The Dark Knight Rises You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 3

[The Shape]

Holdings is a blanket statement for anything. He could have investments in weapons rackets, or chemicals for making his laughing toxin etc. How do you equate this to him running a night club or being a business man of a successful corporation caliber.

The book doesn't paint him as a business man. It paints him very much like Ledger's Joker in that he's out to take over Gotham underworld. He uses what ever means he can to climb to the top, including robbing a bank to finance his operation.

I don't understand why you are separating the idea of The Joker running a business and and The Joker engaging in criminal activity to climb to the top. In the case of Leto's Joker or comics featuring Joker doing as much, they are essentially one and the same.

If The Joker has investments in anything, whether it be weapons rackets, chemicals, or drug trafficking, that is business of the criminal, illegitimate kind. If he's out to gain control of the criminal underworld and will do whatever necessary to climb to the top or finance his operations, including theft and murder, that is engaging in criminal business. If he's looking to gain territory for himself and his gang, and he takes control of clubs or business establishments to do so and uses those locations as headquarters for his operations/plans, that is engaging in criminal business to rise to the top.

It just seems like you've been really thrown by the fact that they likened him to a successful businessman and are stuck on the term itself, maybe because you're picturing him as a real-world businessman. All that technically means is he has power and control of his own criminal organization, and that he's smart, good at what he does, and is successful in getting what he wants. It does NOT make him any less of a criminal or wildcard. It doesn't mean he's sitting back and running any kind of legitimate, crime-free business that he built by staying on the straight and narrow all of his life and out of trouble, and it definitely doesn't automatically change the fabric of the character.

It just cements the idea that he's a ruthless and effective criminal mastermind at this point in time, with a successful organization in his grasp. It also doesn't mean he's always been in this exact place in life, or that he'll always be there doing whatever he does in Suicide Squad.

Beyond that, it's certainly not out of character for The Joker to have henchman working for him, or people he pays to help him get what he wants. Even that, enlisting and/or paying people to aid him in his criminal endeavors could fall into the category of illegal business. It shows that there is some level of structure and planning that sometimes goes into The Joker's crimes and endeavors (whatever they may be), that The Joker isn't always just some lone wolf who runs around randomly/spontaneously doing what he wants, and Leto's version seems to be an extension of that idea.

 

[The Joker]

I don't understand why you are separating the idea of The Joker running a business and and The Joker engaging in criminal activity to climb to the top. In the case of Leto's Joker or comics featuring Joker doing as much, they are essentially one and the same.

If The Joker has investments in anything, whether it be weapons rackets, chemicals, or drug trafficking, that is business of the criminal, illegitimate kind. If he's out to gain control of the criminal underworld and will do whatever necessary to climb to the top or finance his operations, including theft and murder, that is engaging in criminal business. If he's looking to gain territory for himself and his gang, and he takes control of clubs or business establishments to do so and uses those locations as headquarters for his operations/plans, that is engaging in criminal business to rise to the top.

How can you view it as the same? It's like saying Batman and The Punisher are the same because they're both trying to stop crime and save innocent lives.

How a villain climbs to the top separates them as characters. Do you think Black Mask would take over Gotham the same way the Joker would? Rhetorical question. We know he wouldn't.

It just seems like you've been really thrown by the fact that they likened him to a successful businessman and are stuck on the term itself, maybe because you're picturing him as a real-world businessman. All that technically means is he has power and control of his own criminal organization, and that he's smart, good at what he does, and is successful in getting what he wants. It does NOT make him any less of a criminal or wildcard. It doesn't mean he's sitting back and running any kind of legitimate, crime-free business that he built by staying on the straight and narrow all of his life and out of trouble, and it definitely doesn't automatically change the fabric of the character.

We've been over this on the previous page. You may think that having the same character traits but acting totally out of character in his criminal strategies makes for the same faithful character. I don't. When Joker goes and carries out his plans through way I know he would never do and find totally vanilla and boring. Frankly fly in the face of how he sees things - he doesn't care about money, and what are night clubs other than money making rackets? He doesn't care about owning a business - we saw him burn a night club down in Joker. He doesn't care about wealth - we just saw him quoted as saying he's flushed more money down the toilet than you can count.

So again when notable people like Leto or the producers are using successful businessman to describe this character, you may dismiss it as meaning nothing, but I don't. They don't mention it if it's not a huge significant part of his persona. And as I've just explained, that isn't who the Joker is.

Wonderful for you and the rest of the Letoker fans if you're ok with it. But I like my Joker to stay true to himself, and not be given pointless changes that go against his nature, and are more suited to other villains.

Beyond that, it's certainly not out of character for The Joker to have henchman working for him, or people he pays to help him get what he wants. Even that, enlisting and/or paying people to aid him in his criminal endeavors could fall into the category of illegal business. It shows that there is some level of structure and planning that sometimes goes into The Joker's crimes and endeavors (whatever they may be), that The Joker isn't always just some lone wolf who runs around randomly/spontaneously doing what he wants, and Leto's version seems to be an extension of that idea.

I'm not talking about him having henchmen. As I mentioned in the Letoker thread yesterday, nearly every Batman villain, even the most unconventional ones motivated by emotional goals, have had henchmen;

They no doubt get paid for their services, too, but we don't call the likes of Mr. Freeze or Baby Doll business type criminals do we?

 

[titansupes]

Lets not pretend they couldn't have had a scene of Penguin in a souped up helicopter. BTAS did a whole episode of that: http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/btas/episodes/blindasabat/

Or in Arkham and stage a mass break out:

What issues/arcs be these from?

 

[Brother Jack]

Technically Ledger's Joker becomes something of a mob boss during the movie. The previous bosses are all killed and he ends up with all the power. All the money, the hired goons, the dogs. It's just that to him it was all a means to an end. Hence him burning the money. But there is a James Cagney kind of vibe in the DNA of Ledger's performance. Leto seems to be channeling that as well, to a greater degree. I don't think it necessarily goes against the fundamentals of the character, even though I'm still no fan of the tatted-up pimp aesthetic. It's playing into the hedonistic side of the Joker who's all about his image and status, whereas Ledger eschewed that for chaotic nihilism.

 

[The Joker]

What issues/arcs be these from?

The top one is from Detective Comics #628, and the bottom one is from this;

 

[shauner111]

But that's the thing, he burnt the money. Leto will probably sleep with the money, covered in dolla bills, still wearing prada.

He must get along quite well with Cobblepot in this universe. No sarcasm.

 

[shauner111]

Who here hasn't seen the Ultimate Cut of BvS??

 

[JackWhite]

Who here hasn't seen the Ultimate Cut of BvS??

I have yet to. If I get around to it soon I will share my thoughts.

 

[titansupes]

The top one is from Detective Comics #628, and the bottom one is from this;

Thank you.

Who here hasn't seen the Ultimate Cut of BvS??

I haven't yet, comes out here on the 20th.

 

[Shikamaru]

I haven't seen the UC. I might watch it when my friend buys the Blu-Ray.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm not talking about him having henchmen. As I mentioned in the Letoker thread yesterday, nearly every Batman villain, even the most unconventional ones motivated by emotional goals, have had henchmen;

They no doubt get paid for their services, too, but we don't call the likes of Mr. Freeze or Baby Doll business type criminals do we?

Now that you brought him up, Mr. Freeze is an example of complete change.
In the long run, I prefer the thug storyline. I REALLY hate how they characterized him in his TNBA episode, even if they hit redemption with him in half or more of his Batman Beyond episode.

 

[BatLobster]

I haven't seen the UC. I might watch it when my friend buys the Blu-Ray.

I'm in the same exact boat haha.

If it was available to digitally rent, I would've seen it by now. But I'm still not on board with buying movies digitally because I like having my collection all in one place, and moreover I didn't like the theatrical version nearly enough to warrant buying the Ultimate Edition before seeing it. I saw BvS twice, once in IMAX, so I've spent enough on it as is.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

My level of hatred is I don't want to even pirate that crap to watch it again.

 

[shauner111]

I can't guarantee that you guys will like the movie now, but what Shape said was spot on. You can't watch this UC without acknowledging that the editing/pacing is completely different and it makes it watchable at the very least.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm definitely curious to check it out. Luckily my friend is a big fan of the movie and has the Blu-ray preordered, so I should be seeing it pretty soon.

 

[The Batman]

Meh. The pacing/editing of the UC isn't a trainwreck like the TC, but that doesn't mean the UC is watchable. It's still the same dreary, boring, pretentious film, TC or not. I see no point in giving the film another chance if you're in the same boat as The Joker or Spider-Aziz. All you'd be doing is wasting three more hours of your life on a movie you already dislike.

 

[Kane52630]

I tried watching it a week ago and about 45 mins in I felt like it was a chore to sit through.

 

[The Batman]

I felt the exact same way. I finished the UC out of pure stubbornness, but it was a chore to do so.

 

[Kane52630]

Yeah I still didn't finish it, I was going to a couple nights ago, but I watched Miles Ahead instead (Great movie btw).

 

[BatLobster]

I guess I'm curious mostly about what the first half of the movie will feel like when it has room to breathe, because in the case of both Man of Steel and BvS honestly the seemingly random assembly of scenes is what took me out of the movie the most, moreso than even the tone. Both of them just had no flow for me, especially in the first half.

I'm not expecting to come away suddenly loving the movie, but as someone that's interested in film and editing in particular I think it'll be interesting to compare it to theatrical cut- even if it's a bit of a homework assignment. And also to arm myself for any future arguments if someone tries to hit me with "You haven't watched the UC....your argument is invalid!"

Besides, let's not kid ourselves...I'm sure most of us would watch an alternate cut of any of the previous Batman movies if it were available, even our least favorite one just out of sheer curiosity.

 

[The Batman]

Yeah I still didn't finish it, I was going to a couple nights ago, but I watched Miles Ahead instead (Great movie btw).

Yeah, that's the thing. After finishing the UC, I said to myself "You could've spent time watching a great movie instead."

 

[The Batman]

And also to arm myself for any future arguments if someone tries to hit me with "You haven't watched the UC....your argument is invalid!"

LOL, that mentality is such a joke. I'm preaching to the choir, but you don't need to watch the UC to have a valid opinion on BvS, especially if your problems with it aren't especially related to pacing or editing.

 

[Shikamaru]

Honestly, I think I'll pass on it unless me friend really insists I watch it. I wasn't planning to ever watch it again since I almost died of boredom first time around. So unless the former's happening I'll just take The Batman's word for it and avoid myself the pain.

I only have one life. I'd rather spend my night seeing the new Finding Dory or something.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'd spend a night watching all of season 2 of Daredevil again.
I'm not usually into binge watching.

 

[BaelaTargaryen]

The "best Supporting Actor Oscar winner of all time" tournament on Awards Circuit is now down to final 2 participants.

http://www.awardscircuit.com/2016/07/07/community-finally-circuit-madness-voting-final-two-now-open/

http://www.awardscircuit.com/tag/circuit-madness/

The winners of previous tournaments were The Godfather (Best Picture), Meryl Streep, Sophie’s Choice (Best Actress) and Jack Nicholson, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Best Actor).

Heath Ledger won this one.

http://www.awardscircuit.com/2016/0...ntenders-ghostbusters-circuit-madness-winner/