Who Still Likes Jack's Joker Or Thinks He's Better Than Heath's Joker?

[Bruce Malone]

Quote: Mysterio Menace "I could have bought the fall had this been in Tim Burtons Batman, where it’s clearly more comic oriented"

I never thought of that comparison but your absolutely right. David, my suspension of disbelief was on standby the entire film and in probably all films that I see, even historical ones. As I stated in my post, I really had no issues with the majority of the "faux realism" action that Nolan put into the film, including having Batman slowly gliding over Hong Kong. If Nolan can make a truck do a sommersault, he could have clearly showed Batman's cape opening up like a parachute (if that's what we're supposed to believe) and then slowly descent. Instead, they hit that car with quite alot of force while travelling at a high rate of speed. Why not go the extra mile and have the cape work as a parachute or as a glider then? If I can suspend belief for pretty everything else that's gone on in the film, why do this one right too. Sorry, I won't argue this point anymore, or justify it. I didn't like the scene and thought it was poorly edited. If others think its fine, thats ok too, just stating my opnion on the scene, and I'm sticking to it Thanks!

Seeing as I just saw the film again yesterday in that scene his cape opens to the extent of a parachute that does't get open all the way kind of caught in spiral twist. So that action alone was slowing them down somewhat and they landed on the car with his back hitting the roof and roof crumpling underneath. The crumpling roof also lessened the imapct.

It was about as realistic as any action scene from a movie. Nothing purely fantastical.

 

[Cain]

I’m somewhat mixed on this as basically you contradict yourself. From what I recall, he’s been known to call it “heightened realism,” meaning its unrealistic concepts done in a practical way. Ex: Guy dresses up like a bat, jumps rooftop to rooftop, drives tank, fights crime and somehow managed to survive when horribly outnumbered, etc. So you take Batman and say “How would the Batmobile be done in real life?” or “If someone really wanted to become batman, what are the real-world grounds they’d have to adhere to?” So I disagree! That shows that Nolan’s thing entire is realism, it’s just not inherently real concepts. It’s about lending reasonableness to fantasy.

In which case I find the fall scene with Rachel to betray that.

you just completely agreed with me and didn't even realize it

"heightened reality" = something resembling reality but to a heightened (more extreme than normal) extent

as you said unrealistic (keyword) concepts done in a practical way therefore NOT reality

meaning it has a resemblance to our world and even at times some of our sciences but at the end of the day it's still full on fantasy. There are a lot of things that don't make sense if you look at both BB and TDK with "it's realistic" glasses on.


But since the intention wasn't "realism" in a literal sense just a juxtaposition of comic book concepts with what we know in real life things like a water vaporizing microwave emitter NOT killing the people of Gotham City don't seem so bad. I mean even Tim Burton's movies have some elements that grounded them in reality, the bulk of the Batman comic books from the 70's to present are riddled with them to but it's still just fantasy.

It's never being sold as "if Batman was real this would be it" more like "if the Batman concept took place in a universe similar to ours it will be somewhat reflective of this". Just like what the comic books mostly did after the bronze age the only difference is that it was never brought to live action film this blatantly before. I have my fair share of issues with all the Batman movies and Nolan's are not excluded but I always thought many blew the whole "realism" thing way outta proportion. We're talking blockbuster cinema here by the nature of the artform that goes into creating an epic blockbuster it will never be full on realistic in the first place.

 

[Cain]

I'll put it to you this way if Nolan had been going for "realism" and not a juxtaposition of realism and fantasy well he wouldn't have even written The Joker the way that he did in TDK. Since 85% of his antics will be completely implausible based on the laws of both our order and crime systems in the real world.

Yet they make perfect sense in the universe that he has created here, Batman will not be running around palling with the cops at all if he was going for realism it would've still been about Batman getting chased by the cops all throughout TDK and not just by the end due to the deus ex machina created in the 3rd act. As I said the "realistic" stuff has gotten too outta hand IMO.

 

[Travesty]

What Nolan has done, is taken characters in a fantasy world, and put them in a more realistic setting closer to ours. They are using methods and tools that are closer to ours, and in my opinion, I don't like how much it was pushed in TDK. The Joker always had perma-white skin, and now(for the sake of realism or style choice), it was taken out. The Joker normally uses exaggerated gadgets/tools to kill his victims, but now, he only uses real world weapons.

I get it, and it could be argued that "The Joker" is still there, but I would fully disagree, when the most important element to this, and most comic book superheros, is the fantasy element. When you have to strip away someones gadgets, the very tools that helps define the character, and swap it out for real world weapons, takes away what makes these characters. I understand the style that Nolan has went for, but I think it was one step forward, and two steps back, and a disservice to what the characters, and the environment that they live in, is about. You can make a Lord of the rings movie, and have it set in a modern/realistic setting, and it wouldn't really be the same, because you're stripping away vital part to the story/characters: The Fantasy Element. And I'm going by the very definition of "fantasy", which states-imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters

 

[david icke]

Say you have .1% chance with some attractive girl. Is it really worth blowing off all your other plans just to try to score with her?

Common dude, let’s be real. There’s nothing remotely realistic about that scene.

Well, .1 percent is somewhat remote.

and, as has been said by others, you are taking this so-called 'realism' tag far too literally. I always thought of it as 'heightened realism', and agree with the descriptions that have been posted pertaining to this.
I also said in my post that BM is using a sci-fi glider in the move too, and I just looked at the scene again, there was actually more glide shots than I gave it credit for. There is enough there to justify their survival in this kind of movie.

 

[Travesty]

I'll put it to you this way if Nolan had been going for "realism" and not a juxtaposition of realism and fantasy well he wouldn't have even written The Joker the way that he did in TDK. Since 85% of his antics will be completely implausible based on the laws of both our order and crime systems in the real world.

That could be said about 95% of movies out there. Unless the movie is based on true/historical events, then most things that happen in movies is highly improbable. TDK took Batman and his characters out of the fantasy element, and put them in a more realistic setting. The Bourne Identity is a movie set in a "heightened reality", but it isn't a fantasy adventure, and neither is TDK.

 

[david icke]

What Nolan has done, is taken characters in a fantasy world, and put them in a more realistic setting closer to ours. They are using methods and tools that are closer to ours, and in my opinion, I don't like how much it was pushed in TDK. The Joker always had perma-white skin, and now(for the sake of realism or style choice), it was taken out. The Joker normally uses exaggerated gadgets/tools to kill his victims, but now, he only uses real world weapons.

I get it, and it could be argued that "The Joker" is still there, but I would fully disagree, when the most important element to this, and most comic book superheros, is the fantasy element. When you have to strip away someones gadgets, the very tools that helps define the character, and swap it out for real world weapons, takes away what makes these characters. I understand the style that Nolan has went for, but I think it was one step forward, and two steps back, and a disservice to what the characters, and the environment that they live in, is about. You can make a Lord of the rings movie, and have it set in a modern/realistic setting, and it wouldn't really be the same, because you're stripping away vital part to the story/characters: The Fantasy Element. And I'm going by the very definition of "fantasy", which states-imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters

There are plenty of great Batman/Joker comicbooks that have the same amount of outlandish weapons as this movie. '5 way revenge' and 'The Killing Joke'.

There are plenty of fantasy elements used here.
I just think it's a shame that you're holding onto a somewhat more cartoonish version, and forgetting the joker that has appeared in many tales, using his intellect as opposed to joy buzzers.
If the Joker was really so reliant on such gimmicks he would be a crap character, take all those things away from him and he is still the Joker, he is that strong a character.
You're ruining a great BM/J movie for yourself by hanging onto certain notions you feel should be there.
And you seem to be embaressed at seeing these guys in a more real world environment, it's handled beautifully, Nolan does a bang up job of bringing us these larger than life characters in a functioning multi-layered world you can take seriously.

I mean, i had to put up with the sub-par BM movies of 89-97, i was waiting on this kind of approach all my life, y'know, like Superman the movie, and Superman II, a superhero in a world I could recognise as being not too different from a street I could walk down in real life.

Thank god for Nolan, i want to hug the guy for making these movies and taking the subject matter seriously as a work of art.

No more dumb, half assed movies with bum scripts that are nothing like the best of the comics. Finally i could sit in a movie with a bunch of normal people who don't know a comicbook from a spank mag, and not cringe during a Batman movie, whether due to camp, or boring scenes. They finally got to feel what it's like to read a great BM story, and why we geeks were obsessed with this stuff for so long.

edit: Oh, and as infinity pointed out, it may well have been an aesthetic choice for the make-up on the joker. He looks fantastic, and I would say, better than Jack or Romero, who both looked great(forget R's moustache for a moment).
It looks more random and punk, ie more dangerous, and less like a usual clown you would get in any number of horror movies.

 

[Cain]

That could be said about 95% of movies out there. Unless the movie is based on true/historical events, then most things that happen in movies is highly improbable. TDK took Batman and his characters out of the fantasy element, and put them in a more realistic setting. The Bourne Identity is a movie set in a "heightened reality", but it isn't a fantasy adventure, and neither is TDK.

This is my point, film in general (specifically blockbusters) is fantasy so to critique a Batman film for containing many fantasy elements doesn't really make sense to me when they were never intended to NOT contain fantasy elements. Funny you mention the Bourne series since that's possibly one of the greatest examples of macho fantasy in 21st century cinema to date.

TDK is in every way a fantasy adventure just because it's world seems more familiar to us than the more garish worlds of some previous Batman movies doesn't mean that's not a a fact. Terminator 2 takes place in a "heightened reality" yet you wouldn't walk outside and expect to see 2 cyborgs fighting each other either. Raiders of the Lost Ark takes place in a "heightened reality" yet a lot of Indy's tactics are implausible even for the most daring adventurer.

 

[Travesty]

This is my point, film in general (specifically blockbusters) is fantasy so to critique a Batman film for containing many fantasy elements doesn't really make sense to me when they were never intended to NOT contain fantasy elements. Funny you mention the Bourne series since that's possibly one of the greatest examples of macho fantasy in 21st century cinema to date.

No, you're not really understanding what the word fantasy means, or should I say "fantasy fiction".

Main Entry: 1fan·ta·sy
Variant(s): also phan·ta·sy \ˈfan-tə-sē, -zē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fan·ta·sies
Etymology: Middle English fantasie — more at fancy
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : hallucination
2 : fancy; especially : the free play of creative imagination
3 : a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: as a : a fanciful design or invention b : a chimerical or fantastic notion c : fantasia 1 d : imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters —called also fantasy fiction


And not only that, but how "fantasy fiction" is defined:
Fantasy Fiction genre definition

The definition of this fictional genre could be described as something that contains rudiments that are not realistic, such as magical powers, talking animals, etc. Fantasy is often characterized by a departure from the accepted rules by which individuals perceive the world around them; it represents that which is impossible (unexplained) and outside the parameters of our known, reality. Make-believe is what this genre is all about.



So what you're trying to defend, doesn't make sense with the way Nolan went with the character. He took Batman out of his fantasy element, and put him in a real world setting, and if you look at the definition of "fantasy fiction", then it states, "Fantasy is often characterized by a departure from the accepted rules by which individuals perceive the world around them". Which is not the case for TDK.

TDK is in every way a fantasy adventure just because it's world seems more familiar to us than the more garish worlds of some previous Batman movies doesn't mean that's not a a fact. Terminator 2 takes place in a "heightened reality" yet you wouldn't walk outside and expect to see 2 cyborgs fighting each other either. Raiders of the Lost Ark takes place in a "heightened reality" yet a lot of Indy's tactics are implausible even for the most daring adventurer.

I know, and that was my point. Those movies are in a "heightened reality", but aren't fantasy fiction, just fiction and science fiction in a "realistic" setting. There is a difference, and you're not really seeing it.

 

[Cain]

I understand what you mean but fantasy applies to more than just unicorns and aliens. Fantasy is something that just doesn't happen in reality

Travesty I'll use part of the definition you found to reiterate my point

"Fantasy is often characterized by a departure from the accepted rules by which individuals perceive the world around them"

using this logic in our world the real world the moment The Joker walks into a room with the TOP cats of every crime organization he would've been killed. Even if they had waited for him to unveil that he has explosions like they did they would've just finished him off with a headshot. Either way he will never walk away from that alive with the level of complete utter disrespect he showed to these guys.

See what I'm getting at here?

 

[Travesty]

I understand what you mean but fantasy applies to more than just unicorns and aliens. Fantasy is something that just doesn't happen in reality

Travesty I'll use part of the definition you found to reiterate my point

"Fantasy is often characterized by a departure from the accepted rules by which individuals perceive the world around them"

using this logic in our world the real world the moment The Joker walks into a room with the TOP cats of every crime organization he would've been killed. Even if they had waited for him to unveil that he has explosions like they did they would've just finished him off with a headshot. Either way he will never walk away from that alive with the level of complete utter disrespect he showed to these guys.

See what I'm getting at here?

I've understood what you've been trying to say from the beginning, but that's not fantasy, that's just fictitious writing. You can't say for a fact that The Joker would die if he walked into a room full of different crime organizations, and now you're trying to bend the definition, in order to conform to your own ideas. It doesn't work that way, and you're just quoting the definition out of context, without gaining the full meaning of the word, as you left out the last part of the sentence that says, "it represents that which is impossible (unexplained) and outside the parameters of our known, reality" and "described as something that contains rudiments that are not realistic". You're confusing "fiction" and "fantasy". Nolan put all of these characters and even turned Gotham into a more "realistic" world. Sure, it doesn't exist, and is totally fictitious, but he stripped away most of the fantasy elements, the very elements that help define the characters and atmosphere, as a whole. The Joker is a person who fell into a vat of chemicals, and turned him into a clown, while he uses extraordinary/otherworldly gadgets(fantasy). That was stripped away, and turned into a regular guy with a scar that puts on makeup, and uses regular weapons/guns(fictitious). See, one couldn't happen, while the other possibly could.

I don't care if you happen to like that more, or if that's more "up your alley", but the fact is Nolan did strip away Batman of a lot of his fantasy elements. He turned things that could never happen(fanatsy), and made them into something that could actually happen in real life, but hasn't(fiction).

 

[El Payaso]

I mean, i had to put up with the sub-par BM movies of 89-97, i was waiting on this kind of approach all my life, y'know, like Superman the movie, and Superman II, a superhero in a world I could recognise as being not too different from a street I could walk down in real life.

No more dumb, half assed movies with bum scripts that are nothing like the best of the comics. Finally i could sit in a movie with a bunch of normal people who don't know a comicbook from a spank mag, and not cringe during a Batman movie, whether due to camp, or boring scenes. They finally got to feel what it's like to read a great BM story, and why we geeks were obsessed with this stuff for so long.

You're ruining great BM movies for yourself by hanging onto certain notions you feel should be there.

 

[Travesty]

You're ruining great BM movies for yourself by hanging onto certain notions you feel should be there.

Clock it! It's 8:03 on Sat, November 28th. Travesty and El Payaso just agreed on something. t:

 

[El Payaso]

Clock it! It's 8:03 on Sat, November 28th. Travesty and El Payaso just agreed on something. t:

Actually we agree on plenty of things regarding to Burton's bat-movies.

 

[Travesty]

Actually we agree on plenty of things regarding to Burton's bat-movies.

I know, it was just a joke, for our past differences of late.

Although, I still agree with you.t:

 

[TruerToTheCore]

"Fantasy" or "Heightened Reality" isn't an excuse for breaking the rules of your own sandbox. Every writer can bend reality even completely but he has to set rules for his universe. You can't have it like this and then in another situation like that. That's just bad writing.

 

[returntovoid]

I think Batman should have used his grapple gun to break the fall.

And this is the reason why I don't like TDK-Joker, or even TDK as a whole. The atmosphere throughout the entire movie is so realistic, that it just seems silly that there is actually a man dressed as a bat fighting crime, or an evil clown causing chaos. It's pushing the "realism", to the point of a Joker that has to put on make-up, instead of perma-white skin, or a Joker who use real weapons, instead of his more "otherworldy" gadgets. I didn't have to many grips with BB about this, but TDK pushed the realism angle a little to far, and it took away a bunch of traits that I love about the characters. Give me a Joker who makes outlandish and sadistic jokes, not, under the breath, you kinda have to be paying attention in order to see/hear them, jokes. I understand TDK-Joker made some jokes, but they were very few, and even the "funnier" ones still seemed bland. He painted the truck so it reads Slaughter is the best medicine? Cool, but that still isn't that outlandish for my taste, and again, feels like a more dull interpretation of the character. You guys may like it, but I think it's a lackluster version of The Joker.

Exactly my thoughts about it.

 

[david icke]

You're ruining great BM movies for yourself by hanging onto certain notions you feel should be there.

Don't get me wrong, I still got bags of enjoyment out of the first 3 movies, I watched those vhs tapes more times than is healthy.
But, I don't think they are great movies (edit: regardless of what era or tone of BM i would have prefered). The only times when I thought they were great was when I walked out of BR and BF and was in the first flush of having just seen them, or when I watched BF when I was drunk.
But, on the other hand, I think the Nolan movies are great. They also have an actor playing Batman who is to that character what I think Chris Reeve was to the role of Superman, perfect and defining.
edit: They are also designed to be an ongoing developed saga, just as they should be, unlike the old ones, which were all pretty much self contained, with only little nods to previous events.

 

[El Payaso]

They also have an actor playing Batman who is to that character what I think Chris Reeve was to the role of Superman, perfect and defining.

Until the moment he speaks as Batman. the voice is easily one of the worst.

edit: They are also designed to be an ongoing developed saga, just as they should be, unlike the old ones, which were all pretty much self contained, with only little nods to previous events.

It is very well known the fact that 20 years ago that was a hard trhing to do. Sequels were just planned as the previous movie proved to be successful enough. Studios wouldn't just let you plan a trilogy.

 

[david icke]

Until the moment he speaks as Batman. the voice is easily one of the worst.

On first viewing the Bale voice in TDK was a little disconcerting, but I have to say, with no trace of Bat-blindness, I love the voice now, absolutely love it.

It is very well known the fact that 20 years ago that was a hard trhing to do. Sequels were just planned as the previous movie proved to be successful enough. Studios wouldn't just let you plan a trilogy.

The kind of thing I am talking about is things like Batman developing a relationship with Gordon.
Burton all but ignored that, apart from a brief one sentence exchange in BR we get nothing between them for both movies.
We didn't even get a rooftop batsignal meeting set up until BF, and that was used as a romantic interlude, thankfully not with gordon though, don't want that developed a relationship.
The same kind of thing happened with BB and TDK in regards to sequel planning in regards to what would be in the next one, or if there would be a next one. Nolan developed enough in BB so that it could follow on in TDK as a natural progression. Beyond an appearance of the Joker, Nolan didn't know for sure what he was going to set up, but the world was developed enough for 'aggressive expansion' in the next.

The only sequel relationship we got was with Batman and Alfred in the Burtons. and we got Dick and Bruce in the Schumachers, although annoyingly with different BM actors, and a 4th movie that is nigh on unwatchable.

 

[Infinity9999x]

"Fantasy" or "Heightened Reality" isn't an excuse for breaking the rules of your own sandbox. Every writer can bend reality even completely but he has to set rules for his universe. You can't have it like this and then in another situation like that. That's just bad writing.

To be fair, Bat's having an unsual resistance to long falls seems to be a theme for Nolan. He did it in BB too, when he jumped out of the apartment when he was on fire.

So I guess it's not breaking the rules per-say, but he seems to do it a lot in his stories, and lots of times it just doesn't make sense to me. The BB fall and the two-face fall at the end of TDK I could live with, but the Rachel one...there's just no reason he couldn't have had him Expand his cape to slow his fall, that would have been acceptable.

Until the moment he speaks as Batman. the voice is easily one of the worst

Agreed. It's too bad, because the voice is really the only criticism I have of his performance. Now, I don't think it's as bad as some make it out to be, but there are certainly scenes where it's cringe-worthy. I almost wish they had left it the way it was in BB, I think the modulation they did in post production made it worse.

 

[Mr.?]

I never understand the complaint on his voice in TDK. There are alot of scenes where Batman is pissed off and extremely aggressive, how is he going to get his point across in scenes like that if he is talking very low and almost whispering?

 

[MrQuinn]

it would be cool if he just talked like Beeker from the muppets or let out a series of beeps like R2D2

 

[Brother Jack]

The BB fall and the two-face fall at the end of TDK I could live with, but the Rachel one...there's just no reason he couldn't have had him Expand his cape to slow his fall, that would have been acceptable.

But he did, he was just only able to extend it half-way because he was carrying Rachel in his other arm. It made them spin on the way down.

 

[Infinity9999x]

But he did, he was just only able to extend it half-way because he was carrying Rachel in his other arm. It made them spin on the way down.

It just looked like it was flapping around to me, but I haven't watched the movie in a while.

And Travesty,

In regards to your whole fantasy fiction debate...you're really getting into semantics, since there is no defining list of what constitutes fantasy and science fiction.

Sci/Fi, sword and sorcery, ect. ect. All stemmed off from Fantasy. Originally, all of those stories would just have been plopped in the fantasy section of a book store. It wasn't until stories started expanding that all these subgroups came about.

But it's hard to nail down exactly where fantasy begins and science fiction ends for many stories, since, as I've said, there's no single set of rules everyone adheres by. You'll find some stories listed under fantasy in some stores and some under sci/fi in others.