The Dark Knight New Joker Clip

[StylishHokie21]

1: Uh...I didn't say that I hadn't bashed before.

2: Technically I'm not wrong in my statement that fans should stop whining and start appreciating, but in the end all I'm making is a statement...not a topic of debate. And my statement is all I was trying to say, that's all I've EVER been saying. Why people think I'm trying to pick a fight or "be right" is beyond me.

3: Gotham City IS a make-believe world ... sure it's a more over-the-top display in the previous films than Nolan's... but that doesn't change the fact that Nolan's films aren't taking place in a factual world. No 'Batman related
media' ever does, since Gotham doesn't exist...at all.

----

I'm looking forward to "The Dark Knight" with as much anticipation as everyone on this board...but what exactly is there to gain by ripping on Burton and Schumacher's films in the process?

Actually...what exactly is there to gain from ripping on them at all?

CFE

Well said CFE!

 

[Go Web Go!]

New Joker blows crap up.

Old Joker defaces paintings.

You decide who's better.

 

[Crook]

Way to make a just comparison.

 

[magus]

New Joker blows crap up.

Old Joker defaces paintings.

You decide who's better.

Not really fair considering the old Joker killed hundreds (thousands?) in the streets of Gotham with poison Smilex gas. So far I am poised to prefer Heath's joker but let's not resort to hyperbole.

 

[MysterioMenace]

New Joker blows crap up.

Old Joker defaces paintings.

You decide who's better.

New Joker is a mobster in messy clown make-up.
Old Joker was the Joker.
You decide who’s better.

And have you seen Batman (1989)? Your comments are very bias. You blatantly spun your preference. Defacing painting is the least of what he does.

 

[Armored Avenger]

New Joker is a mobster in messy clown make-up.
Old Joker was the Joker.
You decide who’s better.

New Joker is a representation of the Joker
Old Joker is a representation of the Joker
Theres no need to decide whos better. You can like both, or you can prefer one to the other. It does not mean you have to hate the other representation

 

[Schlosser85]

New Joker is a mobster in messy clown make-up.
Old Joker was the Joker.
You decide who’s better.

And have you seen Batman (1989)? Your comments are very bias.

Have you seen The Dark Knight?

 

[Anita18]

New Joker is a representation of the Joker
Old Joker is a representation of the Joker
Theres no need to decide whos better. You can like both, or you can prefer one to the other. It does not mean you have to hate the other representation

Exactly, because the Joker is not a real person.

 

[Go Web Go!]

New Joker is a mobster in messy clown make-up.
Old Joker was the Joker.
You decide who’s better.

And have you seen Batman (1989)? Your comments are very bias. You blatantly spun your preference. Defacing painting is the least of what he does.

Oh stop. I'm not trying to tie anybody's panties in a knot. I'm not going to get into an argument, or even a discussion about who's better and why. I made a tongue in cheek comparison. Settle down.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

My only problem with this clip is something that probably won't bother anybody else, but I thought I'd just throw it in.

The cheesy stock high pitched "robot" whirring you can hear in the batmobile when we see Batman's face- I just never understood how with all of that talent and money, we sometimes have these annoyingly stock sounds slip into huge blockbusters. If you watch the MTV Hellboy clip you can hear the exact same sound when Abe is adjusting the camera device.

This movie is still going to be incredible, don't get me wrong. I just find that sort of thing annoying.

Good ear! I need to pay attention to stuff like that, considering I'm planning on getting into the "biz." I have a long way to go when it comes to sound design, though my hubby did it in college and is always telling me things like that which he spots in films, canned sounds, etc.

I think sound design is fascinating and few people really understand what those guys do. How they literally have to "create" sounds that don't exist when the picture is being shot, and creatively invent ways to make believable noises for the action. For instance, in Fight Club, obviously the actors never really "connect" the punches, but the sound design people had to make it sound brutal, without really hitting people. So I heard they took paddles to a leather couch (or was it a dead pig? can't remember now, maybe both...) in order to record the sound effects and make it seem real.

Pretty amazing stuff.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Wow. Badass clip. I wonder where Joker keep getting those wonderful toys. He keep getting more bazooka after using one.

 

[Anita18]

Good ear! I need to pay attention to stuff like that, considering I'm planning on getting into the "biz." I have a long way to go when it comes to sound design, though my hubby did it in college and is always telling me things like that which he spots in films, canned sounds, etc.

I think sound design is fascinating and few people really understand what those guys do. How they literally have to "create" sounds that don't exist when the picture is being shot, and creatively invent ways to make believable noises for the action. For instance, in Fight Club, obviously the actors never really "connect" the punches, but the sound design people had to make it sound brutal, without really hitting people. So I heard they took paddles to a leather couch (or was it a dead pig? can't remember now, maybe both...) in order to record the sound effects and make it seem real.

Pretty amazing stuff.

I thought the Tumbler whirring sound was actually pretty neat, but what do I know?

All I know is that the Tumbler or Batpod revving sounds FANTASTIC.

 

[TheBatman072]

Wow. Badass clip. I wonder where Joker keep getting those wonderful toys. He keep getting more bazooka after using one.

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.

 

[batmop]

3: Gotham City IS a make-believe world ... sure it's a more over-the-top display in the previous films than Nolan's... but that doesn't change the fact that Nolan's films aren't taking place in a factual world. No 'Batman related
media' ever does, since Gotham doesn't exist...at all.

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.

New Joker is a mobster in messy clown make-up.
Old Joker was the Joker.
You decide who’s better.

And have you seen Batman (1989)? Your comments are very bias. You blatantly spun your preference. Defacing painting is the least of what he does.

The vast majority of Batman fans would strongly disagree with you. If you are to use the earliest Batman comics as a reference point (as well as the most legendary and famous Batman comics involving Joker), then Ledger's portrayal of the Joker IS the Joker, while Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker is only partially Joker, with the other part being Nicholson portraying himself.

The fact that Nicholson's Joker starts off as an ordinary man/mobster and then "becomes" Joker after the chemical accident automatically invalidates his portrayal as the Joker in the eyes of many Batman fans.

Here is a clue: No "batmobile" from any film could do what it did in the films. INCLUDING the tumbler. Contrary to what you may think, it does not take out garbage trucks, wedge itself under semis, transform itself into a motorcycle, or complete ramp-less jumps on rooftops OR anywhere else for that matter, in real life. ITS A MOVIE. The tumbler is not some engineering marvel, a car with superpowers. It's called FX. And therefore it's not "better" than the other cars based on what it can/can't do.

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.

 

[Crook]

The vast majority of Batman fans would strongly disagree with you. If you are to use the earliest Batman comics as a reference point (as well as the most legendary and famous Batman comics involving Joker), then Ledger's portrayal of the Joker IS the Joker, while Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker is only partially Joker, with the other part being Nicholson portraying himself.

Joker's voice, speech patterns, nuances, etc. were partly Nicholson. But you cannot dictate such behavior on a comic book page. That is absolutely free for interpretation, hence why Nicholson's take is still valid. Unless you can definitively name several examples in the film that were solely Nicholson and NOT a trait of Joker.

The fact that Nicholson's Joker starts off as an ordinary man/mobster and then "becomes" Joker after the chemical accident automatically invalidates his portrayal as the Joker in the eyes of many Batman fans.

I don't see why, considering that was part of the comics long before the movie did it. Sure, it was one of many explanations for the character's history, but it was there nonetheless.

 

[batmop]

Joker's voice, speech patterns, nuances, etc. were partly Nicholson. But you cannot dictate such behavior on a comic book page. That is absolutely free for interpretation, hence why Nicholson's take is still valid. Unless you can definitively name several examples in the film that were solely Nicholson and NOT a trait of Joker.

I don't see why, considering that was part of the comics long before the movie did it. Sure, it was one of many explanations for the character's history, but it was there nonetheless.

His speech patterns, nuances, and voice could certainly be considered as valid portrayals of Joker, but that's really not where the criticism of Nicholson's portrayal lies. Any knowledgeable Batman fan knows that the criticism lies in the characterization of Nicholson's Joker. Nicholson was too juvenile and laughed too much for one thing. This was especially evident in the aspect of his characterization where he danced quite a bit. This behaviour certainly can, and has been dictated in the comic books.

Once again, if you look at the first comic appearances of the Joker, as well as the most famous and legendary comic appearances of Joker, for the most part Joker has no origin. Some later comic appearances went off on different tangents away from the original interpretation of the character. The reason the first comic appearances of the Joker are so important is because those are the original, and therefore pure interpretation of the character. Later interpretations of the character went off on different tangents away from the original interpretation, and that included the chemical bath/origin tangent.

There is also a very simple point that has seldom been brought up: a definitive and comically accurate portrayal of the Joker would need to take the most well-known, famous, and pure aspects of the character and combine them together in a believable, convincing, and charismatic way. Based on this, Nicholson's portrayal was NOT a definitive portrayal, nor was it fully comically accurate. By portrayal I refer mostly to characterization, and exclude certain nuances such as perma-smile/cut smile. Based on what we know so far, Heath's portrayal in terms of characterization is much more definitive than Nicholson's, and is also more comically accurate (based on the characterization). Many reviews have also stated that Heath's Joker is not only a better portrayal, it's a more definitive portrayal compared to Nicholson.

With all of this taken as a whole, and based on comments of those that have seen the movie, Heath definitively IS the Joker with his portrayal, unlike what Nicholson was in his portrayal.

 

[hemparea51]

New Joker is a mobster in messy clown make-up.
Old Joker was the Joker.
You decide who’s better.

And have you seen Batman (1989)? Your comments are very bias. You blatantly spun your preference. Defacing painting is the least of what he does.

New Joker is the Joker
Old Joker was Jack Nicholson in makeup

 

[Crook]

His speech patterns, nuances, and voice could certainly be considered as valid portrayals of Joker, but that's really not where the criticism of Nicholson's portrayal lies.

It most definitely is. You even used it. A common "complaint" is Nicholson played Nicholson. That's what I was addressing.

Any knowledgeable Batman fan knows that the criticism lies in the characterization of Nicholson's Joker. Nicholson was too juvenile and laughed too much for one thing. This was especially evident in the aspect of his characterization where he danced quite a bit. This behaviour certainly can, and has been dictated in the comic books.

Absolutely. And in those very same comic books it's been dictated that Nicholson's portrayal was right in line with the era Joker was written in.

Once again, if you look at the first comic appearances of the Joker, as well as the most famous and legendary comic appearances of Joker, for the most part Joker has no origin.

And in ALL interpretations of Joker up to this day, Joker permanent white skin over his entire body and never put on clown make-up. At least with Nicholson, his origin actually took various elements from what was already put on the comic book page.

Second of all, why in the world would you compare Nicholson to an era that his character was clearly not inspired from? That's like criticizing Bale or Keaton because their Batman wasn't as goofy or go-lucky if you compare it to the era of Batman in the 50s and 60s. Makes no sense.

Some later comic appearances went off on different tangents away from the original interpretation of the character. The reason the first comic appearances of the Joker are so important is because those are the original, and therefore pure interpretation of the character. Later interpretations of the character went off on different tangents away from the original interpretation, and that included the chemical bath/origin tangent.

By that logic, the modern day Batman is a bastardization of it's original creation. But as we all know, FAR more people prefer the take we have now, then was was originally intended. These characters do not live and die with their creators. They evolve. In this case, for the better.

There is also a very simple point that has seldom been brought up: a definitive and comically accurate portrayal of the Joker would need to take the most well-known, famous, and pure aspects of the character and combine them together in a believable, convincing, and charismatic way. Based on this, Nicholson's portrayal was NOT a definitive portrayal, nor was it fully comically accurate. By portrayal I refer mostly to characterization, and exclude certain nuances such as perma-smile/cut smile. Based on what we know so far, Heath's portrayal in terms of characterization is much more definitive than Nicholson's, and is also more comically accurate (based on the characterization). Many reviews have also stated that Heath's Joker is not only a better portrayal, it's a more definitive portrayal compared to Nicholson.

With all of this taken as a whole, and based on comments of those that have seen the movie, Heath definitively IS the Joker with his portrayal, unlike what Nicholson was in his portrayal.

You are excluding several elements of Heath's interpretation that contradict with what you are saying. The point was that both Heath and Nicholson are faithful interpretations of their era. I couldn't care less what is "definitive" because anyone with a reasoned mind knows that it varies from person to person.

 

[Dark Victory]

WOW love how joker has a straight face like throught the clip like this is a normal day for him at work(well it is but still) and I laughed when the swat guy said something like "Nah were fine" and joker pulls out an rpg.

 

[batmop]

Absolutely. And in those very same comic books it's been dictated that Nicholson's portrayal was right in line with the era Joker was written in.

And in ALL interpretations of Joker up to this day, Joker permanent white skin over his entire body and never put on clown make-up. At least with Nicholson, his origin actually took various elements from what was already put on the comic book page.

Second of all, why in the world would you compare Nicholson to an era that his character was clearly not inspired from? That's like criticizing Bale or Keaton because their Batman wasn't as goofy or go-lucky if you compare it to the era of Batman in the 50s and 60s. Makes no sense.

By that logic, the modern day Batman is a bastardization of it's original creation. But as we all know, FAR more people prefer the take we have now, then was was originally intended. These characters do not live and die with their creators. They evolve. In this case, for the better.

You are excluding several elements of Heath's interpretation that contradict with what you are saying. The point was that both Heath and Nicholson are faithful interpretations of their era. I couldn't care less what is "definitive" because anyone with a reasoned mind knows that it varies from person to person.

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.

 

[CrimsonDeath]

New Joker is a representation of the Joker
Old Joker is a representation of the Joker
Theres no need to decide whos better. You can like both, or you can prefer one to the other. It does not mean you have to hate the other representation

Thank god, someone with common sense!

 

[Symptom]

I haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if this has been noted before. Is it me or there's a clear cut when the goon leaves the rpg on Joker's shoulder? First he's kind of adapting to it but then suddenly he's targeting and ready to fire. It seemed like a cut to me, maybe not showing the first "OMG!" reaction to firing the rpg (the one we've seen in the trailer).

 

[SonikDeath]

Its a good clip, really wish it was in HD though.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Joker is a complete badas$!

 

[rory_bat]

Such a great clip!! I really need to stop watching all of this amazing footage before I see the film