The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - Part 152

[georgec]

Nicholson's Joker works well in his respective setting, and I still love that performance and interpretation, but Ledger's Joker is better in just about every way.

 

[The Shape]

Nicholson's Joker works well in his respective setting, and I still love that performance and interpretation, but Ledger's Joker is better in just about every way.

They're just completely different interpretations that both captured the essence of the character.

I'll say I do prefer TDK's Joker, but neither interpretation is less valid or effective than the other. Jack's Joker was spot-on and so was Heath's. Saying one is better or worse than the other doesn't really work here, but personal preference just plays a huge role in choosing a favorite, obviously.

 

[BatLobster]

I mostly agree that it's totally subjective as to which is better, but I would make the argument that Heath's was overall the more impressive feat of acting, which is no slight to Nicholson who was also incredible. It's just that Heath really created a living and breathing character and fully disappeared into it; there is literally no trace of Heath Ledger I can see in that performance no matter how much I look for it. I'm not saying it makes his performance better, but just in terms of acting, I feel like a full-on disappearing act is sort of at the pinnacle of what can be accomplished in the craft.

Nicholson was no less "Joker", and it's definitely a role he was born to play, but I think as great and as natural as he was in that part, Heath just took it to a whole new level with the commitment and fearlessness he approached it with.

 

[Brother Jack]

Had Nicholson played the role ten years prior I think it would have turned out better. Not to say that he didn't make a good, even great Joker but I do feel like the prime window had already passed by the time Batman was made. Nicholson's performance is in many ways the exact opposite of Ledger's in the sense that he was essentially playing up his own persona as an actor in a colorful, heightened way. But that's just the kind of actor he is and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[JAK®]

Jack Nicholson nailed the Joker in his first two scenes (Wait'll they get a load of me) and then it sort of went downhill from there. I agree that he would have done much better in his younger days.

 

[schereZada]

I mostly agree that it's totally subjective as to which is better, but I would make the argument that Heath's was overall the more impressive feat of acting, which is no slight to Nicholson who was also incredible. It's just that Heath really created a living and breathing character and fully disappeared into it; there is literally no trace of Heath Ledger I can see in that performance no matter how much I look for it. I'm not saying it makes his performance better, but just in terms of acting, I feel like a full-on disappearing act is sort of at the pinnacle of what can be accomplished in the craft.

Nicholson was no less "Joker", and it's definitely a role he was born to play, but I think as great and as natural as he was in that part, Heath just took it to a whole new level with the commitment and fearlessness he approached it with.

Hi there. Exactly. Nicholson was the Joker kind of guy before he played the part. In fact, that's why he was chosen. Ledger was nothing like the Joker and yet he became the character 200%, and that's nothing shy of a triumph. Plus, it's really difficult to create a convincing character when you have no background story (or, in Joker's case, many of them) to feed the actor. But Ledger was that kind of actor. Remember Brokeback Mountain? Barely any dialogue for Ledger's character, and yet his performance was solid as a rock.

 

[craigdbfan]

They're both great but if I had to pick one I'd say Ledger's. That performance was a complete tour de force.

 

[Victarion]

Burton's Jack Napier from the flashback would've made a great Joker. He looked creepy enough without the makeup. While Jack's Joker had a clear agenda, Ledger's seemed like he'd fallen into a state of nihilism where nothing really mattered anymore. It helps rationalize the recklessness of his plans. This is a Joker that doesn't care if he's caught or killed so long as he can take someone with him.

 

[shauner111]

Heath's Joker captured the essence of a crazy man who doesn't care if he's killed, actually, he would welcome it if it means proving his point and causing more anarchy/turmoil within someones soul. That's Joker for me. It's not just about being funny, having makeup. The character that Jack played wasn't Joker at all, just a guy dressing and acting like him (very well i might add). Nicholson was entertaining in his usual way but as another poster pointed out, after the first couple of creepy scenes that were sprinkled with humor, he just went straight into the pure funny side of the Joker. He was a coward who was afraid to die, and either became a wuss throughout the movie or just a really funny flamboyant dude. Because i love the chemistry and acting between Keaton and Nicholson, i always cut it some slack. I've loved those two since i was a little kid and i still think they're some of the best actors to ever enter the business. But Ledger was more Joker to me.

Should be interesting to see if Leto combines the two, or goes into a completely different direction.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I thought Jack was astounding in this scene...

Both Jack and Heath were perfect for their respective eras, but frankly, I'm glad Nicholson is getting a little more respect again. They both gave very unique interpretations.

 

[shauner111]

He was fantastic in that scene. That might be my favorite live-action Joker scene.

 

[Keehar]

The character that Jack played wasn't Joker at all, just a guy dressing and acting like him

Yep.

 

[schereZada]

Heath's Joker captured the essence of a crazy man who doesn't care if he's killed, actually, he would welcome it if it means proving his point and causing more anarchy/turmoil within someones soul. That's Joker for me. It's not just about being funny, having makeup. The character that Jack played wasn't Joker at all, just a guy dressing and acting like him (very well i might add). Nicholson was entertaining in his usual way but as another poster pointed out, after the first couple of creepy scenes that were sprinkled with humor, he just went straight into the pure funny side of the Joker. He was a coward who was afraid to die, and either became a wuss throughout the movie or just a really funny flamboyant dude. Because i love the chemistry and acting between Keaton and Nicholson, i always cut it some slack. I've loved those two since i was a little kid and i still think they're some of the best actors to ever enter the business. But Ledger was more Joker to me.

Should be interesting to see if Leto combines the two, or goes into a completely different direction.

Hey, shauner111. I haven't read everything Joker, but I understand he's been a traditional steal then escapes kind of villain before. I mean, most of his career (if not all, I'm not sure) wasn't him unafraid to die, but more like doing his thing and escaping from consequences. Even so, when the Batwing was about to kill the Joker, I don't remember him running away, even when he could. The only time in the movie I remember Joker being afraid to die was when he was hanging from the rope ladder and he had no reason to be okay with it. Opposite to Ledger's Joker, Nicholson's wasn't making a point by dying.

Now, when he poisoned the city with the beauty/hygiene products or at the parade and the museum gassing everyone to death (with a scary smile on their face)... I don't think that's the "pure funny side" of the Joker. Or when he electrocuted a guy and had a talk with the charred corpse (and the corpse 'talked back' in Joker's head) only to choke him at the end with his tie. That's pure Joker there. Using toys as weapons was also pure Joker. His classic funny-but-lethal combo. Sure, he has used knives and gasoline before, but not only knives and gasoline, which is more what the average terrorist would use. Cheers.

 

[shauner111]

That's true but that's why i said "for me".

I was talking about how he was acting throughout these sequences, including the gassing. His first couple of scenes + the electrocution, yeah, i agree. That was Joker. Im not completely dissing on that interpretation. Nicholson played the earlier Joker very well. But that's not what i read, ever. I cut 89' slack these days because i just look at it like a Bob Kane era meets Tim Burton in his "prime" hybrid. But Ledger is more Joker to me.

 

[Decepticonus]

I just watched Batman '89 again for the first time in almost 10 years. And there are some problems with Joker
-Yes it does kind of feel like Jack in make-up just being Jack
-Why does he have to cover his face? Why doesn't he want people to know who he is? I am not following...
-Why the fascination with Vicki Vale? Because she's pretty? Because she takes pictures? From what I could tell Bob's pictures he took were just as good. Why would Joker be centered on any woman? He should be more obsessed with Batman
-Did he really apply make-up to change his mouth in the mime scene?

BUT...
Somethings do work. The plot of combining different hygiene products resulting in killing citizens, is both terrifying and sounds kind of like a Joker plot. It's fun to see the joy buzzer, the flower, telescope gun. Let's face it - Ledger would never have this stuff. Talking to the dead corpse afterwards - I can see Joker doing that. Dumping money on Gotham and then killing them - I can see Joker doing that too. Overall, this Joker is fun. I do love Ledger's but its just crazy killer, where as Joker should be crazy killer who has fun with it, fun doing it!

 

[the last son]

Also, they were probably scared ****less of him. I'm sure there were some Nazis and Germans who objected to Hitler's methods, but wouldn't dare speak up or raise a finger to try and stop him.

But, if their as insane as Joker why would they fear him?

 

[The Joker]

I do love Ledger's but its just crazy killer, where as Joker should be crazy killer who has fun with it, fun doing it!

He does have fun doing it. Where is he not having fun doing it? He tricks his own henchmen kill each other in the bank robbery for no reason other than amusement. He makes a grand entrance into the mob meeting with his magic trick "Taaa daaaaa!!! It's.....it's gone". He makes Gambol's men fight to the death in the "try outs" scene for fun. He makes a gleeful tape of him terrorizing and killing the copycat Batman. He leaves several of his victims Jokerized like his own clown visage. He flaunts "Slaughter is the best medicine" on the side of his circus truck. He laughs hysterically when he knocks the Police chopper out of the air. In fact he's singing and giggling to himself throughout the whole chase scene "La la la la la....I like this job. I like it". Hanging out of the Cop car window after blowing up Police HQ savoring his victory and shaking his head gleefully etc etc. That's not even counting his sadistic glee in taking beatings off Batman, laughing in the face of death etc. Ledger's Joker was having a ball doing what he was doing.

He didn't need a joy buzzer or squirting flower to inject the classic Joker fun and dark sadistic comedy into his methods. It was all there in spades.

You're dead right about the other points you listed against Jack's Joker though. I never got the whole Vicki Vale obsession thing. That was random and very non Joker like. The flesh toned make up he wore constantly was also random and pointless. Everyone knew he was the Joker so why he was trying to hide that he had white skin I don't know. It just dulled his clown image. The only time I've known Joker to wear flesh make up is when he's in disguise.

I also think his plan was very boring. Kill the city with smilex. A generic mass murder scheme. Not even done for any interesting reasons. It didn't even last long. We saw the news report a few deaths, then Batman cracks the smilex code and it's over.

As someone else said his rivalry with Batman was very dull. Nearly every Batman villain wants to kill Batman. Ledger's Joker got the best element of the Batman/Joker feud. The one where Joker is so obsessed with Batman, gets such fun out of challenging him, that he'd rather keep him alive than kill him. That's a more interesting dynamic between them.

Needless to say Joker killing the Waynes was a bad cheap plot contrivance, and definitely a very anti Joker element. Even Sam Hamm, the B'89 scriptwriter disowned that one:

Many observed that Burton was more interested in the Joker rather than Batman in terms of characterization and screen time. Comic book fans reacted negatively over the Joker murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne. In the comic book, Joe Chill is responsible. Writer Sam Hamm, who is a comic book fan, said it was Burton's idea to have the Joker murder Wayne's parents. "The Writer's Strike was going on," Hamm continued, "and Tim had the other writers do that. I also hold innocent to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave," he reasoned. "Fans were ticked off with that, and I agree. That would have been Alfred's last day of employment at Wayne Manor."

http://destinyosbourne.hubpages.com/hub/the-batman

I respect Batman '89 for what it did for the CBM genre and Batman's image as a dark hero, but I don't think it's aged well, and the Joker in it leaves a lot to be desired. After Hamill and now Ledger, Nicholson's Joker looks weak and tame to me. Ledger's Joker just hit more of the right notes for me: http://jokerfans.blogspot.ie/

But, if their as insane as Joker why would they fear him?

I don't think anyone is as insane as he is. But even crazy people feel fear. None of his men showed signs that they were not afraid to die like he was. He duped one of his crazy henchmen into getting a bomb sewn into his chest by promising him he was going inside and making the voices go away and replacing them with bright lights. He was oblivious that he was being used as a bomb carrier. That's why he was complaining about his insides hurting. He had no idea what Joker did to him.

 

[Decepticonus]

He does have fun doing it. Where is he not having fun doing it? He tricks his own henchmen kill each other in the bank robbery for no reason other than amusement. He makes a grand entrance into the mob meeting with his magic trick "Taaa daaaaa!!! It's.....it's gone". He makes Gambol's men fight to the death in the "try outs" scene for fun. He makes a gleeful tape of him terrorizing and killing the copycat Batman. He leaves several of his victims Jokerized like his own clown visage. He flaunts "Slaughter is the best medicine" on the side of his circus truck. He laughs hysterically when he knocks the Police chopper out of the air. In fact he's singing and giggling to himself throughout the whole chase scene "La la la la la....I like this job. I like it". Hanging out of the Cop car window after blowing up Police HQ savoring his victory and shaking his head gleefully etc etc. That's not even counting his sadistic glee in taking beatings off Batman, laughing in the face of death etc. Ledger's Joker was having a ball doing what he was doing.

He didn't need a joy buzzer or squirting flower to inject the classic Joker fun and dark sadistic comedy into his methods. It was all there in spades.

You're dead right about the other points you listed against Jack's Joker though. I never got the whole Vicki Vale obsession thing. That was random and very non Joker like. The flesh toned make up he wore constantly was also random and pointless. Everyone knew he was the Joker so why he was trying to hide that he had white skin I don't know. It just dulled his clown image. The only time I've known Joker to wear flesh make up is when he's in disguise.

I also think his plan was very boring. Kill the city with smilex. A generic mass murder scheme. Not even done for any interesting reasons. It didn't even last long. We saw the news report a few deaths, then Batman cracks the smilex code and it's over.

As someone else said his rivalry with Batman was very dull. Nearly every Batman villain wants to kill Batman. Ledger's Joker got the best element of the Batman/Joker feud. The one where Joker is so obsessed with Batman, gets such fun out of challenging him, that he'd rather keep him alive than kill him. That's a more interesting dynamic between them.

Needless to say Joker killing the Waynes was a bad cheap plot contrivance, and definitely a very anti Joker element. Even Sam Hamm, the B'89 scriptwriter disowned that one:



http://destinyosbourne.hubpages.com/hub/the-batman

I respect Batman '89 for what it did for the CBM genre and Batman's image as a dark hero, but I don't think it's aged well, and the Joker in it leaves a lot to be desired. After Hamill and now Ledger, Nicholson's Joker looks weak and tame to me. Ledger's Joker just hit more of the right notes for me: http://jokerfans.blogspot.ie/



I don't think anyone is as insane as he is. But even crazy people feel fear. None of his men showed signs that they were not afraid to die like he was. He duped one of his crazy henchmen into getting a bomb sewn into his chest by promising him he was going inside and making the voices go away and replacing them with bright lights. He was oblivious that he was being used as a bomb carrier.

Poisoning the city was eh yeah boring. The way he was doing was very intriguing and Joker-esque and I felt could have been open to some great elements, like look at all the women who look hideous now HAHAHA you can either give into your pop culture looks and low self-esteem or live on but look ugly, something I dunno. There was some possible terror in a plot like that, but we didn't get it. And yeah it sucked that plan went down the tube quickly.
And yeah killing the Waynes was dumb. According to Burton he felt the two characters need to be connected more. Read the comics Burton! They aren't friends, relatives, room mates or anything. Hell, these two feel more connected than those examples (except in '89). Hell, TDKR with the tunnel of love kind of pokes fun at how close they are.

Yeah I guess Ledger's had fun. And don't get me wrong I love Ledger's and is more accurate. But when I think Joker I think TAS which Nicholson's comes closer to. I do want that kinda goofiness. But yeah that wouldn't fly well in Nolan's setting.

 

[Brother Jack]

Should be interesting to see if Leto combines the two, or goes into a completely different direction.

Knowing Snyder's love of Dark Knight Returns and the influence it is having on the larger direction the franchise is going I would not be surprised if Leto borrows heavily from that version. The white suit, lipstick, and not laughing very much.

 

[schereZada]

That's true but that's why i said "for me".

I was talking about how he was acting throughout these sequences, including the gassing. His first couple of scenes + the electrocution, yeah, i agree. That was Joker. Im not completely dissing on that interpretation. Nicholson played the earlier Joker very well. But that's not what i read, ever. I cut 89' slack these days because i just look at it like a Bob Kane era meets Tim Burton in his "prime" hybrid. But Ledger is more Joker to me.

It's okay to have different preferences, no problem. But the Joker gassing the city doesn't sound off for the character.

I just watched Batman '89 again for the first time in almost 10 years. And there are some problems with Joker
-Yes it does kind of feel like Jack in make-up just being Jack
-Why does he have to cover his face? Why doesn't he want people to know who he is? I am not following...
-Why the fascination with Vicki Vale? Because she's pretty? Because she takes pictures? From what I could tell Bob's pictures he took were just as good. Why would Joker be centered on any woman? He should be more obsessed with Batman
-Did he really apply make-up to change his mouth in the mime scene?

BUT...
Somethings do work. The plot of combining different hygiene products resulting in killing citizens, is both terrifying and sounds kind of like a Joker plot. It's fun to see the joy buzzer, the flower, telescope gun. Let's face it - Ledger would never have this stuff. Talking to the dead corpse afterwards - I can see Joker doing that. Dumping money on Gotham and then killing them - I can see Joker doing that too. Overall, this Joker is fun. I do love Ledger's but its just crazy killer, where as Joker should be crazy killer who has fun with it, fun doing it!

Hi, Decepticonus. Great points there. As I told BatLobsterRises, the whole idea behind choosing Nicholson for the part was precisely that his personality would match that of the character's. Also his face had the right smile and eyebrows. It was sort of the opposite of what the did with Ledger, who had to change himself completely.

Make-up. I'm not 100% sure, but I always thought that, no matter what he said or did, he didn't accept his new appearance completely. Not at first. Not that he disliked it, as he certainly enjoyed himself, but it was something he didn't accept completely. You have glimpses of that when he says, "I'm only laughing on the outside, my smile is just skin deep, if you could see inside I'm really crying, you might join me for a weep." And then again he confesses to Batman: "You dropped me into that vat of chemicals. That wasn't easy to get over, and don't think that I didn't try."

Fascinated with Vicky. Yes, there's background for this in the movie: as Jack Napier, part of his "power" was to be with a trophy-woman: his boss' girl; beautiful, a model and a very dangerous thing to do. As the Joker, he became more powerful than before (he killed Grissom and takes his place as the top cat of Gotham's mob) and therefore he traded up in every sense, getting himself another woman that would be more desirable than the previous (so he used his previous girl as a human canvas for a distorted personal piece of art which he uses to attract his new conquest). When Batman interferes and saves Vicky, I guess he felt Vicky was an even more valuable trophy, as it's the one his enemy wants. I wouldn't say the Joker is "centered" on a woman, but on getting power and defining himself through his actions and possessions. Vicky proved herself to be the most valuable woman around in terms of desirability.

I find more curious why he kept Harley Quinn around in the comics.

Poisoning the city was eh yeah boring. The way he was doing was very intriguing and Joker-esque and I felt could have been open to some great elements, like look at all the women who look hideous now HAHAHA you can either give into your pop culture looks and low self-esteem or live on but look ugly, something I dunno. There was some possible terror in a plot like that, but we didn't get it. And yeah it sucked that plan went down the tube quickly.
And yeah killing the Waynes was dumb. According to Burton he felt the two characters need to be connected more. Read the comics Burton! They aren't friends, relatives, room mates or anything. Hell, these two feel more connected than those examples (except in '89). Hell, TDKR with the tunnel of love kind of pokes fun at how close they are.

Yeah I guess Ledger's had fun. And don't get me wrong I love Ledger's and is more accurate. But when I think Joker I think TAS which Nicholson's comes closer to. I do want that kinda goofiness. But yeah that wouldn't fly well in Nolan's setting.

How was poisoning the city boring? People were dying, horribly deformed with a grotesque smile, not sure why or who could be the next. And all that for the fun of it and to become the "world's first fully functioning homicidal artist." I don't know how more Joker it could be. And the plan only failed when Batman stopped it by cracking the code... which is what Batman is supposed to do.

When Burton was making Batman, he was making one movie, and just one. I don't even think people thought of these movies in terms of trilogies. And there was no way they would call Nicholson for a second movie (no with his fee ). So he thought of connecting the characters. It's actually nothing new, as almost every superhero movie has done similar things, merging characters, changing them, etc. Should we tell Nolan to read the comics because Ra's al Ghul trained Batman? Or because the Joker created Two-Face and not Maroni with acid in the middle of a trial? Or because everyone knows that Joe Chill was not captured the very night he killed the Waynes (which is why Bruce Wayne felt something else had top be done)?

I don't think the dynamics between Batman and the Joker was only "I'll kill you if I can" only. Joker was competing with Batman trying to place himself as the idol of the city over Batman (not that it was Batman's purpose, but it's the way Joker saw it), just to kill his followers for the fun of it. Very Joker from him. I remember an episode in BTAS ("Be a Clown, Season 1) where the Joker expressed jealousy of Batman saying something like "What? Compare me to Batman?! I've got more style, more brains, I'm certainly a better dresser!"

Knowing Snyder's love of Dark Knight Returns and the influence it is having on the larger direction the franchise is going I would not be surprised if Leto borrows heavily from that version. The white suit, lipstick, and not laughing very much.

I can't but remember Miller's All-Star Batman & Robin, where Batman laughed a lot like a crazy maniac, and Joker was serious as hell.

 

[Keehar]

Make-up. I'm not 100% sure, but I always thought that, no matter what he said or did, he didn't accept his new appearance completely. Not at first. Not that he disliked it, as he certainly enjoyed himself, but it was something he didn't accept completely. You have glimpses of that when he says, "I'm only laughing on the outside, my smile is just skin deep, if you could see inside I'm really crying, you might join me for a weep." And then again he confesses to Batman: "You dropped me into that vat of chemicals. That wasn't easy to get over, and don't think that I didn't try."

'You can call me Joker. And as you can see I'm a lot happier'. Doesn't sound like a guy who's not happy with his new image.

That crying on the inside line was followed by him laughing his ass off. If you believed him when he said he's crying inside then you believe pigs fly.

Fascinated with Vicky. Yes, there's background for this in the movie: as Jack Napier, part of his "power" was to be with a trophy-woman: his boss' girl; beautiful, a model and a very dangerous thing to do. As the Joker, he became more powerful than before (he killed Grissom and takes his place as the top cat of Gotham's mob) and therefore he traded up in every sense, getting himself another woman that would be more desirable than the previous (so he used his previous girl as a human canvas for a distorted personal piece of art which he uses to attract his new conquest). When Batman interferes and saves Vicky, I guess he felt Vicky was an even more valuable trophy, as it's the one his enemy wants. I wouldn't say the Joker is "centered" on a woman, but on getting power and defining himself through his actions and possessions. Vicky proved herself to be the most valuable woman around in terms of desirability.

Joker doesn't care about having trophy women. Joker doesn't need a woman around him. He keeps Harley because she's useful to him in crime. That's in between when he's trying to kill Harley. She doesn't just stand around looking pretty like Alicia.

Joker going after Vicki is so not Joker because he thinks she has style and puts steam in his stride. Joker's got as much interest in following pretty chicks around as he does about the issue of global warming.

How was poisoning the city boring? People were dying, horribly deformed with a grotesque smile, not sure why or who could be the next. And all that for the fun of it and to become the "world's first fully functioning homicidal artist." I don't know how more Joker it could be. And the plan only failed when Batman stopped it by cracking the code... which is what Batman is supposed to do.

It was boring because it was made boring the way they did it. You never saw a sense of panic and urgency in the city that their products were being messed with. The only outlet to show something was wrong in the city was the news report. We had like what one news report that said there was a few deaths. See no panic in the city. Never see people are suffering or afraid of Joker. You expect to see more from Batman's greatest villain than some rushed by the numbers kill everyone plan. One of the best things about TDK was you saw nearly everyone afraid of Joker, even the mob. When he wreaked he chaos he really cut loose. Best one was when he threatened to blow the hospital if Reese wasn't wasted. You see the crowds of Gothamites going nuts. Or when the whole city gets evacuated and the National Guard is called in. That's a Joker to be reckoned with. Batman 1989 gave us a Prince dance routine and a bunch of dumb citizens trying to get free money.

The best kind of kill the city plans are the ones where you see the panic and the chaos. Like the panic and carnage on the Narrows in the Begins finale. That was awesome. It felt like all hell had broken loose. Joker sprays some gas out of his balloons, a few people die, Knox runs around like a dumb ass chasing Joker goons with a baseball bat, Batman swerves in and takes the gas balloons away, everything is hunky dory again and people are still milling around Joker's float like nothing happened.

When Burton was making Batman, he was making one movie, and just one. I don't even think people thought of these movies in terms of trilogies.

He could have made a solid movie without the dumb changes he made. Donner did with Superman.

So he thought of connecting the characters. It's actually nothing new, as almost every superhero movie has done similar things, merging characters, changing them, etc. Should we tell Nolan to read the comics because Ra's al Ghul trained Batman? Or because the Joker created Two-Face and not Maroni with acid in the middle of a trial? Or because everyone knows that Joe Chill was not captured the very night he killed the Waynes (which is why Bruce Wayne felt something else had top be done)?

They're not comparable to the origin of Batman having Joker killing his folks. Fans aren't that fickle otherwise every change to the comics would have an uproar from them like that one did.

I don't think the dynamics between Batman and the Joker was only "I'll kill you if I can" only. Joker was competing with Batman trying to place himself as the idol of the city over Batman (not that it was Batman's purpose, but it's the way Joker saw it), just to kill his followers for the fun of it. Very Joker from him. I remember an episode in BTAS ("Be a Clown, Season 1) where the Joker expressed jealousy of Batman saying something like "What? Compare me to Batman?! I've got more style, more brains, I'm certainly a better dresser!"

Apart from one throwaway line about Batman getting his press, there's nothing about Joker trying to compete with Batman for anything. He just wants him dead. 'We got a flying mouse to kill' 'Batman's head on a lance'.

They waste the only Batman and Joker scene in the whole movie by having Batman wailing on Joker for killing mommy and daddy. That just didn't feel right for a Batman and Joker confrontation.

 

[schereZada]

'You can call me Joker. And as you can see I'm a lot happier'. Doesn't sound like a guy who's not happy with his new image.

That stupid crying on the inside line was followed by him laughing his ass off. If you believed him when he said he's crying inside then you believe pigs fly.



Joker doesn't care about having trophy women. Joker doesn't need a woman around him. He keeps Harley because she's useful to him in crime. That's in between when he's trying to kill Harley. She doesn't just stand around looking pretty like Alicia.

Joker going after Vicki is so not Joker because he thinks she has style and puts steam in his stride. Joker's got as much interest in following pretty chicks around as he does about the issue of global warming.



It was boring because it was made boring the way they did it. You never saw a sense of panic and urgency in the city that their products were being messed with. The only outlet to show something was wrong in the city was the news report. We had like what one news report that said there was a few deaths. See no panic in the city. Never see people are suffering or afraid of Joker. You expect to see more from Batman's greatest villain than some rushed by the numbers kill everyone plan. One of the best things about TDK was you saw nearly everyone afraid of Joker, even the mob. When he wreaked he chaos he really cut loose. Best one was when he threatened to blow the hospital if Reese wasn't wasted. You see the crowds of Gothamites going nuts. Or when the whole city gets evacuated and the National Guard is called in. That's a Joker to be reckoned with. Batman 1989 gave us a Prince dance routine and a bunch of dumb citizens trying to get free money.

The best kind of kill the city plans are the ones where you see the panic and the chaos. Like the panic and carnage on the Narrows in the Begins finale. That was awesome. It felt like all hell had broken loose. Joker sprays some gas out of his balloons, a few people die, Knox runs around like a dumb ass chasing Joker goons with a baseball bat, Batman swerves in and takes the gas balloons away, everything is hunky dory again and people are still milling around Joker's float like nothing happened.



He could have made a solid movie without the dumb changes he made. Donner did with Superman.



None of those screw up anything like the origin of Batman having Joker killing his folks. Fans aren't that fickle otherwise every change to the comics would have an uproar from them like that one did.



Apart from one throwaway line about Batman getting his press, there's nothing about Joker trying to compete with Batman for anything. He just wants him dead. 'We got a flying mouse to kill' 'Batman's head on a lance'.

How many scenes do they actually get together in the movie as Batman and Joker face to face. It's like one. Just the one at the end and that's spoilt because it's Batman wailing on Joker for killing mommy and daddy.

As far as I know, "happier" is a comparative, not a superlative. He doesn't say "I'm completely happy," he says "Im happier [than when I was Jack]."

Yeah, he laughs after saying those rhymes to Vicky. He's a little screwed up in the head, you see. One moment he's okay killing people and enjoying showing himself, the next he tells Batman he had a hard time getting over what Batman did to him... without laughing.

Jokers and women: Well, he has had Harley Quinn, so it's not like he doesn't care at all. But again, in the movie he does care and this is well stated since the very first scene Jack Napier is in: he cares about having a girl around him to boost his ego and he cares about the way he looks for the same reason. And the Joker is one character whose ego is immense. After that scene, it's perfectly logical for him to try and get a better girl and to have to adjust to the new way he looks. One good thing about this particular character is that he can be portrayed in different ways, and both Batman and The Dark Knight took their liberties, but both were coherent about their own takes.

Nobody's afraid of Joker: I don't know. I saw Carl Grissom pretty scared of him. Vicky Vale was too. Those gangsters at the meeting were afraid after he electrocuted one of them. The newspaper reads: "Cosmetics Scare in Gotham." The TV reporters were talking about how terrible was that there might be no pattern behind the deaths. The mayor and Harvey Dent were very scared and worried in their office. According to Vicky, people consider the Joker a psycho. And certainly people were afraid when he started killing them, both at the town hall and at the parade. Just like in Begins, only that in Begins the panic was fueled by the fear gas, which was not present in Batman 89. How long has it been since you last saw this movie? I have to ask, sorry.

It's funny you mention Donner's Superman because one of the criticisms is that the moment Luthor appears, it's like one movie stops an another one starts. Luthor's plan and presence, even the tone of his scenes, have nothing to do with anything shown previously. It doesn't happen the same with Zod, Ursa and Non because... Donner related them to Superman's origin.

Well, a villain training Batman certainly change things, same as Joe Chill being immediately captured (unlike any previous version in the comics I believe?), which is why traditionally Bruce thinks being a policeman is not enough (so they had to add the parole element). The man who kills the Waynes just needs to be one thing: to be a thug that escapes into the shadows. So, Joker creates Batman in one movie the same way Joker creates Two Face in the other one. Nolan also felt he had to add some cohesion to the story... merging characters/events and making some changes.

"Winged Freak... terrorizes??? Wait till they get a load of me." It was a popularity contest for the Joker from the get-go. Then there's the line about Batman stealing his press, then he gets jealous at Batman's wonderful toys, then he tells Vicky that he's angry that Batman took her away in the middle of their "date." Then, the personal challenge to Batman on TV. I think it was pretty obvious and that it's way more than "one throwaway line."

Batman wailed? Wasn't Batman just telling the Joker he was going to kill him and why? Yes, that was it. You need to check the movie again.

 

[Keehar]

As far as I know, "happier" is a comparative, not a superlative. He doesn't say "I'm completely happy," he says "Im happier [than when I was Jack]."

Don't try and use semantics on this. If he was happier than he was as Jack, and he looked really smug and content with himself as Jack, didn't even worry about anything if you believe his dumb blond moll gf, then he would have less reason to be covering up his face with that flesh make up if he's even happier as Joker.

Yeah, he laughs after saying those rhymes to Vicky. He's a little screwed up in the head, you see. One moment he's okay killing people and enjoying showing himself, the next he tells Batman he had a hard time getting over what Batman did to him... without laughing.

Yeah and one minute he's telling people on TV he's not a killer even though he just tried to kill them all through smilex products. His words don't match his actions. He talks BS even when it's obvious he's talking through his butt. Actions speak louder than words. He never acted like someone who was uncomfortable with who he was. That's why it made no sense to be covering his face with flesh make up. Something Joker never does which is the point. He doesn't hide his creepy clown face. He flaunts it.

Jokers and women: Well, he has had Harley Quinn, so it's not like he doesn't care at all. But again, in the movie he does care and this is well stated since the very first scene Jack Napier is in: he cares about having a girl around him to boost his ego and he cares about the way he looks for the same reason. And the Joker is one character whose ego is immense. After that scene, it's perfectly logical for him to try and get a better girl and to have to adjust to the new way he looks. One good thing about this particular character is that he can be portrayed in different ways, and both Batman and The Dark Knight took their liberties, but both were coherent about their own takes.

I already told you Harley is not a trophy chick he keeps around like Alicia or Vicki. Harley is useful as a crime hench wench. She helps him pull off jobs, she can kick ass better than he can in a fight, and she's really smart. He still tries to kill her now and again anyway. You have seen BTAS or read Harley comics right.

Keeping trophy blond chicks around because they're hot isn't his style. Stalking them with romantic candle light meetings with soft music and bringing them wrapped gifts to their apartment. Not Joker's style. He doesn't care about women. The movie wasted so much time on him trailing after Vicki. Most of the time he acted more interested in her than getting Batman.

Nobody's afraid of Joker: I don't know. I saw Carl Grissom pretty scared of him. Vicky Vale was too. Those gangsters at the meeting were afraid after he electrocuted one of them. The newspaper reads: "Cosmetics Scare in Gotham." The TV reporters were talking about how terrible was that there might be no pattern behind the deaths. The mayor and Harvey Dent were very scared and worried in their office. According to Vicky, people consider the Joker a psycho. And certainly people were afraid when he started killing them, both at the town hall and at the parade. Just like in Begins, only that in Begins the panic was fueled by the fear gas, which was not present in Batman 89. How long has it been since you last saw this movie? I have to ask, sorry.

Grissom thought it was Jack with a gun on him for setting him up. Anyone would be scared of that. The gangsters never acted scared of him. They went and took over Grissom's businesses right after and usurped him. Vicki was scared of the guy stalking her with some wierdo love obsession. The TV report was as by the numbers standard business TV report. No sense of panic or fear in their voices. No sense that the city is in uproar or panic. The Mayor was more concerned about getting people to his 200th anniversary festival than he was about the poison scam. Dent on the phone for 5 seconds saying he's working on it. Really felt the fear and panic there. Vicki said people think he's a psycho, so what. Never saw that. Can't have been that afraid of him either if they were all ignoring him when he was on TV in his stupid flesh make up again gabbing on about how he's an artist not a killer. People ran when the poisoned gas was released. Donald Duck could have released poison gas on a crowd and they'd run because poison gas can you know kill you. Wouldn't you. After Batman took the balloons away they're all right back around his cake float like nothing happened. Really fearing this Joker alright.

It's funny you mention Donner's Superman because one of the criticisms is that the moment Luthor appears, it's like one movie stops an another one starts. Luthor's plan and presence, even the tone of his scenes, have nothing to do with anything shown previously. It doesn't happen the same with Zod, Ursa and Non because... Donner related them to Superman's origin.

That's not a change to the comic complaint. That's a tone and story structure complaint. Superman still always tops the polls 5 Superman movies later.

Well, a villain training Batman certainly change things, same as Joe Chill being immediately captured (unlike any previous version in the comics I believe?), which is why traditionally Bruce thinks being a policeman is not enough (so they had to add the parole element). The man who kills the Waynes just needs to be one thing: to be a thug that escapes into the shadows. So, Joker creates Batman in one movie the same way Joker creates Two Face in the other one. Nolan also felt he had to add some cohesion to the story... merging characters/events and making some changes.

A villain training Batman doesn't make a big difference. Batman's still got training, and he's still got Ra's Al Ghul wanting him to be the leader of his organization because he thinks he's the best. I know that's how their relationship worked. BTAS did it too. I don't see how it matters if Chill escapes or is caught shortly after. Batman's folks are still dead. How did it change anything for Batman? Joker creates Two Face, big deal. It's the same as Tony Stark creating Ultron instead of Hank Pym.

Joker creating Batman is like a huge change. It totally changes their relationship. Batman's arch nemesis made him? Batman owing his existence to Joker. He took his family. He made him. That's mega big and bad and that's why the fans hated it. It was a crap change. We know that Sam Ham didn't want it either among other changes Burton made, and Hamm's a Bat fan too.

"Winged Freak... terrorizes??? Wait till they get a load of me." It was a popularity contest for the Joker from the get-go. Then there's the line about Batman stealing his press, then he gets jealous at Batman's wonderful toys, then he tells Vicky that he's angry that Batman took her away in the middle of their "date." Then, the personal challenge to Batman on TV. I think it was pretty obvious and that it's way more than "one throwaway line."

He's pissed at Batman because Batman dropped him in the chemicals. He sends Bob to follow Knox to see if he knows anything about Batman. He says like three times in the movie he wants Batman dead. Naturally he's going to be annoyed Batman snatched Vicki away when he went to all that trouble of meeting her and Batman ruined it.

Actions speak louder than words. We don't get any story that has him trying to upstage Batman. He just wants him dead. Being annoyed when Batman spoils something he's trying to do is normal. You ever seen a Batman villain who doesn't when that happens?

Batman wailed? Wasn't Batman just telling the Joker he was going to kill him and why? Yes, that was it. You need to check the movie again.

Wailing on him as in beating him up. You never heard that term before. Yeah he said he was going to kill him. Because he killed his folks.

 

[The Joker]

Anyone hear about this:

Christopher Nolan Set to Receive the Cinematic Imagery Award at the Art Directors Guild's Excellence in Production Design Awards on January 31, 2015

The ADG's Cinematic Imagery Award is given to those whose body of work in the film industry has richly enhanced the visual aspects of the movie-going experience. Previous recipients include Martin Scorsese, Warren Beatty, Clint Eastwood, Norman Jewison, John Lasseter, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Blake Edwards.

Shaffner, Blass and Connelly said, "Christopher Nolan's body of work reflects a clear appreciation for the contribution Production Design brings to the stories he brings to life. His creative legacy is quite remarkable and it demonstrates a great love and respect for our visual medium. The teams of designers and craftspeople that he continues to bring together as a vital part of his filmmaking family are always of the highest caliber, and their work is among the most celebrated, unique and creative in our craft. Christopher Nolan's films remind us over and over again why we love to go to the movies."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/christopher-nolan-receive-art-directors-753598

 

[The Shape]

Hadn't heard about it, but I agree that he deserves it.

"Christopher Nolan's body of work reflects a clear appreciation for the contribution Production Design brings to the stories he brings to life. His creative legacy is quite remarkable and it demonstrates a great love and respect for our visual medium. The teams of designers and craftspeople that he continues to bring together as a vital part of his filmmaking family are always of the highest caliber, and their work is among the most celebrated, unique and creative in our craft. Christopher Nolan's films remind us over and over again why we love to go to the movies."

^ All true. Besides the top-notch production design on his films, his support for film (over digital), along with his support and advancement of IMAX film technology in major motion pictures, has provided for some of the best "cinematic imagery" in recent years.