• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

The Dark Knight Rises Rated R Batman Film

The Joker started in the comics, thus for him to be the Joker, he'd need to be exactly like the comics. He is not. And I don't consider him anywhere near the definitive Joker for a number of reasons.
 
To those arguing against Batman being an all ages character, tell me how old were you when you first got into batman? were you in your adult years? im going to say 90% no.

Batman is not a character who necesitates an r rated film, wolverine i would say maybe but he's an anti-hero batman is not. Batman films need to be r rated less than james bond films which would actually more easily translate to r ratings. As stated by others he's an all ages character that can be translated from youth to adult.
 
The Joker started in the comics, thus for him to be the Joker, he'd need to be exactly like the comics. He is not. And I don't consider him anywhere near the definitive Joker for a number of reasons.

I don't think you seem to understand what it was I said...
 
No, I understand what you said, and I agree that Heath's Joker's personality is closer to the Joker's than Jack's, but I'm just disagreeing with you on semantics because he's not the Joker.
 
To those arguing against Batman being an all ages character, tell me how old were you when you first got into batman? were you in your adult years? im going to say 90% no.

Batman is not a character who necesitates an r rated film, wolverine i would say maybe but he's an anti-hero batman is not. Batman films need to be r rated less than james bond films which would actually more easily translate to r ratings. As stated by others he's an all ages character that can be translated from youth to adult.

Batman is an anti-hero just like Wolverine.:doh:
 
No he is not and he has never been at least not canonically il say maaybe in TDKR etc. Please look up what an anti-hero is and tell me how that applies to batman? He is a dark hero but he does not cross the moral boundaries that anti heros like Punisher and yes wolverine do.
 
Please look up what an anti-hero is

In fiction, an antihero[1] (feminine: antiheroine) is a protagonist archetype whose character or goals are antithetical to traditional heroism.

Influenced by the pulps, early comic books featured anti-heroic characters such as Batman (whose shadowy nature contrasted with their openly "heroic" peers like Superman) and Sub-Mariner (who would just as soon conquer humanity as try to save it).[6] Marvel's most prolific anti-hero is perhaps The Punisher, who is more than willing to kill those who he views as deserving of death. Sergio Leone's "spaghetti westerns" showcased a wandering vigilante (the "Man with No Name" played by Clint Eastwood) whose gruff demeanor clashed with other heroic characteristics.[citation needed]

Many modern antiheroes possess, or even encapsulate, the postmodern rejection of traditional values symptomatic of Modernist literature in general, as well as the disillusion felt after World War II and the Nuclear Age. The continuing popularity of the antihero in modern literature and popular culture may be based on the recognition that a person is fraught with human frailties, unlike the archetypes of the white-hatted cowboy and the noble warrior, and is therefore more accessible to readers and viewers. This popularity may also be symptomatic of the rejection by the avant-garde of traditional values after the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s.[7]

In the postmodern era, traditionally defined heroic qualities, akin to the classic "knight in shining armor" type, have given way to the "gritty truth" of life, and authority in general is being questioned. The brooding vigilante or "noble criminal" archetype, seen in characters like Batman, is slowly becoming part of the popular conception of heroic valor rather than being characteristics that are deemed un-heroic.[8]
He is a dark hero but he does not cross the moral boundaries that anti heros like Punisher and yes wolverine do.

Being an anti-hero is not always about crossing boundaries such as killing.

Anti-hero applies to Batman because of his personality, motivation and dark/brooding nature.

Batman is not a goody two-shoe like Superman but he is a shadowy, mysterious, brooding vigilante that strikes fear into the hearts of criminals.

Bruce Wayne become Batman to avenge his parents death by fighting crime unlike Superman (who was all about truth, justice and the American way and doing the right things for the good of humanity).

Calling Batman anti-hero does not mean that he's not heroic, he's still heroic and fights for a great cause.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that the pencil trick would gain him more respect though, and a different kind of fear.

It's the same fear: fear of dying. I'm not sure what actual difference could make for the mobsters being killed by having a pen in your skull or being fried alive.

Sticking a pen in somebody's head as Ledger's Joker did is quite fast and impersonal; frying a man with your hand during a minute or so allows you to feel the man's pain and see the horror pain and his face slowly being deformed into a charred skull right in front of you.

I'd say Jack's Joker joy buzzer was far more brutal and more accurate to the classic comics Joker.

I doubt any of the men in that room could ever forget the smell.

Anyone can use a piece of technology to kill someone, including a souped up joy buzzer.

Not anyone is able to even contemplate a man being charred alive; the smell and the very sight of it. Let alone to actually do it. The whole process takes a while.

And as I said, the pencil trick is genius but quite fast and you don't have to experience the little details. It is much like what Ledger's Joker explained aboiut killing with a knife or a gun.

It takes a psychopath's dedication to detail to pull off the pencil trick.

Same for preparing a way to fry a man alive.

Only that for Ledger's Joker trick you need a pen that can be easily stuck on a table and somehow be stronger than a mob bodyguard.

Career criminals will always fear someone who is prepared to kill them if they defy them, but they reserve a different kind of fear for the psychopath, the kind of mind they can't understand.

Again, same for Jack's Joker. I'm sure every mobster in that room thought 'Couldn't this guy have just shot at Rotelli instead of all the problems and ghastly details of frying him alive?' They coudln't understand Jack's Joker love for bizarre killings.

The joy buzzer got their attention at a meeting, so did filling the room with a gang of his thugs with guns, establishing his hold over that turf.

Those guys live amongst guns. It's the fried alive man what they won't forget.

Ledger's pencil trick caught the mobsters attention, but so did the collection of grenades he had hidden.

But the other Joker walked into the turf of crooks he had been stealing from with nothing more than a pencil, for all they knew at that point anyway.
And even when he did unveil his grenades, his method of defence was one that would destroy himself too.

Well, knowing how much mobsters (and people in general) love to live, I doubt Joker thought 'Mh, maybe I'll actually have to detonate these grenades.' He used them because he knew that they wouldn't risk their lives for him.

But both Jokers had the same problem: they both caught mobsters attention with some horrid killing but some of them didn't listen in spite of everything.
 
He was far more accurate and in-character than Jack Nicholson was.

How exactly was Jack's Joker inaccurate?

There are maybe differences but Ledger's Joker has also a good bunch of differences with the comic Joker.
 
It's the same fear: fear of dying. I'm not sure what actual difference could make for the mobsters being killed by having a pen in your skull or being fried alive.

Sticking a pen in somebody's head as Ledger's Joker did is quite fast and impersonal; frying a man with your hand during a minute or so allows you to feel the man's pain and see the horror pain and his face slowly being deformed into a charred skull right in front of you.

I'd say Jack's Joker joy buzzer was far more brutal and more accurate to the classic comics Joker.

I doubt any of the men in that room could ever forget the smell.

I totally agree, I also honestly found the joy buzzer far more brutal and more Joker-esque.

A normal criminal could also impale a pen into someones brain.

How exactly was Jack's Joker inaccurate?

There are maybe differences but Ledger's Joker has also a good bunch of differences with the comic Joker.

Both Heath and Jack's Joker had their share of some minor inaccuracy to the source material.

But Jack's Joker had more of iconic Joker weapons, slapstick and was more like the traditional Joker.
 
I think that what SuperFerret means is that we couldnt see Heath in TDK, but Nolan's Joker. In B89 Burton's Joker was just crazy old Jack with some makeup.
To those arguing against Batman being an all ages character, tell me how old were you when you first got into batman? were you in your adult years? im going to say 90% no.

Batman is not a character who necesitates an r rated film, wolverine i would say maybe but he's an anti-hero batman is not. Batman films need to be r rated less than james bond films which would actually more easily translate to r ratings. As stated by others he's an all ages character that can be translated from youth to adult.
I first got into Batman as a kid watching B:TAS. The same with Wolverine and the X-Men animated series. These shows got me to love the characters without exposing me to the full violence of the franchises. When i got older i got the real deal by reading comics, but i still consider BTAS Batman the best version of Batman ever.
Batman is an anti-hero just like Wolverine.:doh:
You re always so eager to use the facepalm smiley but you never explain or elaborate. Why is that?
 
Jack and Heath gave it their all 100%. Heath was more dedicated to his work than Jack was. But all in all, I cant fault them. Joker is whatever evil thing you create him and they were both evil and bracent in their own way. I cant pick a favourite. They were both unique. So was Ceaser and Mark Hamill.

IMO...Johnny Depp is worthy and capable of playing Joker,bringing something unique to his version...If he plays him ofcourse.
 
I think that what SuperFerret means is that we couldnt see Heath in TDK, but Nolan's Joker.

"We"? Strange, I could see Heath Ledger perfectly.

In B89 Burton's Joker was just crazy old Jack with some makeup.

Which describes the classic Joker. But it was white-bleached skin, not make-up. ;)



Jack and Heath gave it their all 100%. Heath was more dedicated to his work than Jack was.

Yeah, well Jack was so close to the classic Joker no much more was needed. As you say in the end those were awesome performances.
 
Being an anti-hero is not always about crossing boundaries such as killing.

Anti-hero applies to Batman because of his personality, motivation and dark/brooding nature.

Batman is not a goody two-shoe like Superman but he is a shadowy, mysterious, brooding vigilante that strikes fear into the hearts of criminals.

Bruce Wayne become Batman to avenge his parents death by fighting crime unlike Superman (who was all about truth, justice and the American way and doing the right things for the good of humanity).

Calling Batman anti-hero does not mean that he's not heroic, he's still heroic and fights for a great cause.

Maybe I'll agree batman fufills the margins of being an anti-hero, in my mind he straddles the edge between a hero and an anti-hero . Ill still say however he's closer in nature to superman than other stereotypical comic anti-heros such as the punisher, wolverine, Lobo etc.

I'll add however imo batman is not purely motivated by revenge, maybe intially he was. But he's not just out to kill the guy who killed his parents or even out just for the sake of punishing other criminals out of revenge for what happened. He really wants to make gotham a better place so others wont have to go through what he went through thats not really 100% revenge. Compare that to the motivations of a Frank Catle.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, well Jack was so close to the classic Joker no much more was needed. As you say in the end those were awesome performances.
Close? He did everything for fame, and because he was in love with Basinger's character.
The Joker... IN LOVE...
 
Not sure how this got into another Jack VS Heath Joker debate but when it comes to an R rated Batman film I'm all for it as long as it's not to the extreme.

I know it will never happen outside of some independent short film but I think it would be alright to have a rated R Batman film if it just barely slipped over the rating of PG-13 to get that R rating. The comics for a few decades have essentially been R rated material, they just rate things differently.

I don't need or necessarily want a super violent gory film but showing some more bloodshed from the victims would definitely be a nice touch to add to the seriousness of the situation.

Two things that slightly bothered me with TDK was when Joker shoots the bank manager, it looks like he wasn't shot at all not to mention the goon that gets tagged in the shoulder stands up with his shirt not even ripped or shredded. That and I was hoping for the DVD release, that they would have changed that lame safety pin used to hold the card to the dead fake Batman into the knife(as seen in the pics used for the virals).

I just don't think Joker in the comics would have used a fricken safety pin. Not to mention, using a knife wouldn't have been that bad since they wouldn't have added any blood to it.
 
Close? He did everything for fame, and because he was in love with Basinger's character.
The Joker... IN LOVE...

You must re-watch now. That was not love, just lust and power. Vivky was the perfect body where to sculpt his best acid-deformed masterpiece.

That said, I was refering to Jack's personality, not what Joker did in the movie. And yes, classic Joker loves to be the center of attention.
 
I agree, Mark Hamill played the definitive Joker. :awesome:
There is no definitive Joker, chief.

Jack and Heath gave it their all 100%. Heath was more dedicated to his work than Jack was. But all in all, I cant fault them. Joker is whatever evil thing you create him and they were both evil and bracent in their own way. I cant pick a favourite. They were both unique. So was Ceaser and Mark Hamill.
You just contradicted yourself there. Heath didn't give a performance so much as he became the role, that when you see the film he simply does not appear on screen. He just is the character and you have to remind yourself that you're watching an actor.

For as fun as Nicholson was his performance was in essence a heightened version of himself (or of his off-screen persona). Interestingly he was covered with makeup and prosthetics as the Joker yet looked pretty much exactly like himself, while Ledger had relatively little makeup on and looked completely different.
 
For as fun as Nicholson was his performance was in essence a heightened version of himself (or of his off-screen persona). Interestingly he was covered with makeup and prosthetics as the Joker yet looked pretty much exactly like himself, while Ledger had relatively little makeup on and looked completely different.

The idea of having Nicholson as the Joker was precisely that he had not only the personality but the face too. Jack's smile was considered ideal for the character, same with the eyebrows, why would have they wanted to change/hide his features? I'm not sure how looking different is better than not looking so different. I applaud the old Lon Chaney Sr tradition but as long as the actor brings what the character is about I don't see why should I care.
 
I know it will never happen outside of some independent short film but I think it would be alright to have a rated R Batman film if it just barely slipped over the rating of PG-13 to get that R rating. The comics for a few decades have essentially been R rated material, they just rate things differently.

I don't need or necessarily want a super violent gory film but showing some more bloodshed from the victims would definitely be a nice touch to add to the seriousness of the situation.

If it was only just over the PG-13 then what's the point of cutting your audience figures in half. It would be better profitwise to have a dark PG-13 film than a tame R rated one that with a little editing could have easily been a PG-13 one.

I agree it would have been nice to see a little bit of blood.
 
If it's a great story and makes sense being rated "R", I have no problem with it. In Nolan I trust
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,960
Messages
22,042,940
Members
45,842
Latest member
JoeSoap
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"