah, I wonder whether that's supposed to be some sort of disciplinary measure, or whether our apo-linguistic antagonist has seen sense.

 

[Crook]

That's not what I am saying Crook. What I am saying is that the new approach that Nolan has taken is a fresh way of interpretation. If we had had the same exact thing that has already come out, no one would be happy because it's ALL already been done before. What's so great about producing the same thing over and over and over again?

Do you honestly believe Nolan didn't recycle things ALREADY being done to death? Yes, he brought forth new things. But he was absolutely not innocent of reusing old elements of the franchise.

Well, "new" does not always equal bad, and "old" doesn't always equal good.

Ok. Never indicated otherwise.

The truth is that for every person that wishes we could get a Batman movie that is more faithful to the comics, there is another person that loves the direction these movies and enjoys seeing a different interpretation of the characters.

It's not mutually exclusive though. I could "love" a different take on the character, but at the same time I will always prefer a more faithful approach be taken. It's called "adaptation" for a reason.

I had a little hand in that.

He said some choice nasty things to me last night on this thread. So....

...we've got a rat.

 

[CaptainClown]

LOL, he said something about me......pleasuring myself with comics and stuff. If you get my drift.

speaking of mindlessly indulging yourself to comics; you should get Batman and Robin All Star. Hilarious, well until the end.

 

[Solidus]

...we've got a rat.

I ain't no rat!!!

speaking of mindlessly indulging yourself to comics; you should get Batman and Robin All Star. Hilarious, well until the end.

LOL, sounds good, maybe I will check that out. I'm all for hilarious!