Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

[Herr Logan]

Thanks to DorkyFresh and GothamPublicWorks.com:

That's my Catwoman right there. Admit it, you'd see my 'Batman 2' even if you hated Batman. You'd see the first movie just for the 1-2 minute cameo/setup scenes. Even women (not that women ever follow this thread as a habit) You know it, I know it, and the American people know it. Yeah that's right.

 

[Herr Logan]

Speak up, you heathens!

Zaphod, don't you love me anymore??

 

[Cullen]

My ideal franchise launch would combine the origin with the Batman proper. The Batman in the movie Zaphod and I are discussing would come back to Gotham much more experienced and would have more challenging work ahead of him (actual detective work and extensive surveillance to bring down a real Mafia boss, not some half-assed thug who can be caught red-handed at the site of a drug shipment). He would be a little bit shakier than the Batman we're used to seeing in current fiction, but not an amateur by any means. Once he's in costume, he'll make a couple of mistakes (getting caught off-guard by the Penguin, for one), but he'll learn quickly and get down to business, proving his competence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sounds good to me. Not the way I'd go, but there ain't nothing wrong with that. (Fact, might well be better... perhaps we shall see...)

I've decided that the best way to do this and minimize the "It's only an origin, he'll be on his game next time" factor (more than it's already minimized, since the script would specifically be gearedtoward not giving sheep and shills an excuse to use that useless platitude) by filming the first and second films back to back and waiting only a year to release the sequel (like 'Kill Bill'), and do the same thing again when the second movie is released so the audience can get four movies in four years. Provided there was a budget for four 3-hour movies to begin with, this will make more money, as more DVDs will be available sooner, and the cast won't "outgrow" their roles as quickly over the course of the franchise.
Seriously, if this franchise was done right and marketed well, there's no way it wouldn't earn back its cost. The Batman is one of the most famous and recognized icons in the world. I see no reason why it couldn't be done this way.

Back-to-back movies would be the way to go. Though four three hour movies seems like oh so much.

(I say this, and then my eyes drift over to my copy of the extended Lord Of the Rings. It could be done, I suppose. But i still lean towards the "less is more" philosophy on film length. Right or wrong.)

That's not a nearly good enough reason not to use the power of the mask. Whether it be an Indian Shaman or some other tribal leader who transforms mentally with a mask, this is an essential element of the Batman character.

The mask is, sure. The Indian Shaman, though... I don't think so. Just doesn't set right.

I'm just as pissed off at JMS and his hack-ass writing on Spider-Man as you are, if not more so, but the difference here is that the Batman is a totemic figure, while Spider-Man is a science hero that doesn't need a mask to perform great feats.

Pissed off isn't quite how I'd describe it, but as the english language doesn't really have a word for my disgust, we'll leave it at that.

His physiology was altered by radiation, and this mystical crap is nonsense. Doing that with Spider-Man is wrong, but doing that with the Batman is correct.
The Batman, however, is just a man, and a man must rely on his human abilities and the will to use them. The mask helps him effect a subtle but profound psychological transformation that focuses his psyche toward his goals. There's nothing mystical about it, even if superstitious mentors and influences Bruce Wayne learned from believed it is. For the Batman, it's just psychology, which is his ultimate weapon. By becoming fear, he is fearless and likely to secure a victory over those who also attempt to use fear on others. Again, this is essential to the character to truly give the costume and gimmicks "credibility." Even if people in the audience say, "He doesn't really look like a bat, so it's stupid that everyone thinks he's a supernatural creature," it will be valid because the Batman projects that image through body language, illusion and sheer will. Yes, there's some suspension of disbelief required no matter what, but if someone pays money to see a Batman movie, they'd better be able to handle the fact that the Batman is a couple steps removed from reality any way you slice it.

I agree with you on most of your points here, but I think it would be better if it was something Bruce researched and exploited. Having some shaman say he has the "mark of the bat" is just too mystical for me, even if it's to serve as inspiration for Bruce. Batman is, at the very greatest of stretches, science fiction, and as such doesn't need hints of magic.

In the novelization of the 'Knightfall' saga, when Bane broke into the Batcave, Bruce put his mask on before engaging him, even though Bane clearly already knew his secret identity. Bane asked him why he was trying to hide, and the Batman replied that he wasn't hiding, he was "becoming." That sums up why it's essential for the Batman to utilize primal concepts regarding the empowerment of the mask, because he needs to be in a certain mindset to take on someone as powerful as Bane, or something as amorphous, infinite and ubiquitous as "crime." I don't mean to say that Bruce Wayne can't hold his own in a fight without the mask, and it should never be construed that way; the difference is that the mask insures that he will be at his best and have his mind in the right place, whereas without the mask, there's some room for error.

Sure. Sort of like a method actor getting into a part.

I'm a little bit torn on this, but I'm leaning toward having at the very, very least a significant mention and summary of what Bruce learned from Ducard, if not a brief flashback. It's important to note that Bruce tracked down dangerous people with unsavory reputations (which actually poses a potential problem, as it might make Bruce look naive if he is suddenly shocked that Ducard doesn't deal with his prey in a non-lethal fashion if Ducard is said to have had a shady reputation even before he met Bruce-- then again, he was pretty naive).

Again, that's if there's an origin story involved, which is a direction you wouldn't go in.

Ducard is an interesting character, but in what I'm think of, a bit extraneous.

More pressing than this thread?? Bastard!!

Characters that I love and own take precidence over characters I love and probably won't ever have a connection to. While i enjoy talking and thinking about making these films and reading other people's ideas, I really to be writing novels and stories.

Time is short, after all...

Feel free to post your ideas here when your oh-so-important schedule permits. Do be aware that I'll take you to task for anything that blatantly flies in the face of "faithfulness," as I always have.

Thanks for posting.

When I post my outline, I will try to be as faithful as possible. Whether this will match your standards I can't say (probably not, but who can say?) I will have my reasons, and they will lean towards story and personal preference as a fan, and not what a general audience would like to see.

 

[Herr Logan]

Sounds good to me. Not the way I'd go, but there ain't nothing wrong with that. (Fact, might well be better... perhaps we shall see...)

Might well be better? Do doubt!

Back-to-back movies would be the way to go. Though four three hour movies seems like oh so much.

(I say this, and then my eyes drift over to my copy of the extended Lord Of the Rings. It could be done, I suppose. But i still lean towards the "less is more" philosophy on film length. Right or wrong.)

I ain't caterin' to the short attention span crowd. Hardcore Bat-fans will watch three hours of Batman at a time, and if the movies are good enough, more generic audiences will, too. Once they come out on DVD, they can be broken up any which way the viewer wants, and watched in installment.

"Less is more" is a phrase that I find repugnant and pretentious. Just thought I'd put that out there.

The mask is, sure. The Indian Shaman, though... I don't think so. Just doesn't set right.
Pissed off isn't quite how I'd describe it, but as the english language doesn't really have a word for my disgust, we'll leave it at that.

I agree with you on most of your points here, but I think it would be better if it was something Bruce researched and exploited. Having some shaman say he has the "mark of the bat" is just too mystical for me, even if it's to serve as inspiration for Bruce. Batman is, at the very greatest of stretches, science fiction, and as such doesn't need hints of magic.

Sure. Sort of like a method actor getting into a part.

I could readily do without having the shaman mention the "Mark of the Bat." However, I want it to be made clear that at some point in Bruce's educational journey, he spent time with a tribal leader who taught him about totem masks and "becoming." It would be nice if we saw the shaman wearing a bat-totem mask or owning one as part of a collection. I'd want Bruce to show trepidation in its presence, since he still suffers from bat-phobia. When he designs and dons the mask back in Gotham, he conquers his phobia, and thus fear in general, since bats for Bruce represented not only the animals themselves but everything he fears, irrationally or otherwise. He has no more phobias after this, including guns. He doesn't fear guns, he just hates them. Anyway, the shaman could give the mask to Bruce as the gift of an opportunity to conquer his fears and draw strength from fear. This scene wouldn't take very long, but it would be profound.

Method acting is a perfect analogy.
I'd have Alfred, who is himself a method actor (among many other talents), mention the similarity, which allows him to more easily except Bruce's terrifying new lease on life. He still sees him almost like a son, as well as a dear friend, and just like when Bruce was a child, Alfred knows he won't be deterred from his mission (especially once he hears about Bruce tracking down sources, spending thousands in bribes, climbing a dangerous mountain, waiting in Master Kirigi's doorway for three whole weeks and then doing chores for five months after that before getting anything truly useful out of the arduous journey), so all the better that he use a tool that will make him stronger and less afraid.

Ducard is an interesting character, but in what I'm think of, a bit extraneous.

He has to be mentioned, even if he doesn't appear. Possibly Alfred, when discussing with Bruce where the latter has been all these years, could point out that Henri Ducard is now wanted in several countries (he may not have been when Bruce spent time with him, and I can't imagine Ducard would show his face in Paris if he was high up on Interpol's $hit list) and considered very dangerous, as were several other of Bruce's mentors (David Cain, Lady Shiva, etc.)

Characters that I love and own take precidence over characters I love and probably won't ever have a connection to. While i enjoy talking and thinking about making these films and reading other people's ideas, I really to be writing novels and stories.

Time is short, after all...

I tire of your excuses. Do as I say, or no pie for you.

When I post my outline, I will try to be as faithful as possible. Whether this will match your standards I can't say (probably not, but who can say?) I will have my reasons, and they will lean towards story and personal preference as a fan, and not what a general audience would like to see.

I'm not catering just to a general audience, although that is a priority. I want it to be something a true comics fan would appreciate as well as qualify as a well-made movie to anyone who appreciates movies. I fully believe that most comic book properties can be made into movies that are largely faithful but still make good movies that sell, even if it's just "popcorn" movies. The Batman is actually a difficult one to do in that sense, although there's no question people will come to see it regardless. Batman sells, period. Again, he's one of the most globally recognized fictional icons. He's not Mickey Mouse, and he's not even Superman, but he's still high up there.


I may have misinterpreted what you said earlier, but either way, I want you to answer me this truthfully:

Do you think I'm making too many concessions to "general audiences" and straying from the source material too much?


Thanks for posting.

 

[Cullen]

I may have misinterpreted what you said earlier, but either way, I want you to answer me this truthfully:

Do you think I'm making too many concessions to "general audiences" and straying from the source material too much?

If you've strayed, I haven't noticed. HOWEVER, don't forget I'm not that familiar with the Bat.

On your other points, I'll get back to you on them

 

[Herr Logan]

If you've strayed, I haven't noticed. HOWEVER, don't forget I'm not that familiar with the Bat.

On your other points, I'll get back to you on them

Just wanted your opinion. I know that Anla'shok (who hasn't posted in this thread since since last fecking July!!) thinks that any concession is too much, or at least that's what he said, probably in jest.

The question is open to everyone who subscribes to the rules of this thread:
Have I strayed too far from the source material in the changes I suggested, or are these "good changes" or "neutral changes"?

Some examples of changes I think are acceptable (because I came up with them, obviously) include Alfred Pennyworth enabling young Bruce Wayne in his obsession more "actively" than in the comics and the Batman meeting the Penguin before any other supervillain. I can't think of any changes in my Spider-Man concepts that are truly mine, as the Vulture and Norman Osborn were connected in much the same way in the animated series, and the concept for Dr. Octopus' upgraded harness comes from the movie.

 

[Zaphod]

Speak up, you heathens!

Zaphod, don't you love me anymore??

Alas, my internet connection packed up on me of recent, meaning I haven't been frequent on the net, nevermind the hype and the Haven. It's currently being fixed, and I'm using my dads computer at the moment, I'm here for the weekend so expect a couple of mega-post's very soon!

And of course I love you, although I have needs too, Herr!

 

[Herr Logan]

Alas, my internet connection packed up on me of recent, meaning I haven't been frequent on the net, nevermind the hype and the Haven. It's currently being fixed, and I'm using my dads computer at the moment, I'm here for the weekend so expect a couple of mega-post's very soon!

And of course I love you, although I have needs too, Herr!

Alas, indeed!

Godspeed your internet connection's well-being, and thus your active participation in this magnificent realm.

But are you saying your needs are more important than my needs??

 

[Zaphod]

The question is open to everyone who subscribes to the rules of this thread:
Have I strayed too far from the source material in the changes I suggested, or are these "good changes" or "neutral changes"?

For the sake of getting myself to post something here this weekend, I'm gonna respond by saying, no, I dont think so.

Batman paying a visit to the Penguin before he does so with Falcone is merely a structural alteration for the sake of the movies plot, which quite frankly makes little difference in the way of things. Especially when you consider that Cobbelot is more like the crime-lords the Batman will face more than any other in the rogue gallery is anyway. It should be noted that before Batman drops in on either during the movie, he'll survey and monitor both of them as Bruce Wayne during an opera.

In terms of Alfred being more supportive of Bruce's life-choice, I can imagine the audience feeling a little confused as to the deviation in role-setup in the beggining. Even for the casual-viewer, Alfred is expected to be discourging of Bruce's choice and training, only deciding to lend a hand and make himself useful for the boy's cause when he learns there is no point in fighting it anymore, since Bruce is determined to go ahead with it more than anything. However, you seem to be counterbalancing Alfreds decision to guide Bruce (albeit, somewhat-reluctantly) with his mournful harrowing of the boys choice to do so, which I feel is a nice balance of personality to Alfreds character.

 

[Herr Logan]

For the sake of getting myself to post something here this weekend, I'm gonna respond by saying, no, I dont think so.

Batman paying a visit to the Penguin before he does so with Falcone is merely a structural alteration for the sake of the movies plot, which quite frankly makes little difference in the way of things. Especially when you consider that Cobbelot is more like the crime-lords the Batman will face more than any other in the rogue gallery is anyway. It should be noted that before Batman drops in on either during the movie, he'll survey and monitor both of them as Bruce Wayne during an opera.

In terms of Alfred being more supportive of Bruce's life-choice, I can imagine the audience feeling a little confused as to the deviation in role-setup in the beggining. Even for the casual-viewer, Alfred is expected to be discourging of Bruce's choice and training, only deciding to lend a hand and make himself useful for the boy's cause when he learns there is no point in fighting it anymore, since Bruce is determined to go ahead with it more than anything. However, you seem to be counterbalancing Alfreds decision to guide Bruce (albeit, somewhat-reluctantly) with his mournful harrowing of the boys choice to do so, which I feel is a nice balance of personality to Alfreds character.

"For the sake of getting myself to post something here this weekend"?? What does that mean??

Thanks for the response Zaphod.

Remember, even if your internet is screwed up, you can copy material here and save it in word processing documents to read them later, and you can work on the responses offline, too.

 

[Cullen]

Doing my part to keep this thread alive, a thought:

Of all of the potential superhero movies out there, Batman is one of the most suitable for narration. unlike, say, the Raimi Spider-man films, where you have to wonder who Peter is talking about, Brue Wayne narrating the events of a plot fits the nature of the story. Bruce would probably want a written record of his cases, not only for him to refer back to, but also for his apprentice's use as need be.

Using this, expostion may be doled out a little less painfully. Of course, used too much and it becomes a distraction.

Thoughts? Questions? Beatings?

 

[Herr Logan]

Doing my part to keep this thread alive, a thought:

Of all of the potential superhero movies out there, Batman is one of the most suitable for narration. unlike, say, the Raimi Spider-man films, where you have to wonder who Peter is talking about, Brue Wayne narrating the events of a plot fits the nature of the story. Bruce would probably want a written record of his cases, not only for him to refer back to, but also for his apprentice's use as need be.

Using this, expostion may be doled out a little less painfully. Of course, used too much and it becomes a distraction.

Thoughts? Questions? Beatings?

Thanks for doing your part, Cullen.

I agree that the Batman is a great choice for voice-over narration.
I do think that Spider-Man should have voice-over as well, but it should be more present-tense, with the specific intent to replace word bubbles. Yes, I'm adamant on the point that Spider-Man needs word bubbles or a voice-over equivalent to fully come to life.
The Batman, does not strictly need word bubbles or an equivalent in a movie, but I think it's best to have voice-over for past-tense narrative, and/or the Batman's thoughts on various subjects relating to crime and own history, and/or his case notes regarding the current case. This is opposed to having the voice-over reflect his exact thoughts at a given moment.

Thanks again, Cullen.
No beatings for now, in this thread, anyway.

 

[Cullen]

Thanks for doing your part, Cullen.

I agree that the Batman is a great choice for voice-over narration.
I do think that Spider-Man should have voice-over as well, but it should be more present-tense, with the specific intent to replace word bubbles. Yes, I'm adamant on the point that Spider-Man needs word bubbles or a voice-over equivalent to fully come to life.

Oh sure. That would work if done sparingly, too. Wish I'd thought of that

The Batman, does not strictly need word bubbles or an equivalent in a movie, but I think it's best to have voice-over for past-tense narrative, and/or the Batman's thoughts on various subjects relating to crime and own history, and/or his case notes regarding the current case. This is opposed to having the voice-over reflect his exact thoughts at a given moment.

Exactly.

 

[Herr Logan]

Well, here's the death knell sounding for the next real Movie!Joker.

"I can confirm that The Joker role is a small and mysterious one in the sequel. It will be nothing like the Jack Nicholson-style showcase that the previous Joker provided."

This is automatically a failure. There's absolutely nothing "small" about the Joker's role in a proper Joker story, and the only mystery involved is who he was before he got bleached and how the hell he keeps escaping certain death.
Anyone who believes that it's acceptable to give the Joker a small role in a Batman film (not including a cliff-hanger cameo at the end of one film to set up a Joker-centric film coming up right after) is heretofore forbidden from saying so-- or at least arguing the point-- in this thread. I just want to make that clear. Faithfulness in no way includes a small role for the Joker. He is not a mystery mastermind who pulls strings from behind the scenes. He is not a phantom in the night who slinks through the shadows and brings subtle terror to Gotham. There is absolutely. Nothing. Subtle. About. The. Joker. Period!! Anyone who doesn't get that is in no way allowed to pollute this thread with an opposing statement. You either get the Joker or you don't. I don't want to see any bull$hit like this.

Just thought I'd put that out there. Thank you.

 

[Zev]

...well Herr, no one will ever accuse you of being slow to condemn.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Well, here's the death knell sounding for the next real Movie!Joker.

"I can confirm that The Joker role is a small and mysterious one in the sequel. It will be nothing like the Jack Nicholson-style showcase that the previous Joker provided."

This is automatically a failure. There's absolutely nothing "small" about the Joker's role in a proper Joker story, and the only mystery involved is who he was before he got bleached and how the hell he keeps escaping certain death.
Anyone who believes that it's acceptable to give the Joker a small role in a Batman film (not including a cliff-hanger cameo at the end of one film to set up a Joker-centric film coming up right after) is heretofore forbidden from saying so-- or at least arguing the point-- in this thread. I just want to make that clear. Faithfulness in no way includes a small role for the Joker. He is not a mystery mastermind who pulls strings from behind the scenes. He is not a phantom in the night who slinks through the shadows and brings subtle terror to Gotham. There is absolutely. Nothing. Subtle. About. The. Joker. Period!! Anyone who doesn't get that is in no way allowed to pollute this thread with an opposing statement. You either get the Joker or you don't. I don't want to see any bull$hit like this.

Just thought I'd put that out there. Thank you.

Yes i am currently in the midst of posting my disgust at this over in the Batforums and being told by some that "i should chill and trust Nolan"
Word has it though that the rumour is just BS from Jett

 

[The Joker]

Well, here's the death knell sounding for the next real Movie!Joker.

"I can confirm that The Joker role is a small and mysterious one in the sequel. It will be nothing like the Jack Nicholson-style showcase that the previous Joker provided."

This is automatically a failure. There's absolutely nothing "small" about the Joker's role in a proper Joker story, and the only mystery involved is who he was before he got bleached and how the hell he keeps escaping certain death.
Anyone who believes that it's acceptable to give the Joker a small role in a Batman film (not including a cliff-hanger cameo at the end of one film to set up a Joker-centric film coming up right after) is heretofore forbidden from saying so-- or at least arguing the point-- in this thread. I just want to make that clear. Faithfulness in no way includes a small role for the Joker. He is not a mystery mastermind who pulls strings from behind the scenes. He is not a phantom in the night who slinks through the shadows and brings subtle terror to Gotham. There is absolutely. Nothing. Subtle. About. The. Joker. Period!! Anyone who doesn't get that is in no way allowed to pollute this thread with an opposing statement. You either get the Joker or you don't. I don't want to see any bull$hit like this.

Just thought I'd put that out there. Thank you.

Don't you just love it when Logan wields those claws of his??

*Reads thread in link*

.............No

The clown prince of crime,my beloved Joker cannot have a small role in a Batman movie.He can't.He should be a central villain,otherwise leave him out altogether.

Ugh I hate the liberties these directors take with well established characters.If Joker's being limited to a small role,who knows what else will be changed about him too

 

[Herr Logan]

...well Herr, no one will ever accuse you of being slow to condemn.

Thanks, Zev.

I'm lazy about a lot of things, but when it comes to what's truly important in life, I like to be on the ball.

 

[Zev]

In Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter was only in the movie for about sixteen minutes. In Network, Louise Schumacher was only on screen for five minutes and forty seconds. Cliche but true, there are no "small parts."

Watch the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. First one, Freddy Krueger's always in the shadows, has only a few lines, and is generally more of a presense than an actual character (this is back when Wes Craven wasn't the Wes Craven of "Wes Craven Presents Dracula 200). In the latter movies, he's all over the place, making "funny" jokes and quips to the camera all the time. And guess what? He's not scary at all. Then Wes Craven's New Nightmare rolled around and Freddy went back to being a guy in the background, rarely seen, rarely heard. And guess what? He was scary again.

Go back and see how many times the Xenomorph is shown in Alien as opposed to Alien 3. It's an old rule of horror filmmaking. Show the monster as rarely as possible. And it works.

 

[Abaddon]

I completely forgot about this thread.I'll pos my revised X-men movie idea once I gather up my thoughts.

 

[Herr Logan]

Yes i am currently in the midst of posting my disgust at this over in the Batforums and being told by some that "i should chill and trust Nolan"

Rock on, Hunter.

I won't even bother starting a fight with those filthy, illiterate heathens, because it'll become a classic case of interpersonal entrapment (when "winning" is more important than anything and the struggle never ends until someone dies, if then) and there's no real way to "win" with those fake fans. I've got too little self-restraint to get into that mess and come back any time soon.

Word has it though that the rumour is just BS from Jett

I'm going to experience a certain level of anxiety and misery no matter what happens, whether it be in getting my hopes dashed, or having my anxiety turn out to be for naught. I'd rather go with the latter, since at least the finished product (the focus of anxiety in this type of scenario) will remain decent, while the anxiety will move to the next subject regardless. The other way around, I feel like a God damn idiot for believing that these filmmakers have a fecking clue what they're doing and I end up with a mediocre film left for posterity. Since the universe has two main goals (to make me miserable and to prove me wrong) and the first goal is always being achieved on some level, I try to manipulate events to get a little bit of relief with what I call the "Power of Negative Thinking." Assume the worst, and probabilities change, because the universe hates it when I'm right. If I'm right about something bad, then I lose. If I'm wrong about something bad, the universe loses.

Now don't any of you ever question my objectivity or sanity again, do you hear?!

 

[Herr Logan]

In Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter was only in the movie for about sixteen minutes. In Network, Louise Schumacher was only on screen for five minutes and forty seconds. Cliche but true, there are no "small parts."

Watch the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. First one, Freddy Krueger's always in the shadows, has only a few lines, and is generally more of a presense than an actual character (this is back when Wes Craven wasn't the Wes Craven of "Wes Craven Presents Dracula 200). In the latter movies, he's all over the place, making "funny" jokes and quips to the camera all the time. And guess what? He's not scary at all. Then Wes Craven's New Nightmare rolled around and Freddy went back to being a guy in the background, rarely seen, rarely heard. And guess what? He was scary again.

Go back and see how many times the Xenomorph is shown in Alien as opposed to Alien 3. It's an old rule of horror filmmaking. Show the monster as rarely as possible. And it works.

Zev, I wasn't kidding before.

The Joker isn't a monster. He's a deranged clown. The Batman is the "monster," and that's why he's allowed to sneak around in the shadows instead of prancing around in a more colorful costume. The examples you cited are irrelevant. The Joker is none of those things, and while it seems that you're in favor of a horror movie monster given the name "Joker" and shoe-horned into a Batman movie, that's also irrelevant.
No, that doesn't mean the Batman would be marginalized or completely upstaged in a movie created by me; I'm referring to the manner in which the different characters operate. The Batman uses fear as a weapon with precision and narrow focus, while the Joker just is scary because of what he's capable of. He knows he's scary, so he doesn't have to work at it. The people supporting this bastardized version of the Joker are thinking of Victor Zsasz, not the Joker. No, the Joker does not simply kill, he entertains. Whether people in Gotham City are actually entertained or not isn't relevant. That's how the Joker sees it-- through the filter of his histrionic/narcissistic personality disorder (that's not all that's wrong with him, mind you, that's just a big part of his behavior)-- and that's what the audience needs to understand. The Joker is a clown, not a bogeyman. The audience should be laughing a decent chunk of the time, even while the Joker is doing reprehensible things to innocent people. Does that seem like a hard sell? Well, anyone who can't make the Joker both funny and scary isn't qualified to write the Joker in a marketed product, period. Hell, I'm not even saying I could do it, but I would find someone who could if not. Laziness is the reason we don't get what we as faithful fans deserve, not natural laws of the universe or whatever else defeatist, anti-source material people blame it on.


Seriously, this isn't a challenge, this is a mandate. This thread is for faithful ideas, as was laid out extensively on the very first page. The rest of the entirety of these forums is for whatever the people want it to be, but this is a place for fans who respect the source material, and making excuses for unnecessary deviations is expressly forbidden. At the very, very least you need to provide an equal amount of criticism for the subject you're defending.

I'm well aware that "faithful" is a largely subjective term, but that is not the case with this particular topic. The Joker's most prominent and remarkable stories all involve his behaving in an attention-seeking and flamboyant fashion, so even if you could find dozens of single issues where the Joker was bastardized into something that could ever be liked to the monster from 'Alien,' the "essence" of the Joker is nothing like that. He's scary in his own way, and if he's not scary, then he's got other value to him.

Again, this isn't up for debate, and there are plenty of threads and board space available for it if that's what you're seeking. Does that come off as tyrannical? Considering the very rules of the thread, that's irrelevent. I don't go into threads that are specifically marked as being "positive remarks only" and stir up trouble among the sycophants, so us malcontents and critics (and no, that doesn't mean most of us don't get enjoyment even from flawed products) are damn sure entitled to our little corner of the Hype. Only the real Joker may be supported in here, not childish, revisionist misinterpretations. End of story. Your thoughts as to the real Joker are welcome, as usual.

 

[Herr Logan]

Don't you just love it when Logan wields those claws of his??

*Reads thread in link*

.............No

The clown prince of crime,my beloved Joker cannot have a small role in a Batman movie.He can't.He should be a central villain,otherwise leave him out altogether.

Ugh I hate the liberties these directors take with well established characters.If Joker's being limited to a small role,who knows what else will be changed about him too

He won't look like the Joker, he won't act like the Joker and all these so-called Batman fans will lap it up like the starving, brain-damaged herd animals that they are.

I figured I'd be taking a risk with you guys-- the true believers-- when I said I'd design a second Batman movie with the Joker's plot taking up about half the "villain time" of the film and crossing over with the other half (Organized Crime Family drama and Catwoman) instead of having the entire plot focused on his feud with the Batman, but apparently there are people who think it's acceptable to make him a shadowy background figure.

This is arguably the most recognizable and famous supervillain in the world. Dr. Doom may be regarded as the most badass villain, but the Joker has more exposure in more entertainment media, for more decades. This is the number one comic book villain in history, and people don't seem to understand the most basic traits of the Joker. He's. An. Attention. ****e.
He's a homicidal performance artist. He does not pull strings and creep around making long-range plans. He's intelligent and has just enough impulse control to plan a well-crafted scheme, but he's not R'as Al Ghul, Hugo Strange, the Riddler, Bane or even Tommy Fecking Elliot! He's a showman! I've already proven that he is not an alley-walking serial killer, and everyone who belongs in this thread knows for a fact that the Joker is all about brazen, publicized, spotlight-centered histrionics that have very little in the way of subtlety!

Thank God for people like you and Hunter, Ock. If Zaphod had enough initiative to build himself a new modem from scratch and sign on and throw us a bone once in a while (I kid, I kid...), he's throw his vote in, too!

Well, at least three people in the UK have a Goddamn clue about the Batman and his villains (I'm assuming Zaphod is from the UK, but I could be wrong... in any case, it's obviously far more than three, considering all the other great fans on here). Too bad the ones with the power are too busy carving out their own bloody pieces of Batman history to show some real creativity.
None of this has anything to do with "realism." That's not the case for the Spider-Man movies (look at the unforgivably faulty physics involved with Movie!Ock's fusion machine), the X-Men movies (hey kids, let's turn humans into mutants with a great big light-up gyroscope!) or 'Batman Begins' (the microwave emmitter that doesn't affect people directly in its path and somehow heats up water enough to burst out of underground pipes but not enough to scald anyone with the steam). It's about changing things just to take credit for the changes, whether they be good or bad.

The only real reason why they would make such a deliberate effort to deviate from Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker is because they know they can't measure up. Hell, that's why I haven't offered many concrete ideas about the Joker. I know I'd want either a truly qualified Batman writer on it, or I'd have to collect a lot of classic Joker stuff and basically cut and paste. You can't be lazy with the Joker, or you're not worthy of making the story.

 

[Herr Logan]

I completely forgot about this thread.I'll pos my revised X-men movie idea once I gather up my thoughts.

Cool. I look forward to it.

 

[Mister J]

I don't like this perception of a subtle Joker presence at all. What the hell is subtle about the Joker?

• The hundreds (probably thousands) of people he's killed?

• Conspiring to drive the Commissioner insane (including shooting his daughter in the spine)?

• Bludgeoning Jason Todd with a crowbar?

• Utilizing a lethal toxin that leaves its victims with grotesque facial contortions and discoloration?

• Prancing around in a purple suit, causing mass chaos while laughing like a maniac?


I respect Nolan's vision as a filmmaker and his right to craft, but this reeks. Before I hit DEFCON 1, I'm going to try to have a little perspective and assume this rumor is crap or someone misspoke. To render the Harlequin of Hate to a "small and mysterious" role flies in the face of decades of history. I don't want Batman to be relegated to the background, but is there no median here? This is Batman's greatest enemy BY FAR and any representation of him on-screen should be befitting of that. It's the goddamn Joker!

In other news that doesn't result in a precipitous rise of my blood pressure...

Herr, a while back you referenced the Scarecrow in your movie adaptation. I was curious as to your interpretation. Specifically, if use would be made of Crane's kung fu derivative, termed 'violent dancing'. I only stumbled across this facet of his the other day and haven't had a chance to see it in practice. However, I imagine it might give an opportunity to flesh out the character; possibly some latent psychological trauma manifested in a physical form (him being bullied and all). Of course, I've been satisfied with the classic interpretation of Scarecrow as a bully who only wields fear as a weapon. I wouldn't want his physical prowess to become so pronounced as to take away from that. Let’s not mention Scarebeast.