The Dark Knight New Joker Clip

[Bat-Mite]

You talk very condescendingly. I don’t appreciate it. Do you think I don’t know all this?

That's funny, I thought I was typing. I kid, though. But yes, it's very easy to come to the conclusion that you didn't know about such things as the TDKR batmobile from some of the comments you were making.

Please don’t exaggerate for the sake of arguing. I’m not especially bothered and I’m well aware of Joker using knives, explosive, and firearms in the comics. I’m far from opposed to that. He doesn't depend upon the gas...and neither do I. My issue stems from personality changes. Superficial things I can get passed, but I’m somewhat concerned that this Joker will be overly serious. I stand by the Joker requiring a sense of humor, otherwise he‘s just a one-dimensional killer in a medium when homicidal madmen are a dime a dozen. I’m fearful that Nolan didn’t retain that enough. Only time will tell.

I didn't think I was arguing just for the sake of arguing. You asked if it was so wrong to want to see Joker gas in the movie, implying that the movie was less comic book accurate due to not using it. My response to that is that it's only less accurate if they're basing this Joker solely on appearances where he uses the venom, which they're obviously not. As for personality changes, I don't see any evidence that the Joker's going to be overly serious in this film. I mean, think of the film's tag line: Why So Serious? If anything, this Joker sees other people as being too serious. He cackles like a hyena when driving around in his slaughter truck, laughs like a madman when he throws Rachel out of an open window, acts like a complete goofball when he crashes a party, and dresses up in a nurse outfit with a tacky wig when he goes to the hospital. And this is just the stuff we know about. Too serious? Not by a long shot, in my opinion. That he's not laughing every time we see him doesn't make him too serious. Even the Jokers of Nicholson and Hamill didn't do that.

Secondly; I’ve never considered the tank featured in Dark Knight Returns to be a Batmobile. I’ve considered it just that; a tank. A so-called “bat” tank! A Batmobile is something else entirely. It’s like saying the Bat copter (now there’s an old reference) and the Batwing are basically the same because they both fly. Well…no they’re not! The Tumbler is a composite of more traditional Batmobiles and the tank featured in Frank Millers story. I’d personally much rather have something akin to the Burton Batmobile and I’m hoping that something similar will be featured in later sequel. I don't dislike the Tumbler, but it's easily not the most popular "Batmobile."

You're entitled to your opinion, but whether you see the TDKR batmobile as a true batmobile or not, that's what it is. It's called that in the comic book itself, and there's really no other name for it. The batmobile is merely an automobile that Batman uses to suit his purposes. Some people consider the little red car Batman uses in his very first appearances to be a batmobile. I might not be fond of that red car, but I can't exactly call people wrong when they call it a batmobile, because in the context of those comic books, it is.

Finally; You’re right! The Dark Knight Returns being the most popular Batman story is very arguable.

Now who's being condescending? Popularity issues aside, it's definitely one of the most influential comic books, especially when it comes to Batman '89 (the hologram wall scene was directly borrowed from it, for example).

 

[nolan's roll'n]

3 more days!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CFE]

Except, in the movie, Bruce travels from Gotham City to Hong Kong. Yes, just in case you didn't know, Hong Kong in the movie is ... Hong Kong. So there goes your theory out the window. By having Bruce travel from Gotham City to Hong Kong, Nolan is firmly cementing Gotham City and the movie itself in the real world.

If Gotham City in Nolan's view was part of a make-believe world:

1.) It would be impossible for Bruce to travel from Gotham to Hong Kong
2.) Nolan would have never included the entire Hong Kong sequence, or go to the trouble of actually shooting in Hong Kong in the first place.

here...

Show me on this map where it says "Gotham City" is located, and then you'll be right.

It might be a bit difficult though, seeings how Gotham City doesn't exist...which is what I actually said.

Seriously, you just called me out on my 'Theory' that Gotham is a make-believe location.

Though if you want to get technical, I did say 'make-believe' world. I was talking about the 'Batman World' in a general since.

Because see along with Gotham City ... Batman, Gordon, Joker, Arkham Asylum, Wayne Enterprises and every hero, villain and location unless specified by the real world presented in the comics ... doesn't exist.

Ever since 1939 it was common knowledge that while we as the readers couldn't actually visit Gotham City, the city in terms of comics (and by extension TV, animation and film) was placed within the real world, which in turn allowed our modern Batman to travel the world to Japan, China and Europe to train himself. But that doesn't mean we can take out our "Begins" DVDs and decide to hop a plane for Metropolis or Corto Maltese or something.

I mean duh ... what Batman fan didn't know that

CFE

 

[MysterioMenace]

Exactly what "era" of the comic books portrayed Joker as dancing around a lot, acting primarily juvenile, and laughing profusely? TV shows don't count.

How exactly do you know Ledger's Joker is or isn't permanently white? Yes, Ledger's Joker DOES wear make-up, but he has NO explanation and NO origin, so unlike Batman 89', there is no explanation either way for Joker's appearance. Also, as I stated earlier, appearance is not the issue here, but characterization is.

Also to correct you, in the very first comic appearance Joker DID put on makeup. It was not clown makeup, but it was skin-tone makeup to disguise himself as a cop. Furthermore, in his first appearance Joker's white appearance was never explained, just like Joker's appearance in The Dark Knight is never explained. For all we know, Joker's white skin in his first comic appearance WAS makeup.

Yes, the characters do evolve BUT there are some key elements that consistently remain throughout the ages.

Please tell me exactly what aspects of Heath Joker's characterization contradicts what I am saying?

While you might not care what is definitive and what isn't, the vast majority of Batman fans collectively have ONE definitive Joker in their minds. The definitive portrayal of the Joker varies among a minority of Batman fans. By the way, definitive means fully formed and complete.

I don't care what your opinion is on a definitive portrayal, but Nicholson's Joker was NOT a definitive or comically accurate portrayal in terms of characterization for the vast majority of Batman fans. Heath's portrayal IS a definitive portrayal for the vast majority of Batman fans. THAT is the difference. Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker was not fully formed, nor was it complete. The characterization of Nicholson's Joker was missing some major aspects for it to be considered fully formed, complete and therefore definitive.

Please don't rehash any appearance arguments as I am specifically focusing on characterization here.

You’re such a broken record. How many times are you going to speak of a majority? Was there a poll conducted that I’m not aware of? What’s your point? That a majority makes something right? Since when? A majority felt that Bush should be re-elected. That worked out well. Heath has the younger crowd. Nicholson has the older. Knowledgeable Batman fans like both. You’re also immensely rude. You def. don’t know as much about Batman as you arrogantly proclaim. So if your argument falls back on who has the majority then actually legitimate reasoning…it’s really rather pathetic.

Jack Nicholson is no less accurate then Heaths portrayal. There’s decades of comic continuity that agrees with me. A knowledgeable Batman fan knows this as they understand they both derive from comic book Joker, merely different versions. The Joker was originally basically a one-dimensional killer. He wasn’t even particularly funny whatsoever. That what makes a definitive portrayal? That's pretty dense if you ask me. But that was very early on and extremely short-lived. So what’s your point of bringing it up?

Batman also killed people originally. Did you know that? He literally carried around a gun in 1939. Does that mean that Nolan should have Bruce blowing away criminals during Batman Begins? That would be considered sacrilege today. Batman doesn’t kill willfully. Well…he did conceptually. More often then not characters grow from their original form. They evolve into a more iconic and recognizable version later on in life. The Joker has changed more then even most comic book characters. He went from being essentially just a mere homicidal murderer, then a pinch of humor was added, then to a borderline harmless prankster thanks to the Comics Code. It wasn’t until Denis O’Neil revived the more gothic and psychological tones (in the early 70’s) of the original Bob Kane comics that Joker became dangerous again. But now he was more of a meshing of the clown and killer. There wasn’t an emphasis upon either side. He achieved a symmetry between the two. Joker was funny but every bit as frightening and deadly. So your points on Jokers original appearance are utterly moot. Conceptual doesn’t mean definitive. Far from…

Then you have the superficiality. Whilst you keep specifying characterization, I’m going to touch on this nonetheless. Jack Nicholson looks more like the Joker. That much is common sense. You’ve also got bleached skin and dyed hair/lips with Jack. It’s not optional for this Joker. Just like the Joker in the comics, he cannot take off the make-up. It’s there to stay. And just so you know, because you seemingly haven’t paid much attention to Batman (1989), Joker does wear flesh-toned make-up in the film. Then we’re even missing his trademark laughing gas in Dark Knight. But the superficial things I think most reasonable people can get past. I agree that it is about character. Heath's has changes there too.

The Jack Nicholson Joker seen in the Burton original most certainly is the Joker. Just because kids today once briefly glanced over a Batman comic in the grocery store and now happen to agree with you…doesn’t mean crap! You’re not even remotely playing fair. Your bias toward Heath is disgusting. I don’t even know why I’m trying. Nicholson’s personality derived from Denis O’Neil’s Joker. Heaths stems from Jokers original appearance more then anything else, though Nolan seemingly has thrown in some level of humor, though limited. You’re not actually sitting here saying that the original Joker was the definitive version, are you? That’s actually laughable. I suppose that would also mean that the original Batman was the definitive version and thusly you feel he should also be murdering. Well…we all know that’s not the case. Definitive versions take time to grow.

The definitive Joker is humorous. Murder does not define the character. That’s a very poor and narrow-minded assessment of what’s arguable the greatest comic book villain ever made. Comics have hundreds of homicidal madman. There is nothing inherently original or special about that. What differentiates the Joker from every other Joe serial killer is his personality. It’s not about the murder, it’s about how he goes about the murder. The Joker that’s thrived the longest in the comics should be considered the definitive version. That’s not Heath Ledgers version. Once again, Heaths is based heavily off of a Joker that only lasted at or around two issues. He’s overly serious as far as I’m concerned. So if you’re going to speak of characterization…then his sense of humor is going to come up. Definitive Joker has been dark and sickly comedic for decades, surviving longer then any other incarnation of the character. He has been portrayed dancing, juvenile, and laughing profusely. If you don’t know that…you’re more ignorant then I thought. Buy The greatest Joker stories ever told, an unbiased collection of Joker stories from all eras, and then say he doesn‘t laugh profusely, dance, and act juvenile (albeit in violent and sick ways)! You have even modern comics in which he acts this way. Batman: Hush depicted the Joker with a classic bang gun! He's spouting off puns like mad in Killing Joke. He's hysterical in No Mans Land. That speaks volumes. Heath Ledgers doesn’t seem to have much of a sense of humor. I don’t expect his version to be gimmicky, but I do expect some laughs from the clown prince of crime. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but I’m not getting much of that from Heath. Finally Joker (to this very day) uses jokes, puns, props, and gags in the comics. I can site you numerous examples. That again displays his sense of humor. That again displays Heaths lacking of it and a departure from the definitive Jokers characterization.

So no…a knowledgeable Batman fan knows that Heath isn’t any more-or-less accurate then Jacks. If anything Burtons is more accurate (especially in character) to definitive Joker, excluding the mobster backstory. If you don't know that then you're just ignorant of the facts. You're already outnumbered in this very thread. Where's your majority? But the real question is this; why is it a competition? They’re both based off of different versions of the Joker. It’s all preference. I like them both and I believe that is the majority. They're both beloved. Besides, the definitive Joker is the comic book Joker. Any era. This is just a movie, an imitation of the main Batman medium: comics.

 

[Crook]

Hrm. Well I had an entire response ready to be written, but you just did all of that quite beautifully, my man.

Much more thought out and well-written than what I would have done.

 

[MysterioMenace]

Thanks man! Glad you liked it.

 

[Superhobo]

Exactly what "era" of the comic books portrayed Joker as dancing around a lot, acting primarily juvenile, and laughing profusely? TV shows don't count.

How did he act juvenile? And 'laughing profusely,' a complaint about the Joker?

How exactly do you know Ledger's Joker is or isn't permanently white?

Because it's obviously makeup that's primarily on his face that he actually washes off at one point in the film.

Yes, Ledger's Joker DOES wear make-up,

Correct. Thank you.

but he has NO explanation and NO origin,

If it's makeup, then it's makeup.

Also to correct you, in the very first comic appearance Joker DID put on makeup. It was not clown makeup, but it was skin-tone makeup to disguise himself as a cop. Furthermore, in his first appearance Joker's white appearance was never explained, just like Joker's appearance in The Dark Knight is never explained. For all we know, Joker's white skin in his first comic appearance WAS makeup.

You know, the last panel of the first issue was him shirtless in the back of a hospital van, right? No, it wasn't makeup.

I don't care what your opinion is on a definitive portrayal, but Nicholson's Joker was NOT a definitive or comically accurate portrayal in terms of characterization for the vast majority of Batman fans.

"I don't care what your opinion is! My opinion is right!"

Heath's portrayal IS a definitive portrayal for the vast majority of Batman fans. THAT is the difference. Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker was not fully formed, nor was it complete. The characterization of Nicholson's Joker was missing some major aspects for it to be considered fully formed, complete and therefore definitive.

Permanently bleached skin? Yup. Sociopath? You bet. Mass murderer? Totally. Dark, morbid sense of humor? Betcha. Most of it derived from death? Yuh huh. And so on, and so on.

 

[xwhysoseriousx]

Two things about this clip:

1. It is SOOOOOOOO badass that Heath did his own stunts for this scene. I can remember seeing spy set footage of him standing in the back of the truck flying through Wacker Drive. I guess this answers what scene they were filming!

2. Who is the actor who says the lines: "What the hell was that?" and "What is that? A bazooka?!" He looks soooo familiar but I can't put my finger on it!

 

[MysterioMenace]

You know, the last panel of the first issue was him shirtless in the back of a hospital van, right? No, it wasn't makeup.

Yah. That's correct. The first issue of Batman was broken into a few different stories. The first Joker story ends with him in jail. The second and last story (in the first issue) has him stabbed and taken out in what appears to be an ambulance. It's hard to make out if he is or isn't shirtless, but it's pitch white nonetheless. So it's not make-up. The Joker was bleached even originally.

Kids these days…they think they know everything from reading just a single comic book. They're so ignorant. I love schooling them.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

When you buy stuff like that, you buy them wholesale. In bulk.


It's the only way to shop.


In fact, that babycakes poster, who does the art for that chealseagrin.com website, should do something like that.

Joker walking around a CostCo or Sam's Club-like store, with a shopping cart, filled with guns and bombs and such. Tankards of gasoline, gun powder kegs. Browsing around the RPGs section.

That is hilarious

Here is also a clue: the Tumbler was built to withstand a 30 foot jump in real life. While some of the Tumbler's sequences are supplemented by effects, the majority of the things the Tumbler does in both movies were done in real life, with the camera filming the Tumbler actually doing those things.

The Tumbler was built for a movie, and yet it can perform incredible acts in real life like surviving a 30 foot jump, which is something many vehicles would not be able to do.

If a vehicle very similar to the Tumbler was built by the government or a company for military purposes, it's not a stretch to imagine the Tumbler doing things like wedging itself under a garbage truck in real life. Quite a few light tanks can do that in real life.

NO, they WERENT. You've named one thing it can do - SURVIVE a 30 ft jump. Not MAKE the jump - certainly not make the jump RAMPLESS as it is supposedly able to do in the film, no, we're just talking about a big pair of SHOCKS on this vehicle. How is that so amazing? Any ol' dirtbike can do the same thing, and far better. You make 30 feet sound like a huge deal - that's not even the length of 2 cars!

How exactly can it do "MOST" of what you see on film? Wedge under semi? No it can't - done with models. Rampless jumps? No it can't - done with RAMPS. Drive through concrete barriers? NO it CANT - done with all break-away walls. Go really fast? No it cant - never goes over 100 on set. Amazingly transform into a batpod contraption? NO IT CANT. Done with FX. Hop over rooftops? No it cant - completely impossible. Be operated by a remote control gizmo? No it can't.

So where is this "most of the stuff it can do" evidence?

The only thing special about the tumbler is that it's a unique (read ugly) design, has no front axel and has a big pair of shocks. Sorry if that doesn't exactly impress me or convince me that it's so much better than the sleek batmobile of old... like BR.

 

[Crook]

You make 30 feet sound like a huge deal - that's not even the length of 2 cars!

Wait, what?

 

[SuperBatman]

I wonder what point of the movie that is at.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

the new footage=AMAZING!

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Wait, what?

Ya I was laughin at that one myself! t:

 

[Nivek]

That is hilarious



NO, they WERENT. You've named one thing it can do - SURVIVE a 30 ft jump. Not MAKE the jump - certainly not make the jump RAMPLESS as it is supposedly able to do in the film, no, we're just talking about a big pair of SHOCKS on this vehicle. How is that so amazing? Any ol' dirtbike can do the same thing, and far better. You make 30 feet sound like a huge deal - that's not even the length of 2 cars!

How exactly can it do "MOST" of what you see on film? Wedge under semi? No it can't - done with models. Rampless jumps? No it can't - done with RAMPS. Drive through concrete barriers? NO it CANT - done with all break-away walls. Go really fast? No it cant - never goes over 100 on set. Amazingly transform into a batpod contraption? NO IT CANT. Done with FX. Hop over rooftops? No it cant - completely impossible. Be operated by a remote control gizmo? No it can't.

So where is this "most of the stuff it can do" evidence?

The only thing special about the tumbler is that it's a unique (read ugly) design, has no front axel and has a big pair of shocks. Sorry if that doesn't exactly impress me or convince me that it's so much better than the sleek batmobile of old... like BR.

are you honestly comparing the Tumbler, which is the only somewhat functional Batmoblile ever created for live action, to the Fiberglass sculptures and low velocity funny cars from the previous films and TV show?

 

[magus]

@ Joker argument: I don't see why liking Nolan/Ledger's version of the character mandates disliking Burton/Nicholson's and vice versa. Both are accurate portrayals (as Mysterio said) and have a place in Batman media. From what I have seen of Ledger's Joker he is very much in line with the Joker of The Killing Joke and Nicholson's is much more like The Man Who Laughs; both great works and with a slightly different, though not necessarily opposing, takes on the character.

@Tumbler *****ing: The Tumbler was without a doubt more functional than all of the previous Batmoblies -- the mere fact that it could drive at more than 15 mph assures that. It couldn't do ALL of the stunts done in the film but as I recall there were several different Tumblers created, each with a different function: one with a turbine, a jumper, a speedy one, and some just to be blown up.

The aesthetics are completely debatable (as any opinion), but the increased utility of the Tumbler really isn't. Some may prefer a flashier sports car-like Batmobile (not me personally)but I find the "tank-like" vehicles much more appropriate for the effect Batman is going for in this series: fear.

 

[Superhobo]

are you honestly comparing the Tumbler, which is the only somewhat functional Batmoblile ever created for live action, to the Fiberglass sculptures and low velocity funny cars from the previous films and TV show?

Except hey, guess what the Tumbler was made out of? Fiberglass. And, really - it can't run much faster than any of the ones from the previous franchise outside of the film itself.

 

[magus]

Except hey, guess what the Tumbler was made out of? Fiberglass. And, really - it can't run much faster than any of the ones from the previous franchise outside of the film itself.

It was specced to do 0-60 in 5 secs and ~100 mph. They also used the real Tumbler for the waterfall sequence. I doubt the Burton batmobile could do that jump.

 

[MysterioMenace]

Why are we debating about what the bat mobiles could actually do? Shouldn’t we be talking about what they do on film? I doubt the Burton Batmobile couldn’t do the jump in the film. In real life is another matter. That’s why it’s a movie I.E. fantasy. And I still stand behind the Burton Batmobile being the best ever made. I know I’m far from alone.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Wait, what?

A Ford Thunderbird is 17' long - for example. I know because I once measured it. How much is 17 + 17? Anyone know? Answer = MORE THAN 30.

Good grief.

 

[magus]

Why are we debating about what the bat mobiles could actually do? Shouldn’t we be talking about what they do on film? I doubt the Burton Batmobile couldn’t do the jump in the film. In real life is another matter. That’s why it’s a movie I.E. fantasy. And I still stand behind the Burton Batmobile being the best ever made. I know I’m far from alone.

In the film you can make either do whatever you want; the only criteria to judge them on in the film is aesthetics. You can't say "Burton's is cooler because it split into three" because any film iteration of it can do that. So basically the argument comes down to "I think this one looks cooler". You are free to have your opinion and, while I like the Burton batmobile, I also don't believe it was appropriate for the context of Nolan's films -- this Batman (and his director) is much more focused on practicality than Burton's, who is much more aesthetically inclined (not the character himself, but Burton certainly paid much more attention to the aesthetic).

Let's take the Batmobile chat out of this thread, though; it isn't appropriate and the Joker chat was much more interesting.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

are you honestly comparing the Tumbler, which is the only somewhat functional Batmoblile ever created for live action, to the Fiberglass sculptures and low velocity funny cars from the previous films and TV show?

Yes - because guess what, this isn't a contest about which director can make something "closest to a functioning batmobile." This is FILM. It's all FAKE. What is important is how it looks on screen, what it APPEARS to do on screen, and the effect it has on the story. THATS IT. What material its made out of, or what it could and couldn't do in RL has NOTHING to do with whether or not it made a good batmobile ON FILM.

By your argument, the best Batman actor would be the one who could bench press the most and beat up the biggest criminals in real life. Which is of course absolutely ridiculous. It's about which actor can create that ILLUSION on FILM.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Except, in the movie, Bruce travels from Gotham City to Hong Kong. Yes, just in case you didn't know, Hong Kong in the movie is ... Hong Kong. So there goes your theory out the window. By having Bruce travel from Gotham City to Hong Kong, Nolan is firmly cementing Gotham City and the movie itself in the real world.

If Gotham City in Nolan's view was part of a make-believe world:

1.) It would be impossible for Bruce to travel from Gotham to Hong Kong
2.) Nolan would have never included the entire Hong Kong sequence, or go to the trouble of actually shooting in Hong Kong in the first place.

Wow... just.. wow. I get the feeling you haven't read many Batman comics or even seen much of the Animated Series, for that matter. Because, believe it or not, Bruce does travel outside of Gotham City, and to locations that exist in the real world, no less. In Batman: TAS, he travels to India, Egypt, and Japan. Does that mean the creators of the Animated Series were trying to add realism to the series by sending him to those places? I doubt it. They just sent him there because it suited the story they were trying to tell. It's no different here. Batman especially travels a lot when tracking down Ra's al Ghul. The majority of the comics featuring that villain will have Bruce venturing outside of Gotham, but to state that it's done to add realism to the comics is ludicrous. It's done because al Ghul travels all over the world and Batman follows.

 

[Crook]

A Ford Thunderbird is 17' long - for example. I know because I once measured it. How much is 17 + 17? Anyone know? Answer = MORE THAN 30.

It just sounded like you thought most cars were on average of 17 feet or something. Which they're not.

Good grief.

Calm down...

 

[MysterioMenace]

Wow... just.. wow. I get the feeling you haven't read many Batman comics or even seen much of the Animated Series, for that matter. Because, believe it or not, Bruce does travel outside of Gotham City, and to locations that exist in the real world, no less. In Batman: TAS, he travels to India, Egypt, and Japan. Does that mean the creators of the Animated Series were trying to add realism to the series by sending him to those places? I doubt it. They just sent him there because it suited the story they were trying to tell. It's no different here. Batman especially travels a lot when tracking down Ra's al Ghul. The majority of the comics featuring that villain will have Bruce venturing outside of Gotham, but to state that it's done to add realism to the comics is ludicrous. It's done because al Ghul travels all over the world and Batman follows.

Small world! I just watched this very episode (Avatar) just the other night. Great episode. Extremely pulp-oriented. Batman in essentially an Indiana Jones adventure serial. Some might consider this Batman out of his atmosphere, but I’d argue it’s very much in keeping with his spirit. It’s just not especially gothic. But you’re absolutely correct, Batman travels the real world constantly. Gotham is a fictional city in an otherwise reality based background. It’s still of this Earth and most Ra’s Al Ghul stories have Batman travel the world in search of the demon.