The Battousai
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 10,642
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I leave it up to you.
That is the most unflattering pic of him, though, so I wouldn't go by that one, myself
I leave it up to you.
That is the most unflattering pic of him, though, so I wouldn't go by that one, myself
So beeing deep into a characters suddenly means nothing? The average joe didn't mind that there was no batmobile, because they weren't that deep into it as me. I however, being a life long fan of the character and his "gadgets" was hoping for a batmobile because that's part of his mythos. Average Joe didn't care that Ra's was completely different from in the comics. However, I did because part of the reason I go see a comic adaptation is because I want to see what is in the comics come to life. Granted, they strayed away from alot of the source material, but you know what? They made it work. Just like Tim Burton made it work. I'm not saying that the movie or the Joker won't be great. I'm saying that, at least in my book, one of the main points in going to see a comic book film, is to see what actually took place in the comics on the big screen. This Joker is not what was in the comics.
What, other than the perma-white and slightly scruffy look, makes him veer so far away from the comics Joker?There is, but less of it. I think optimism at this stage verges on naivety, though of course I hope the optimists are vindicated.
Hard to say for certain, though his knife-wielding po-facedness doesn't really sing "Joker" to me.
I find myself moving more towards a view of The Joker as an ultimate trickster archetype. I re-read Arkham Asylum last evening, and recalled how fitting was the moment when The Joker allows Batman to gamble for his freedom. Life should be a game to him. I actually think he is less about "anarchy" than eschatology, in a way; like he has some sort of defined role in the moral fabric of Gotham, which mirrors Batman's.
How are you, anyway? I'm currently afflicted with the norovirus, which isn't much fun.
Yes, that would be an incredibly superficial reading of both stories.
Actually, it is much deeper, since your interpretation equates to saying "The Joker is a baddie and does bad stuff".
Otherwise, I suggest you pass on your comments to Grant Morrison, since his "interpretation" of Arkham Asylum is the basis for mine.
all clearly a form of anarchism
Right, that's the bit I disagree with. In both of those stories, The Joker acts to deconstruct and then reconstruct somebody, while giving some sort of lesson to the heroes and to the reader. I don't really think that can simply be described as "anarchism" any more than Satan's temptation of Christ. It's much more creative, and it really does seem an awful lot more sophisticated than a "just want(ing) to watch the world burn", which seems like Nolan's half-hearted way of explaining away a lack of character development.
It's much more creative, and it really does seem an awful lot more sophisticated than a "just want(ing) to watch the world burn", which seems like Nolan's half-hearted way of explaining away a lack of character development.
You think that the Joker requires any character development?
I like the idea of the Joker being "absolute". He is just this evil that exists. He's not on a spiritual journey. This is not a learning process for him. There is no beginning and there is no end for him.
When it comes to the Joker in this particular movie, I think there's no need for any deeply meaningful character development.
In TKJ he sets out to prove that anyone is capable of crossing the thin membrane between sanity and insanity. Gordon is resistant to the process, and grows as a character by refusing revenge in order to prove that "our way" (sanity) works. Batman and The Joker's final dialogue is a meditation on their respective mental states, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the crucial difference between them. This is all "lesson learning" in the fairytale mould.
You should really read Morrison's annotations to Arkham Asylum- an attempt to refresh and rebuild Batman is exactly The Joker's objective in that story.
Now, I'm not saying that this is the pattern of every Joker story, only that themes such as these are the ones I like best. I certainly find them more compelling than the catch-all of "anarchism" or "he's just bad" or whatever.
I'm grand, not a bother, hope you get over the virus soon. Remember to take an extra 2 - 3 days off after recovering so you're not contagious by the time you go back to work.Hard to say for certain, though his knife-wielding po-facedness doesn't really sing "Joker" to me.
I find myself moving more towards a view of The Joker as an ultimate trickster archetype. I re-read Arkham Asylum last evening, and recalled how fitting was the moment when The Joker allows Batman to gamble for his freedom. Life should be a game to him. I actually think he is less about "anarchy" than eschatology, in a way; like he has some sort of defined role in the moral fabric of Gotham, which mirrors Batman's.
How are you, anyway? I'm currently afflicted with the norovirus, which isn't much fun.
It doesn´t mean "nothing", but doesn´t mean you´re always right and the person who isn´t a fanatic or purist is always wrong. The fanatics often get too attached to specific details and miss the bigger picture.
The Joker I saw on the trailer is totally The Joker, malicious, psychotic, anarchic - in the bad sense, ruthless, with a twisted sense of humor and creepy-looking, with a maniacal laughter. That is The Joker. His origin and backgrounds had a ton of different takes and interpretations, even in comics. Writers like Alan Moore and Paul Dini don´t even think he should have a "definitive" origin.
I leave it up to you.
Right, that's the bit I disagree with. In both of those stories, The Joker acts to deconstruct and then reconstruct somebody, while giving some sort of lesson to the heroes and to the reader. I don't really think that can simply be described as "anarchism" any more than Satan's temptation of Christ. It's much more creative, and it really does seem an awful lot more sophisticated than a "just want(ing) to watch the world burn", which seems like Nolan's half-hearted way of explaining away a lack of character development.
I leave it up to you.
Like I said. Yeah, it pissed me off, but I'm to the point where I'm still going to go watch the movie and probably be blown away after seeing all of the things you referred. I mean, of course it's not that serious, but at the same time, one is left with the feeling like "why can't they just do it like it is?" I mean, was it that hard to make the guy all white and then have the audience put together the pieces on how he got that way? Tim Burton differentiated, so did Nolan, and I loved all three of those films. The only thing is we've yet to see something that is exactly how it is in the comics. But like I said, I still see him being all white by the end of the movie. Some crazy **** will happen, and that will be the "twist". Nolan knows that not making Joker all white is going to piss people off. But I'm thinking that that is his aim, initially. Have people all pissed and then at the end something happens to the Joker to make him perma white after all.