The Dark Knight new talk at the premiere - topping Jack

[zer00]

Oh I know. I've seen pictures. Didn't they do eachother in a night of confusion?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

...but my aunt really did go to High School Calista Flockheart.

And my aunt really did live down the street from Ricky Schroeder. Seriously. If I was making it up, I'd use someone cool.

 

[CConn]

I believe you, man.

...and thankfully no, zer00.

 

[Black Mamba]

It just hits me as stupid to see people bashing Ledger

Why? Do you catch feelings when people make negative remarks about Tom Cruise, or any other public celebrity? Grow up.

and the history there is part of what my comment referred to.

Don't generalize, sparky. If you're going to refer to me, and quote my post, talk to me and about me. Not others.

I think public figures still have a right to privacy, and I think that just because he's famous doesn't mean he has to enjoy doing interviews.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You know what? Hate might be a strong word but I was lumping you into a category with others on these boards who have spoken of him as a "terrible choice," & etc.

And once again, you jump the gun. Did you not? Where did I say he was a terrible choice? I said he was un-charismatic as a person, in comparison to the innate, and natural abilities Jack Nicholson lent to the role.

That's what I got out of your remarks. Perhaps it wasn't what you intended but when you begin your post by calling the guy unlikeable and uncharismatic, it tends to flavor what comes after.

Not really, because if you read it within the context, I meant it as in he doesn't have enough natural charisma, etc. to overpower the performance Jack Nicholson gave to audiences.

Of course you will probably never write half as many words in your lifetime as I have, and do, professionally,

Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Does that make you the 'standard', because you write professionally? Does that make YOUR opinions any more valid than anyone else's opinions? It's typical condescending attitudes like this, that draw so much disdain. Oh yeah, go on about how much you write, and try to take jabs at me, like you presumed I was doing with Heath Ledger. Looks like we hit a nerve with Mr. Shakespeare over here. Now please, impress us with the number of words you have written in your lifetime, and what that has to do with anything being discussed here? I wasn't asking for your credentials, buddy.

so I can understand how the subleties in things like hierarchy of information and the careful selection of words might be beyond your level of competence.

Haha, you did catch feelings. Trying to resort to personal putdowns. Who's the grown up, here? I most certainly understand hierarchy of information, word selection, etc. You however for being a professional writer, must not be a very good one, because you don't understand basic concepts such as: context, opinions, etc.

To address your other point, so other people don't like Heath Ledger. Does that make their opinions of him true?

I didn't say it was true. Merely that it was my opinion.

Do you always let other people's opinions inform your outlook?

Well, first of all I formed my own opinion. I also mentioned other opinions I heard that alligned with mine. But to answer your question, absolutely. Alot of people's opinions in this world are swayed by others. What do you think the media is? Oh, but I forgot, you're a super intellectual writer, who has wrote more than I have in my entire lifetime... so you know this already.

I think you have seriously misjudged the age situation here. There's good odds I'm older than you. And if I'm not, you still need to grow up.

How do I need to grow up? Because I shared my opinion of Heath Ledger? That makes sense, kid. Now, impress us in rebuttal with what your Community College taught you.

And you've managed to take a single comment I made and turn it into an argument about basic semantics and your right to state "other people's" opinions as facts.

Negative, son. The only words I used were "consensus", "opinion", etc. None defining words, and none presented as facts. But once again, you must know that, because you work so closely and have used many words in your lifetime compared to mine. However, you took them as "fact" defining words, and argued as if I presented them that way. You were off base from the first time you quoted my post. You caught feelings, and went on a whiny tantrum, spawned by my comments on Heath Ledger. Which in itself, wasn't the point of my post. I responded, because I don't "hate" Heath Ledger, and I like his selection as the Joker, and I didn't want to be lumped into that category. You do realize you can not like a person, but like their work?

If anyone needs to calm down, it isn't me.

Oh it is most definetely you. You're the one who made a concentrated effort to try to put me down, with your paragraph on how you write words profesionally, how I don't understand said concepts, blah blah...

I did nothing of the sort. Just responded to your comments.

All I said was I didn't get all the Ledger hate. And I still don't. I was not singling you out. I was lumping you in.

Which was exactly the point. I don't hate Ledger. You assumed that, because I said he wasn't very like-able and charismatic. You jumped the gun. You were wrong. You assumed I "hated" Ledger, and that I needed to be lumped into that camp. You didn't take the time to read the rest of my post. You simply responded as if I spent the entire time hating on Heath Ledger. You were wrong, pal ... but it's ok, I forgive you.

t:

Deal with it.

Parting shots, from a bitter old professional writer?

t:

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Don't generalize, sparky. If you're going to refer to me, and quote my post, talk to me and about me. Not others.

Wasn't anything in your post worth talking directly to you about, until you picked a fight with me.

And once again, you jump the gun. Did you not? Where did I say he was a terrible choice? I said he was un-charismatic as a person, in comparison to the innate, and natural abilities Jack Nicholson lent to the role.
Not really, because if you read it within the context, I meant it as in he doesn't have enough natural charisma, etc. to overpower the performance Jack Nicholson gave to audiences.

All of which seems to imply that you don't think Ledger is a good choice for the role.

I didn't say it was true. Merely that it was my opinion.

Actually you stated it as though it were a commonly known fact that nobody would dispute. I disputed it and you got offended. So... yeah. Whatever.

How do I need to grow up? Because I shared my opinion of Heath Ledger?

No, because you're being so defensive of your opinion.

You do realize you can not like a person, but like their work?

Absolutely. Your initial post, however, made no comment on Ledger's work at all. Therefore the only indication we had of your opinion of him was your opinion of him as a person. The implication being that it went for his work, a well. Which, as you just admitted, would not have been fair. That is, however, exactly how it looked.

I did nothing of the sort. Just responded to your comments.

Yes, you went on the defensive.

Which was exactly the point. I don't hate Ledger. You assumed that, because I said he wasn't very like-able and charismatic. You jumped the gun. You were wrong. You assumed I "hated" Ledger, and that I needed to be lumped into that camp. You didn't take the time to read the rest of my post. You simply responded as if I spent the entire time hating on Heath Ledger. You were wrong, pal ... but it's ok, I forgive you.

t:

Again, I read your post. You made it clear you don't like him much as a person, and made it equally clear that you don't think he can make the role of Joker his own.

Parting shots, from a bitter old professional writer?

Not bitter, and not old. Just, most probably, older than you, and definitely annoyed at your condescending tone and inability to stand by your own words.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I believe you, man.

I believe you, too. I mean, hell, if you were making it up, why would you pick Calista Flockhart?

 

[Black Mamba]

Wasn't anything in your post worth talking directly to you about, until you picked a fight with me.

I didn't pick a fight with you, joe. I got defensive because I like Ledger as in the role as Joker, and you were addressing me as if I hate Ledger, and don't like him in the role. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

All of which seems to imply that you don't think Ledger is a good choice for the role.

Negative, it doesn't imply that. Doesn't imply that at all. I don't think he can pull of the huge charismatic Jack Nicholson Joker. But as you can see later in my post, I said I believe they can make it work if they go a different route with the Joker. Once again, assuming, nstead of just reading. Internet text can be tricky like that sometimes.

Actually you stated it as though it were a commonly known fact that nobody would dispute. I disputed it and you got offended. So... yeah. Whatever.

I wasn't offended by that. And no, my word usuage that I implemented should've negated your concocted meaning of what I said.

No, because you're being so defensive of your opinion.

Aren't we all? Duh...

It's why it is OUR opinion. You're defensive of your stance as well. Whats the point, big boy?

Absolutely. Your initial post, however, made no comment on Ledger's work at all. Therefore the only indication we had of your opinion of him was your opinion of him as a person. The implication being that it went for his work, a well.

First mistake, right there. I said he wouldn't be able to out Jack Nicholson's performance. Which I'm sure he wont. Unless, they were to make it a completely different take on the Joker.

Which, as you just admitted, would not have been fair. That is, however, exactly how it looked.

Nope. That was your wrong, assumption.

Yes, you went on the defensive.

Why wouldn't I? Your assumption that I didn't like Ledger, or thought he was wrong for the role was blatantly wrong.

Again, I read your post. You made it clear you don't like him much as a person, and made it equally clear that you don't think he can make the role of Joker his own.

Definetely not. Your reading comprehension powers must be running low today. I said he doesn't have enough charisma to over power a Jack Nicholson type Joker performance... but I did say:

I'm just hoping they focus on bringing a different version of the Joker to the screen. Toned down flamboyancy, more cruel, sick twisted version, with a higher emphasis on macabre/morbid type humor.

Where in that post does it say or even infer that I don't think Ledger can make the role his own? He most certainly can if they go a different route with it. But if they try to do in the vein as Jack did it, it will ultimately fail, because Jack's Joker is the standard.

Your assumptions make your opinions on me, and what I meant, way off base.

definitely annoyed at your condescending tone

Me condescending? You were the one talking about me not understanding various wording structures, and how you have wrote so much more compared to me, etc.

Who was the one who was truly condescending? haha

and the inability to stand by your own words

Complete contradiction from:

No, because you're being so defensive of your opinion

... Which is sticking by my word. Is it not?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I didn't pick a fight with you, joe. I got defensive because I like Ledger as in the role as Joker, and you were addressing me as if I hate Ledger, and don't like him in the role. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

Fine. That was the way it looked to me. *shrugs*

Negative, it doesn't imply that. Doesn't imply that at all. I don't think he can pull of the huge charismatic Jack Nicholson Joker. But as you can see later in my post, I said I believe they can make it work if they go a different route with the Joker. Once again, assuming, nstead of just reading. Internet text can be tricky like that sometimes.

But that DOES, in a way, seem to be a slight on Ledger's abilities. For my part, I have no idea if he could pull of a Nicholson-esque Joker or not. I've never seen him try it, and I'm not gonna make assumptions. What I know is that even if he can pull it off, it would be pointless to try, because The Jack is The Jack. It would be pointless to rehash what The Jack has done. Even if you match it, you won't do it better, and it'll just look like a rip-off.

I too believe that they can and should go a different route with Ledger's Joker. But my belief in that regard is independant of any assessment of Ledger's talents. It has to do, instead, with understanding that Jack's performance is incredibly memorable and the only way to make another Joker story worthwhile is to go in a different direction with the character.

It isn't so different, in the end, from what you said -- I just didn't say anything negative about Ledger to get there. The difference is subtle, but it's there.

It's why it is OUR opinion. You're defensive of your stance as well. Whats the point, big boy?

The point is that this started off not with me defending my opinion, but dismissing yours. And then, you denied having done something that I saw plainly in front of me... and then you did it again!

Why wouldn't I? Your assumption that I didn't like Ledger, or thought he was wrong for the role was blatantly wrong.

Then you should have stated your case differently, because I saw what I saw, and it appeared that I was not alone.

Where in that post does it say or even infer that I don't think Ledger can make the role his own? He most certainly can if they go a different route with it. But if they try to do in the vein as Jack did it, it will ultimately fail, because Jack's Joker is the standard.

1.) You IMPLY. *I* infer.

2 & 3) these two passages, linked together, give a clear impression that you feel that Jack's Joker is definitive and that Ledger is an inferior actor. You make it sound as though the character needing to be changed is a concession to the casting of Ledger - when in point of fact the change in Joker's character is necessary in this film *regardless* of who is playing him. If anything, the reason Ledger was cast is precisely *because* Nolan wants to move away from the Nicholson Joker. The character has been portrayed many different ways over the years, and Nicholson's interpretation is just one, and for some people it is the favorite. Others prefer Mark Hamill, Cesar Romero, etc. I think each of these versions has merit. I'm looking forward to Ledger's interpretation because I know it will be yet another take, different and hopefully badass.

Your assumptions make your opinions on me, and what I meant, way off base.

All I know is what I saw in the subtext. If you didn't mean it the way I read it, then you did a bad job of stating your case. That's all I can say.

Me condescending? You were the one talking about me not understanding various wording structures, and how you have wrote so much more compared to me, etc.

Yeah, I know, I was being an ass when I said that. But you know what? You were already being condescending to me before that (son, kid, etc), and it pissed me off, and I sunk to the same level. I apologize for that.

Who was the one who was truly condescending? haha

You're as guilty as I am.

Complete contradiction from:

... Which is sticking by my word. Is it not?

Not necessarily. Politicians do it all the time. Your words about Ledger vs. Nicholson carry a certain degree of disdain for Ledger, not just as a person but in much more subtle way, as an actor. Because you're suggesting that his alleged antisocial nature in real life would impact his ability to act the role. He's not gay but he played a gay man in "Brokeback Mountain." Actors are not bound, in their performance, to the limitations of their own nature. That's why it's ACTING.

Instead of sticking to the words you typed, complete with their unmistakeable subtext, you're hedging and waffling like a politician trying to kiss voters' asses, and it's painfully obvious.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

I believe you, too. I mean, hell, if you were making it up, why would you pick Calista Flockhart?

My dad went to high school with Matthew Moldine

 

[CConn]

Okay, let's stop this now.

 

[MechaOrga]

The thing about Nicholson and his joker is the fact that he is so distracting in the movie.If one thing can be learned from this film is do not let your villians overshadow you main character/story(I think this was attributed to Jacks rewrites with the script--adding more lines and scenes etc.)

I do not want to get into a jack bashing post...I love Jack, he is a modern Acting Juggernaut of our time... a ICON....and that's the problem...he was already "JACK" when he was casted which of course makes it harder for audiences to see past the celebrity and thus having fans utter"he was Just playing himself with white makeup"....(I believe he was channeling The jack torrence chrarater more from the shining than just playing himself...)

That's the brilliance of the ledger casting....I've talked to family members about ledger and get mostly a "WHO?" or "QUE?". Nolan seems to know that you should cast lesser knowns in big baddie roles instead of ICONS like Jack( I know liam neeson is reasonably well known-sadly mostly as Qui-Gon Jinn LOL--but his turning baddie was a twist)Let's hope he doesnt totally shoot down my theories by casting Cruise or The Rock as Dent LOL!

Can the 89 joker be topped? Absolutely!!! Can it be topped by Heath Ledger? Dunno.....He does have Nolan Behind him which is a very good start....

I will always have a soft spot for Jack's Joker and Keaton's Batsy...They were 3d interpritaions of these characters i loved on paper!

 

[xanberkeley]

Dont wonna compare Heath to Jack.His own interpretation works for me but then I know many will be comparing notes.What's new?
I rather have Tom Cruise for Dent than Ryan Phillippe,Josh Lucas or Paul Walker.

 

[Batty Belfry]

I don't think one has to *top* Jack Nicholson. It just has to be different unto itself and be true to the character. It's like apples and oranges....I'm not going to compare the two.