THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: carrotosaurus on 22 May 2007, 12:51
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/partyongarth/22look.jpg)
The new face of the Joker for the new Batman movie. Opinions?
-
...Heath Ledger is going to haunt my dreams.
-
I saw that a few days ago. There's about eight billion cat macros that can express my opinion, all of which along the lines of "Does Not Want."
I was disappointed enough in the choice of Ledger for the Joker, I can't stand him and find him to be an awful actor.
Add to that his insistence that there's no reason to do any serious research into the role by looking into the comics (Anna fucking Paquin wore gloves for six solid months to prep for playing Rogue, the least you could do is pick up the Killing Joke, dude).
Then factor in it looks more like something out of Saw or Fight Club and my approval of Joker in the Dark Knight is at about rock bottom. I have a lot of faith in Nolan after Begins, but still, I do not care for this look in the slightest.
-
Ew, no. I didn't see him as a good fit for the Joker and I still don't. And if he's not doing any research on the Joker from the comics, that's just silly. I really hope I'm not disappointed, because the first movie was done so well. (Personally, I think it's going to be hard for anyone to play the Joker as well as Jack Nicholson. Heath Ledger is no Jack Nicholson.)
-
Mark Hamill's voicing of the Joker was ten trillion times better than Nicholson.
Jack is not the end all be all of Jokers. Not even close.
I mean, come on: they cast Liam Neeson as Ra's Al Ghul. A British guy to play an immortal Arabic dude. Turns out, they went in a different, and still significantly awesome direction.
The only casting that seemed perfect from the outset was Bale as Batman. And that's only because you can cast Bale as Dorothy from Wizard of Oz and he's still perfect casting.
I have faith in Nolan. He knows what he's doing.
-
I didn't like the casting done for Scarecrow either, but that movie turned out all right.
-
Add to that his insistence that there's no reason to do any serious research into the role by looking into the comics (Anna fucking Paquin wore gloves for six solid months to prep for playing Rogue, the least you could do is pick up the Killing Joke, dude).
Huh? He was given a copy of The Killing Joke. Wikipedia has it cited that Nolan apparently didn't let him read the script for the film itself before shooting started. Ledger only had a brief glimpse which he was allowed to memorize and then was given The Killing Joke in order to prepare the character.
If you have an interview you can point me to I'll read it. Also I'm not even going to get into Paquin's work as Rogue.
-
Jack is not the end all be all of Jokers. Not even close.
I didn't say that. I said "personally" meaning he was my favorite, not that he's the bestest Joker that ever lived. I like Ledger as an actor and I have faith in Nolan, it's just really hard for me to see him in that character until I see him doing something.
That and I'm setting the bar pretty high for this, because I liked the first one a lot and most of the super hero movies that have been coming out lately haven't been as good as they could be (especially the ones that are sequels).
-
So you're setting the bar high for a movie that meets both criteria for a not-so-good movie...
-
People comparing the odd casting of Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson are missing two key aspects of that decision: both are well reputed as good actors, especially Neeson (Also note, when the movie was solicited, Neeson was listed as Ducard, not Ra's), who had the significantly bigger role. Heath Ledger is...not so good. Anyone seen the Order? The Patriot? A Knight's Tale?! I have faith in Chris Nolan, but I have absolutely none in Heath Ledger.
In response to Johnny, remember, you're dealing with Wikipedia here, which tends to be unreliable on occasion. You actually would've saved yourself a question if you'd checked the listed source:
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=90305&highlight=Heath+Ledger (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=90305&highlight=Heath+Ledger)
"HL: The Killing Joke was the one that was handed to me. I think it’s going to be the beginning of The Joker. I guess that book explains a little bit of where he’s from but not too much. From what I’ve gathered, there isn’t a lot of information about The Joker and it’s left that way."
As of that interview, he hadn't even read it yet. Considering the comic in question is about a half hour to forty-five minute read at best, that screams a lack of dedication to me.
Also from that same interview is the answer to your question: "DRE: Have you read many Batman comics?
HL: No and I think that’s kind of helping me a little bit. I was never really a fan of comic books or comic book movies. I never despised them but I was never one to read them. I never sought out the films but I would sit down and enjoy them. So because of that I really feel that I’m not carrying much pressure."
I've grown up reading this stuff and he seems to be carrying in almost the exact same attitude Halle Berry carried into X-Men, and she was, by far, the worst person in that cast, almost definitely because she didn't care about the source material.
-
In response to Johnny, remember, you're dealing with Wikipedia here, which tends to be unreliable on occasion. You actually would've saved yourself a question if you'd checked the listed source:
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=90305&highlight=Heath+Ledger (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=90305&highlight=Heath+Ledger)
I did click that link but being a web forum it had the courtesy of being down. Having read it now and a bunch of the follow-up statements I can agree with the people who feel he's clearly taken the role because he's an actor first and foremost rather than a comic book fan.
Considering the garbage that has been done to the Joker over the years if Ledger only winds up having read The Killing Joke before filming that'd honestly be fine with me - and as you can read from that interview it was still incredibly early into the production. Keep in mind that the first answer he gives mentions trying to extend his holiday time and I'm a little more forgiving about not having gone through The Killing Joke. Honestly, reading a graphic novel is just a relaxation thing for us but at the moment it's work for him.
(And before I hear any arguments about acting being easy or the money he's getting or anything about that I'll just cut you off at the pass and tell you that as a future teacher I'm going to have approximately zero holiday time during the year as I'm going to wind up constantly reading material about my chosen field and that if I actually manage to take a holiday and someone snarks at me for not reading the latest journal article about kids and English literature I will probably attempt to do a backflip off of your face. Let me enjoy my vacation and let Ledger enjoy his.)
I can think of five or six story arcs which would wind up with our silly clown back in action again as opposed to someone whose limited experience with the character is his at his most random and psychotic. That he's seen Nicholson's Batman is a bit worrying but I have faith that Nolan will be able to direct that part of the interpretation into oblivion. That Ledger is going to have only two preconceived notions of the character and one is clearly what the director - who, by the way, is neither Bryan Singer nor Brett Ratner - is wanting from him is going to make him a lot easier to direct.
Also, feel free to be less selective about Ledger's filmography. He was a pretty important character in a movie a couple of years back that got nominated for a bunch of awards. The name escapes me at the moment, but boy was there a flurry over the scene where him and another dude go for broke and make the beast with two backs. I guess what I'm saying is he's been in a lot of chaff but he's also been involved in some pretty great films over the years, just like a surprising amount of actors, including Liam Neeson. I mean, The Haunting? Next Of Kin? Krull? Absurdly bad pictures, but because Neeson once played a dude who didn't like what was happening in concentration camps people seem willing to forgive his career missteps.
-
JohnnyC, are you suggesting that we not judge actors based on the low points in their careers?
-
No, it's perfectly fair to judge, say, Robert De Niro on Meet The Fockers and Analyze That, as long as you remember that he also did Raging Bull.
-
I have this philsophy as an artist that I've tried to apply to every other thing in life.
I know that I'm only as good as my last drawing.
My last drawing SUCKED. I've never really tried drawing a chocolate coloured girl before.
So, a band is as good as it's last album, an actor is only as good as his last film, etc.
It's all debatable, but I also think it's fair. People are constantly changing all of the time. Judge them based on the last thing they did. Before you excuse them, they have to convince you it was just a cock up.
-
Strangely enough I never found the casting of Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson strange at all. I actually said "Liam Neeson must be Ra's" because he looks EXACTLY like the Ra's of the comics to me in the publicity shots. I thought it was a running joke in the comics/animated series/whatever that while he has an Arabic name he looks European. It just made perfect sense to me, I was much more confused by the cast listing thing saying Ken Watanabe was Ra's. But when I saw photos of the filming, as I said, it seemed to pretty easy to figure out what was going on, just because Liam Neeson looked so right. I was much more annoyed in the filming that they mispronounced "Ra's" the entire film. That really got on my nerves, I don't understand that at all. I thought Cillian Murphy was great as Scarecrow and I never really questioned his casting before the film, I don't know why.
That photo of the Joker also doesn't show that he has reasonably long hair. But it's quite difficult to see exactly how long and what he really looks like because they are shitty paparazzi shots that I've seen but a lot of people were going mental saying "OMG long hair" but I don't think you can really tell how long it is.
-
I thought it was a running joke in the comics/animated series/whatever that while he has an Arabic name he looks European.
Actually, believe it or not, Ra's is white! Yep. He is of caucassian decent. Most Arabs are as well.
I mean, come on: they cast Liam Neeson as Ra's Al Ghul. A British guy to play an immortal Arabic dude. Turns out, they went in a different, and still significantly awesome direction.
Liam Neeson is Irish, not British
And As for Dark Knight, BatsBegins was awesome. I was disappointed that the chose to continue on casting the Joker as the villian. Even more disappointed that they cast one of the Gay Cowboys to play him. I was hoping that they would do another "lesser" well-known villian as they did with Begins.
Now for the picture. WTF?!? Looks like everybody's favourite queer had a bad lipstick job trying to cover up the herpes he got from his boyfirend. Nolan had better pull an awesome script out of his ass, and hopefully Leger can fill in the big shoes left by Hamill and Nicolason and Romero.
-
Dissy, if you've come here with the mindset that calling somebody homosexual is an insult, then you've really come to the wrong forum.
-
Dissy, if you've come here with the mindset that calling somebody homosexual is an insult, then you've really come to the wrong forum.
I never once used that word in my post.
I wasn't using it as an insult, I way beating the dead horse about him playing in Brokeback Mountain.
-
I thought it was a running joke in the comics/animated series/whatever that while he has an Arabic name he looks European.
Actually, believe it or not, Ra's is white! Yep. He is of caucassian decent. Most Arabs are as well.
See, I thought that, but then I looked up wiki and and I wasn't sure so I thought I'd play it on the safe side.
-
I wasn't using it as an insult, I way beating the dead horse about him playing in Brokeback Mountain.
In a pretty weird, somewhat offensive way.
-
I like that picture, it makes him a lot more unbalanced than a Joker who had neat makeup on...Kind of John Wayne Gacy-like. He doesn't seem as "ha ha I'm insane" as Jack was, but he does look more likely to fuck you up.
-
i must be the only person who not only likes heath ledger but thinks he'll be good as the joker. i personally hated all 4 original batman movies and cannot stand the praise jack nicholson gets (honestly, yes, cookoo's nest was great, adaptation was great, otherwise he's a complete one trick pony in every single fucking movie he's been in. ANGRY KIND OF INSANE JACK NICHOLSON RAH. contributes nothing in the same way al pacino's career turned out) and with nolan's image of everything, this movie cannot possibly be bad. replacing katie holems with maggie gyllenhaal was a godsend, and from what i've heard i couldn't be more excited for it. god knows it wont be hard to top x-men 3 and the spiderman series for comic movies. that and i have faith in nolan to not turn out a bad movie. this new series is great, and just because people hate heath ledger for a few bad movies (i honestly liked a lot of his work, though has done some awful shit) i dont think that it'll be bad at his expense whatsoever.
oh yeah. AARON FUCKING ECKHART AS HARVEY DENT. I NEED IT. I WANT IT. GOTTTTA HAVE.
-
dude in the picture, he looks like a dead drag queen, or a very stoned drag queen.
-
Yeah, cool eh?
i must be the only person who not only likes heath ledger but thinks he'll be good as the joker. i personally hated all 4 original batman movies and cannot stand the praise jack nicholson gets (honestly, yes, cookoo's nest was great, adaptation was great, otherwise he's a complete one trick pony in every single fucking movie he's been in. ANGRY KIND OF INSANE JACK NICHOLSON RAH. contributes nothing in the same way al pacino's career turned out)
Um, Adaptation? Not sure what you're thinking of. I think Chinatown would be another good example of Jack Nicholson looking like he's working, rather than just being Jack.
That one detail aside, I really agree with the gist of your post. I was never a fan of any of the Batman movies until Batman Begins, and I think that pic of the Joker suggests we'll get more riffing on fear... which is an awesome thing. It's a great way to explain away the daftness of dressing up in funny suits. :)
I hadn't heard / read about the other castings, they sound great too.
Speaking of playing against type and so on, how about Gary Oldman as Gordon? Shit he was awesome in Batman Begins. Not a trace of nastiness or kookiness and no chewing of scenery at all.
-
Batman Begins was fucking awesome and I have faith this film will be too.
-
I actually almost walked out of Batman Begins because I thought the beginning was so shit - that whole thing of some rich Westerner pissing off to some completely fantastic (as in unrealistic, not great) mash-up of Asia just seemed utterly played out and tedious - but it definitely got super awesome once Bruce got back to Gotham and all the mind-fuck action kicked in.
-
Batman Begins might just be the only comic book movie that I actually REALLY liked. The X-men movies were okay, but nothing that really got me all that excited. I like Chris Nolan, I think he brought a much-needed darkness to the Batman character, and I'm pretty sure I'll like what he does to this movie too.
I like Heath Ledger as the Joker. Again, judging by one picture and my knowledge of Chris Nolan's other films (Memento and Following, in particular) I think this will have a real dark feel to it, and I like that.
-
Heath Ledger is pretty hit/miss. I absolutely love a few movies he's done, but hate a few others. The thing is though it's pretty easy to see which ones he's done because he liked the script and which he's basically phoned in for the money. All I really wonder is which this will turn out to be.
-
replacing katie holems with maggie gyllenhaal was a godsend
:-o QFT QFT QFT QFT :-o
-
I really liked the Burton Batmans and even Batman Forever wasn't completely without merit (probably due to Burton still having some creative input) and Batman Begins was obviously awesome. So far Nolan hasn't put a foot wrong in any film of his I've seen and I don't think he'll do it in this one either. I've seen Ledger suck at his roles and I've seen some amazing characterisation so I guess we can only hope that this one will be as good as we hope it'll be. I like the look of the Joker makeup cos it's got that dark and disturbed feel to it that even Nicholson didn't have.
I was hoping for a different villain really but I'm not really up on Batman lore so I'm ok with the choice of the Joker. Besides, I feel safe in the prediction that this Joker will be different enough from the previous incarnations of the character as to make it a completely different villain.
-
Common misconceptions about the old Batman movies:
-Jack Nicholson was a great Joker
-The last two weren't completely without merit.
-Casting in general was pretty good.
-The suits in Batman&Robin were pretty cool.
-
I don't see why you'd say Nicholson wasn't a "great" Joker. Given, it was Nicholson doing what he does: hamming up the role and not playing the character so much as himself, but he really hit the nail on the head as far as the most common characterization of the Joker: a nutcase, eccentric, sociopathic killer with a really dark and disturbing sense of humor. That's why the Joker's always been one of my favorite comic villains. I like either slightly redeemable villains who aren't evil, just of a different viewpoint, or I like guys who are so batshit fucking loco that the idea of them actually existing is frightening. He'll commit these unforgivable attrocities and then turn around and crack a joke that'll just be so horribly ill-timed to anyone else. I still think Mark Hammill did the best Joker ever in the animated series and movies (Especially the Batman Beyond movie, he was just sick in that), but Nicholson was a great Joker. I never cared for the old campy Joker in the sixties, he bored the Hell out of me. Joker's at his best when he's off his nut and still pretty funny. If Heath Ledger can't both scare me and make me laugh in the span of a a few minutes of each other, I'll consider it an outright and colossul failure on his part.
-
I really liked Nicholson's joker, personally. But I was much younger the last time I saw that film, so perhaps it's time for a revisit.
Also, I'm not sure I see what everyone's talking about as far as Batman Begins goes. I thought it was ok, but it seems that most people are worshipping the ground Nolan walks on... It was a pretty decent film, but is it really better than the original Tim Burton Batman movies? I'm definately going to have to compare them side by side.
-
Nolan chose to forego making a campy and plot-driven film in favour of making an appropriately dark and character-driven film, and more importantly he pulled it off almost perfectly. That's why a lot of people here, myself included, think Batman Begins is the superior movie.
-
Common misconceptions about the old Batman movies:
-Jack Nicholson was a great Joker
-The last two weren't completely without merit.
-Casting in general was pretty good.
-The suits in Batman&Robin were pretty cool.
Say no to bat-nipples :|
I'd rather see Adam West as batman again than Clooney. Either way, I dont know if I can give you that last one.
-
As surprised as I was that I enjoyed Batman Begins I am actually looking forward to seeing the new Joker. I thoroughly enjoyed Nicholsen's performance as a child, but I am ready for the darker, more pyschotic version that this one seems to be.
I believe in Harvey Dent too (http://www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com/) seems to have run its course though you should probably press ctrl-a
-
I have no problems with Heath Ledger as the Joker. I do have a problem with this picture. Where is the Joker's trademark grin?
-
I think Heath Ledger is going to play an amazing joker, simply because you cant see it.
With Jack Nicholson you know exactly what hes going to be like before he does it and that ruins the character, sure it was fun for a while but predictability got the best of him.
How many of you, just based on that picture alone, would be able to tell that it was Heath Ledger?
-
I have no problems with Heath Ledger as the Joker. I do have a problem with this picture. Where is the Joker's trademark grin?
well the huge scars on the sides of his mouth and cheeks would tell me that perhaps the "trademark grin" will be like every other "trademark" from batman and get a little darker, and better.
-
So who's Anthony Michael Hall playing?
He's confirmed to be in this but his role is being kept secret because "revealing his role would constitute a plot spoiler".
-
He'll probably be a nyurd
-
So who's Anthony Michael Hall playing?
He's confirmed to be in this but his role is being kept secret because "revealing his role would constitute a plot spoiler".
The Riddler, maybe? Or do you think they'd decide not to follow a jokester with a trickster? I'm trying to think of who he could fit in as....
-
Harley Quinn.
The other half of Two-Face.
Clayface.
-
Personally, I'm actually looking forward to them setting up future movies with Eckhart as Two-Face. I think he'd be able to pull off that role spectacularly.
-
I don't think this is really a spoiler, as it seems pretty logical to me, but just in case:
POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT!!
I heard (right after the first film, so it probably has changed) that at the end of the second film (or the very beginning of the third) that the Joker will be in court and Harvey Dent will be prosecuting and the Joker will throw acid in his face making him into Two Face setting up the third film. I think that's quite a nice way to do it.
END OF SPOILERS
-
I thought that Heath Ledger was scary in "Brokeback Mountain"...
Fuckin' yikes.
-
Eckhart's makeup as Two-Face is gonna look fucking sweet, wonder when those pics'll leak
-
I thought that Heath Ledger was scary in "Brokeback Mountain"...
Fuckin' yikes.
Hahaha! I get it! A Brokeback Mountain joke! I get jokes!
Seriously though... no.
-
http://worldofwonder.net/wimages/heathledger.jpg
I'm scared :cry:
Edit: NSFWNSFW FULL FRONTAL NUDITY WITH DICKS AND SHIT NSFWNSFW
-
Yeah, someone needs to put an NSSW tag on that and I don't really see what that has to do with anything. Odds are there aren't going to be any full frontal nude shots of the Joker in the film...
-
Right, ignoring all that - 4 of the main action scenes in the film are going to be filmed for IMAX. I remember Batman Begins was advertised at my local IMAX cinema and I desperately wanted to see that, so it should be good. There are also a couple more pictures from the set here:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32816
-
Now that is awesome. IMAX rules.
-
i'm trying to refrain from educating myself too much about this movie before it comes out or previews start showing because i have alot of faith in Nolan and i dont need to go confusing myself with mixed messages before it even comes out.
i mean, even my mom loved Batman Begins and she hates almost all movies and rarely bothers to stay awake to see one in it's entirety. that sends a serious message to me because i know all too well how she is about movies.
so i'm just gonne smile and nod along until this comes out and hopefully i won't be dissapointed.
-
Honestly, I don't care if they cast Christopher Nolan's right testicle as the joker, because Michael Caine is Alfred, and that means that this movie would still be the most well cast sequel of all time.
In all seriousness, I can see Ledger pulling this off with Nolan directing him.
-
Casting Michael Caine in anything is risky, he's a hit and miss actor who takes pretty much any role. I have to admit he didn't do badly in Batman Begins.
-
Michael Caine as Alfred is entirely the tits. I loved him in the first one and I stand by him having been the best Scrooge ever.
-
Casting Michael Caine in anything is risky, he's a hit and miss actor who takes pretty much any role.
:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?
I don't understand this assertion at all. He's been in a couple of shit movies but he's been in a lot of great ones in the last two decades alone.
-
I agree, Michael Caine is brilliant in every movie he's done. Whether or not the movie was good or bad has no bearing on his acting performance....
-
Sometimes he just doesn't fit the movie, I don't know.
-
It's the accent. It never changes and it's quite distinctive. :P
-
Sometimes he just doesn't fit the movie, I don't know.
To quote the great Kyle Farsnworth: "Opinions are like assholes, Scott: yours is wrong."
-
Personally, I'm kind of interested in the direction in which Nolan (might be) taking the Joker. The way he was mentioned in Batman Begins, he seemed like less of an overblown lunatic, and more of a flat-out sociopath. I'm probably wrong on this, since they gave Ledger "The Killing Joke," and they described him as having "a taste for the theatrical." Still, it would be cool to see a more sinister Joker.
As for the picture, it reminds me of Fight Club.
-
Pretty decent sized surprise spoiler concerning The Dark Knight. You've been warned.
SPOILER:
Cillian Murphy has been spotted on the set and has been filmed in at least one scene. It would seem that we've apparently not seen the last of the Scarecrow! This, to me, is absolutely fucking delightful news.
Source (http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5895)
Also, for anyone interested, they redesigned the Batman suit Bale is wearing:
Visible Here (http://www.comingsoon.net/images/batmannewsuit.jpg)
It's going to be mostly armor plating on what looks more like a sort of mesh material. While on the one hand, I'd love seeing a more classic look from the comics, this is most definitely a more realistic and practical look, while maintaining the intimidating vibe. If I were a vigilante, I'd sure as Hell be going out fighting crime in something more like that.
-
One thing I really liked about Batman Begins was the way they showed the practical reasons for all his costume ideas.
Like, using the hang-glider cape, the spikes on his gloves from his sword fight training, the "theatrical" costume. The batmobile being a military tank-like vehicle which can go super-fast for making bridges.
The costume image you show there looks like armor, which is even more practical.
I don't know why, but showing the usefulness of a crazy superhero costume appeals to me a lot.
-
(http://www.evilology.net/uploaded/joker2ge1nx.jpg)
-
Oh now come on this is what Google is for:
(http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4786/tmwlka4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
-
Yeah, that teaser poster has been long, long, long since debunked as fake.
-
*feels his world coming crashing down around him* :cry: :cry:
-
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=F83DDCC8F382BB7FC5D8D6744B81CF5C?contentId=3789512&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
Video from the set on Chicago.
Also, everyone's seen these but hey, whatever:
JOKER ON THE SET
(http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/3937/ledgerjokerth9hj9.th.jpg) (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ledgerjokerth9hj9.jpg)
(http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8840/1184709720234il4.th.jpg) (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1184709720234il4.jpg)
-
Hmmm, that's the first time I've been able to see a large version of that last image and I have to wonder, his hands aren't white like his face. I'm going to assume he wears glove for most of the movie and that means there was no reason for them to put makeup on his hands. If the character actually is explained as applying makeup, I'll be a bit displeased. He's always been iconic in the idea that it's not makeup, but his actual skin.
-
Especially since that doesn't even look remotely like Heath Ledger.
-
Teaser Trailer! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWw0ov-cAUg)
Sounds to me like Heath is aiming for Jack Nicholson's Joker. :(
-
You're basing this off of one line spoken in the teaser...
I'm not ready to call it quits based off of something that lasted 2 seconds.
-
I'm not ready to call it quits based off of something that lasted 2 seconds.
Sadly that's not the attitude my ex-girlfriend took.
-
:roll:
-
If the new Batman movie was done by the same writer and creative staff as Batman Begins, I'll watch it. Otherwise, I won't. That simple.
I think what they're going for with the Joker is that they're trying to make him look like a deranged person in the Silence of the Lambs sense. It's an interesting decision, and we'll just see what they do with it.
-
From the imdb page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/fullcredits).
The director is the same: the consistently excellent Christopher Nolan
The writers are actually different: Nolan and David Goyer still retain story credit, but the screenplay is by Nolan and his brother Johnathon (The Prestige and the short story Memento is based on...I'm not sure how I feel about this. The Prestige was good, but in my opinion Christopher Nolan's weakest film to date. Still, I never thought Goyer was that great a writer based on his other work, Dark City aside, but Batman Begins was still great)
The cinematographer is the same (Wally Pfister): maybe a little bit of a nerdy thing to note, but Batman Begins, The Prestige and Insomnia all looked damn good (plus he's worked with Nolan on everything except Following)
The editor is the same (Lee Smith): I'm not sure I really know enough about the mechanics of film editing to have an informed opinion, but I always felt Begins was overlong (though is that the editor's choice?) and that the fight scenes could have been better (someone somewhere pointed out that their confusingness could have been intentional - mirroring Batman's methods of distraction etc - but at times it just seemed to get in the way). Though the guy has worked on Master and Commander and Buffalo Soldiers, which I think are great, so I guess he should get the benefit of the doubt.
The art directors are all different. Now, I'm not entirely sure what art directors do, so maybe someone could fill me in here.
-
The camera work during the fight scenes were intentionally chaotic and not very pleasing because it was meant to give the audience an idea of how fast and chaotic Batman's fighting style is (they actually made one up for the film I think or perhaps used a style that is really not very well known) as well as how brutal it is (it's all elbows and knees mostly). I can see why they went with that technique but I prefer to see how the winner actually defeats his opponents.
The art director generally oversees the construction and design of the sets and possibly some of the costuming so if there is a different one to the previous film, The Dark Knight's Gotham City will have a slightly different feel and ambience to the Gotham of Batman Begins.
Based off that teaser trailer I will see this movie. Hell I own all the Burton and Schumaker Batmans so I'd see it even if the trailer was horrible.
-
Sounds to me like Heath is aiming for Jack Nicholson's Joker. :(
I thought the exact same thing when he finished with "I'm a man of my worrrd."
I think what they're going for with the Joker is that they're trying to make him look like a deranged person in the Silence of the Lambs sense. It's an interesting decision, and we'll just see what they do with it.
Yeah, I'm hoping that they're aiming for a more disturbing rather than comedic Joker because that's what will work best in the Gotham City created in Batman Begins. Ledger has been reading the comics that Nolan throws to him and a lot of it consists of more recent publications. Mostly dark material that would make Frank Miller happy.
-
I think it took some massive balls to decided to use the Joker for this second movie after Nicholson became so iconic in the original movie. Ledger's Joker couldn't possibly be the same (which is good) and while I have no actual opinion about Ledger as an actor (all his movies sort of passed over me and didn't stick in my mind much) I think it's great that they've chosen someone who elicits the "...wtf, HIM?" response out of everyone. Keeps us guessing.
-
NEW TRAILER!!!!
Well kinda (http://www.wizarduniverse.com/movies/dark_knight/005607875.cfm)
-
Words can not express how happy and excited I feel about this, especially that last post.
-
I had heard they were originally going to have Adrien Brody play the Joker.
Real let down.
-
Pfft, from what I've seen Brody couldn't act his way out of a paper bag in the rain. Though I did hear they wanted Michael Keaton for the role which would have been a very interesting choice. Then I heard he was going to do Jigsaw in Punisher 2 but neither is the case now.
-
Pfft, from what I've seen Brody couldn't act his way out of a paper bag in the rain. Though I did hear they wanted Michael Keaton for the role which would have been a very interesting choice. Then I heard he was going to do Jigsaw in Punisher 2 but neither is the case now.
Have you not seen him in The Village?
and yeah Michael Keaton would suit better as the Joker.. it's beyond me why they ever cast him as Batman in the 1st place.
-
As for me, I really think The Village was an awful movie, so I wouldn't use it as a reference for anyone's acting chops. That's just me.
Moving on, I would like to join the other (maybe) 2 people who thought Heath Ledger was a good choice for the Joker.The very second I heard that Ledger was cast, I was excited. I just think he can do it. I think he has the right look and I think that, with the right direction, he can absolutely nail it. I do agree that an actor who is going to play a previously established character should give a bigger shit about its roots. That said, maybe the fact that he even has that fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants attitude about it means he's better off not even trying to interpret it himself but, rather, just doing what Nolan tells him to do. After seeing Batman Begins, which was so amazing that I struggle to even understand it, I feel that it is entirely beyond me to even question the casting choices for the sequel. As far as I'm concerned, the casting for Begins was perfect, except maybe for Katie Holmes simply because I don't think she's a very good actress. It'll be nice to see someone else in the role of Rachel Dawes.
Mark my words. Ledger will own the role of the Joker. MARK THEM!! If for no other reason than to throw it in my face when I turn out to be wrong... which I won't.
-
Anna, make your sig die plz, thx.
-
Have you not seen him in The Village?
and yeah Michael Keaton would suit better as the Joker.. it's beyond me why they ever cast him as Batman in the 1st place.
I have and I wasn't impressed.
And as for Keaton as Batman, he was chosen because Bruce Wayne isn't necessarily the musclebound superhero like Superman is and is also a little unhinged and let's face it, Keaton does crazy pretty well as evidenced by his "C'MON! YOU WANNA GET NUTS? Let's get nuts..." scene.
-
Michael Keaton as Batman makes more sense than the conventional superhero.. I see your point, although I've never liked him as Batman.
despite whether Adrien Brody would've been good as the Joker, I still would have gone for him over Heath Ledger any day.
-
Actually I'm in the "Heath Ledger is probably going to have a pretty good whack at being the Joker" camp. He's a good actor and with the right direction he can be great.
Also Anna, Ozy wasn't really being a jerk, you really need to take the pictures out of your sig.
-
I suppose I'm still in the Heath-Ledger-from-A-Knight's-Tale headset.
and why? (about the sig.)
-
Nevermind, someone explained it to me.
-
guys are we talking about the adrien brody who won an oscar for the pianist
i'm no expert but usually that's a good indicator of talent
-
Well I don't like 'im!
-
guys are we talking about the adrien brody who won an oscar for the pianist
i'm no expert but usually that's a good indicator of talent
Except for the fact that Sean Connery and Cuba Gooding Jr have both won Oscars, and Tom Cruise has been nominated 3 times. Still, I like Brody. I wasn't the biggest fan of Heath Ledger, but he was brilliant in Brokeback, so I'm optimistic about his take on the Joker.
-
I'm sorry, did you just disrespect Sean Connery?
-
Sir Sean Connery. And yes, I did.
-
(http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2007/08/20-1526227485M.jpg)
-
Loads and loads of Dark Knight pics (http://www.worstpreviews.com/media.php?id=141&place=shots)
Excited much?
-
In one of those pictures, I'm quite sure that the Joker is kicking Batman in the junk. I'm going to love this film.
-
So it looks like they decided to make the Joker have facepaint instead of having his skin actually be that sickly white color. Kind of disappointing. Oh well.
-
Didn't they show in the first Batman movie that the Joker used makeup ? I'd say they did it in this just for continuity's sake.
-
No, they didn't. In the Burton version (Which I assume you mean as the first, though the '66 Adam West was the first one), he was permanently scarred and whitened. He wore flesh colored makeup in one scene when he vandalizes a museum on a "date" with Vale.
That said, I don't think it's going to be entirely makeup. I get the feeling it's just going to be a little blotchy and he "touches up" a bit with makeup. I have at least some faith that they won't contradict one of his most common and well known traits when it really just further complicates things (Unlike the organic web shooters in Spider-Man or the changes to Ra's in Begins).
-
Yes, except both those things only improved the movies for the casual film goer and freed up a lot of screen time.
Spiderman wouldn't have worked if he'd had to take the time to invent his webshooters.
Ra's Al Ghul wouldn't have worked in any other way in the context of Batman Begins. Besides, they didn't really change his character too much. You can just assume he has a daughter and uses the lazarus pits off camera. Most importantly, he LOOKED like Ra's Al Ghul and played a good character on the screen. He was one of the good parts of that movie.
Remember, if you die in a movie, you can ALWAYS come back.
-
I don't see the except. You pretty much just completely repeated my point. Having him wear makeup is an unnecessary change that only takes away from the character compared to the idea that neither Spider-Man's or Ra's Al Ghul's changes were a real detraction.
-
Oh right, I misunderstood your post. I thought you were criticising the two decisions about the characters you mentioned. It would seem we are in total agreement! How about that?
-
Woo, Christian Bale is still hot.
-
...I don't get why making the Joker a psychopath who puts on makeup to look like a clown is any more complicated than the Joker being a psychopath whose skin was illogically bleached into the colors of a clown.
-
It removes the uniqueness of the character. Any dumb fuck can put on makeup and rob banks. He's just some everyday kook if he's putting on makeup. Plus, a big part of what drove him insane in almost every prior origin was the disfigurement.
By that argument, why even bother having a batcave? They could've saved a lot of time by just having him store his shit in a hidden room in the manor, but it's a big part of the mythos that most people on the streets know about. Changing the Joker like that will just confuse the average moviegoer who has a passing knowledge of Batman (Which is the vast majority of people who will go to see it).
-
Ra's Al Ghul wouldn't have worked in any other way in the context of Batman Begins. Besides, they didn't really change his character too much. You can just assume he has a daughter and uses the lazarus pits off camera. Most importantly, he LOOKED like Ra's Al Ghul and played a good character on the screen. He was one of the good parts of that movie.
I agree, although they mispronounced "Ra's" the entire movie and it bugged me so much. It's "Raish" not "Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas".
That's a tad off topic though.
-
Actually, that IS the correct pronunciation. The guys who did the animated series mispronounced it. When O'Neil created him, he envisioned it with a short a rather than the long used in the 90's cartoon.
-
Actually there's huge debate over this, there are a lot of people who claim Denny O'Neil pronounces it Raish while others claim Raaas. From what I understand "Raish" is the correct Arabic pronunciation but I have also seen people argue that as well. From the evidence I've seen I would go with "Raish". There is also an episode in series 3 of Batman Beyond where Talia corrects Terry when he pronounces it "Raaas" which I think would be weird thing to do if they had been mispronouncing it all along.
-
One could argue that that statement from Beyond was an in-joke on their potential mispronunciation.
There's a CBR column called "Comic Book Urban Legends Revealed" where they debunk and confirm various comic book shit. I'll have to look in there or submit the question. No one seems to be capable of a straight answer.
-
http://comicgeekspeak.comicbookpage.com/cgs-episode062.mp3
An interview with Denny O'Neil where he says that it's "Raish" and that he got his daughter to check at a linguistics department at a university. He also says he could be wrong though. :P It also comes up that someone else at a comic panel thing said that Denny pronounced it "Raaas" but here he most definitely pronounces it "Raish". It's in like the first 10 minutes of the podcast.
Episode 62 from here: http://www.comicgeekspeak.com/episodes.asp
-
It removes the uniqueness of the character. Any dumb fuck can put on makeup and rob banks. He's just some everyday kook if he's putting on makeup. Plus, a big part of what drove him insane in almost every prior origin was the disfigurement.
I'll never understand vehement adherence to a particular continuity, I guess. If it acts like the Joker, laughs like the Joker, and kills like the Joker, it's the Joker to me, no matter what origin they use. I mean, the Joker himself has said he doesn't know his real origin in the comics anyway. He could've always been insane. He could've been locked in Arkham Asylum and then was suddenly released one day with a mysterious gas causing him to experience all of his deepest fears, including a giant, demonic man-bat flying through the sky, breaking his mind completely.
Does it really matter? Rumor is that Harvey Dent won't be splashed with acid. That Two-Face is born of something even more brutal. Does it matter if the story ends up good and the characters are mostly the same?
-
The adherence to a continuity is for the sake of staying somewhat faithful to the source material. If you're going to change things without it serving a function, why adapt it at all? Why not just create something new? As an example:
You people are missing the worst part of this news.
Veidt is "a costumed adventurer who retired voluntarily, disclosed his identity and built a large fortune. He hatches a plot to avert a global catastrophe he believes will be caused by Dr. Manhattan."
What?
By your standard, who cares about sticking to the strict continuity? I myself outright did not care for the graphic novel to begin with. I do, however, understand that there are many devout fans of it and can't see the reason behind unnecessarily changing things from the original source material.
In terms of your analysis of his origin, you're neglecting the timeframe of the confusion. It's canon that he was knocked into the chemical vat while being pursued by Batman. This is canon because Batman was there for it and remembers the occurance. It's been in every single in-continuity version of the Joker's origin. Before that, only Joker himself is witness to what really happened and is subject to confusion, but from the chemical plant incident on, it's all documented.
My entire point is: why change it? Making it makeup isn't going to make it any more accessible to the moviegoing audience, so why raise up a big ol' fuck you to the continuity sticklers if it's not going to improve the film material for anyone? If there's no gain to be found in the adaptation, just leave it as it was. A good example would be the concept behind Phoenix in the X-Men movies. Whether you enjoyed the execution or not, the concept was solid. Doing the whole cosmic thing would've been completely impractical, making it a split personality for the sake of the confined time limit of the movies made perfect sense.
Conversely, why change the Joker? We know he's scarred, it shows in the set pictures and prerelease material. It's no less practical to have him come out of whatever scars him white as a sheet than it is for him to actually apply the makeup. In fact, doing makeup would require even further explanation AND would go on to confuse people who saw the Burton movie, watched the cartoons or read the comics, thus annoying a good chunk of the probable audience. All told, Joker's origin in the Burton movie took all of maybe five minutes of screen time, there's no reason to change too many of the standard details.
I think this is all going to wind up as a moot point, though. I think people are blowing it out of proportion. It looks to me more that the scarring and whiteness are blotchy as opposed to him actually applying makeup. Not to mention, most rumors and interviews allege that he's basic the Joker primarily off of the Killing Joke.
In terms of Dent, I've heard more rumors leading that the Joker does it during trial. Beyond that, the timing is less important to the character than the actual scarring and split personalities.
-
we are arguing over whether or not they will show a thirty-second scene in which the joker puts makeup on his face
come on guys we are better than this
-
I'm a regular contributer to the Newsarama forums.
In other words, not all of us are better than this.
-
The joker will jump up in the trial and slice off half of Dent's face? Spray him with Joker gas and drive him insane making him scar himself?
-
I thought it was acid but crazy gas would be a neat touch.
-
Well word on the street is that they're not going to use acid. And that the reason for his scarring is gonna be more twisted than taking acid to the face. But that it still happens during the trial.
Actually, I don't know what my source for this, it's probably all bullshit.
-
Common misconceptions about the old Batman movies:
-Jack Nicholson was a great Joker
-The last two weren't completely without merit.
-Casting in general was pretty good.
-The suits in Batman&Robin were pretty cool.
To answer on this:
a. Jack was very good as Joker, Mr. Ledger has some big shoes to fill and I hope his acting is up to it (and based on Knight's Tale, I'm not hopeful);
b. Yes they were. Jim carey as Riddler was just way too over the top, and although I can ofter watch any movie that puts Uma Thurman into revealing clothing, she and Arnie were just complety wooden in their roles. Neither of the two actors playing Batman added any depth or nuance to their portrayals of the Detective, in my opinion. Clooney for instance is much better as an actor where he is able to act the likeable rogue (Oh Brother where Art Thou? and Ocean's Eleven come to mind), but he was way too serious as Bruce Wayne/the Batman;
c. The First two movies were well cast and well acted and directed, the next two just seemed to go off the rails. Big names doesn't equate to solid casting; and
d. Let me get this straight, we're talking about the costumes with the nipples, right????
-
I liked the first one, and to a limited extent, the second one, but what killed it for me in the later movies were all the frikking LIGHTS. They decked out the batmobile in neon and lit up the city like it was frikking Vegas. That is NOT Gotham City. It is supposed to be a dark, gothic looking city.
-
a. Jack was very good as Joker, Mr. Ledger has some big shoes to fill and I hope his acting is up to it (and based on Knight's Tale, I'm not hopeful);
Judging Heath Ledger's career from Knight's Tale makes about as much sense as judging Peter O'Toole's from Troy.
-
In Batman Confidential, DC have been retelling Joker's origin yet again.
In it, Jack is already a thief with a flair for the dramatic. He ends up going on a killing spree and after killing a woman Wayne loves, Batman lobs a pair of batarangs at him, scarring his face into a vicious grin. The story isn't complete yet, but the solicits show Joker emerging from the infamous chemical pool on the cover.
Typically, a comics company only reimagines a character's origin for the sake of putting it in line with a movie or TV show currently in progress. I'd lay good odds on this being the origin for the movie, or at least something very close.
Honestly, though, I'm holding out hope they stick with the Killing Joke angle, as they're allegedly put a lot of thought into that. I was a big fan of the whole "one really bad day would drive anyone insane" idea.
-
Seriously though, guys... are we not all gonna go see the movie? Whatever bitching is going on about how much this or that part of it is going to suck, we are so all gonna go see it. Or raise your hand if you're not. Prove me wrong, if I am.
I'm tired of speculating, myself. I just can't wait for it to come out. I think a ton of you are going to be so pleasantly surprised. The only way for me to go is down. I am so super excited for this film. I really think it's going to be great. I just hope it doesn't let me down, but I'm not going to bother worrying about it so much.
-
I am not getting my hopes up, and I prolly won't watch it till it hits DVD.
-
Seriously?
I mean...seriously? A sequel to Batman Begins by the same director with the same cast and everything doesn't merit a theater watch?
-
Actually, I take that back, when does it get released ? I may be there with FirstShowing.net if it has a big opening (meaning big enough for people to camp out)... but I am in doubts it will be that big.
-
I don't think it's going to be a big opening, but I'll definately be there.
-
Common misconceptions about the old Batman movies:
-Jack Nicholson was a great Joker
-The last two weren't completely without merit.
-Casting in general was pretty good.
-The suits in Batman&Robin were pretty cool.
Post.
I want you to read that post of mine you quoted again and again until a word in that first sentence stands out at you.
Nicholson: Not the joker.
Sequels:Again, read that first setence.
Casting: Wrong. Sure, the first two had good actors/acting, but the casting was still WRONG.
suits: Yeah, the ones with the nipples.