Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Batman Discussion

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Jul 21, 2008 08:52 AM
from the because-we-can dept.
I won't be reading it because I haven't been able to go yet, but I suspect a goodly number of you have already partaken in the latest Batman flick that taunts me. Mocks me. And knows that I don't have time today or probably any time this week (unless there is a movie theater near the OSCON venue?) Anyway -- here is the official place to talk about the biggest geek movie out until the X-Files comes out next week, and I have similar frustrations.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Amorymeltzer (1213818) on Monday July 21 2008, @08:55AM (#24273109)

    Because Heath Ledger deserves one.

    End of story.

    • by Hyppy (74366) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:00AM (#24273207)
      Yes. List of posthumous Academy Award winners. [oscars.org] It's been over 30 years since an actor has won one posthumously, though.
    • by xtracto (837672) * on Monday July 21 2008, @09:27AM (#24273689) Journal

      Because Heath Ledger deserves one.

      This is not a troll, but a legitimate question. I have only seen the trailers of the new Batman movie. I have read in a lot of places that the joker character is is very good.

      However, from what I have seen on the trailer, the joker does not seems crazy like the one impersonated by Jack Nickolson. Thus my question to the people that have seen the movie would be, Is the Joker character by Ledger better than the one by Nickolson?

      And to the compic purists (I am not one of them...) which of the two characterisations is closer to the one in the comics?

      • by jaweekes (938376) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:47AM (#24274019)

        Yes, without question. Ledger's Joker actually acts legitimately crazy, complete with the tongue thing. You can tell that he is rational in his own mind, and not trying to be funny, as Nickilson's Joker tried to be.

        You really have to see it to understand what I mean. It really is the best villain I've seen.

        • by gyranthir (995837) on Monday July 21 2008, @10:35AM (#24275019)
          Intelligent Sadistic Anarchistic Psychopath. He was amazing, true to form to the gritty, dark, real, version of Gotham City. Great performance.
        • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Monday July 21 2008, @12:07PM (#24276883)

          Ledger's Joker seems to have been based on Mark Hammill's Joker in the edgier of the animated episodes/movies.

          • by TinCanFury (131752) on Monday July 21 2008, @12:44PM (#24277545)

            Well, kinda...

            Ledger's Joker is based more on the comic series which always had the Joker as more of a psychotic than a jokester. Perhaps it was the Adam West series's softening of the character that gave the Joker that impression in the general public. In the 70's when the Joker became even a bit more grittier, and through the Dark Knight and similar gn's, the "darkening" of the Batman universe came to influence Dini, etc. in how they developed the character for TAS, though a bit softer still since it was a kids show.

            Ledger's version is easily the closest to the original Joker concept of a true psychotic criminal, one who not only revels in his own altered version of the world, but finds the humor in the differences of what is considered our normal and what he considers normal, and uses that humor as part of his villainy.
            Nicholson's Joker, while following closely to The Killing Joke origin of the Joker (and in my mind a weak cause for the level of the Joker's psychosis as required for the original character), was more along the lines of the 50's and 60's prankster Joker.

            Either way, it will take a lot to find another actor who can come close to bringing the Joker to life in the same way Ledger did.

      • by Hausenwulf (956554) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:51AM (#24274095)
        Nicholson played the Joker as crazy. Ledger played the Joker as a psychopath.
        • by SputnikPanic (927985) on Monday July 21 2008, @10:21AM (#24274705)

          Agreed. Over the decades, the Batman comics moved from dark to campy to dark again. Nicholson's Joker was some strange amalgam between dark and campy. Ledger's Joker on the other hand is indeed pure psychopath, the Joker as characterized by Frank Miller and Alan Moore.

          Of the people I know who are familiar with the Joker character from having read comic books, all who have seen Dark Knight agree that Ledger's Joker is the best interpretation.

        • by twalk (551836) on Monday July 21 2008, @10:59AM (#24275395)

          I'd put this further as saying Nicholson played a great comic book Joker.

          Ledger played the Joker as a real human being. That gives a LOT more emotional shock value in the end, since you could actually imagine Ledger's Joker existing in the real world.

          • by The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) on Monday July 21 2008, @01:05PM (#24277837)

            I second this. The Keaton / Nicholson films took place in a world that was Willy Wonka-esque. You had to just roll with it and say "oh, it's a movie!" to believe it. I unashamedly did, and I loved those movies for years (okay, the Burton ones.). Chris Nolan just took a flamethrower to the old ones and said "No. This is right here and right now." and created something insanely beautiful.

            Jack was completely over the top and all "Look at me! Look at me!" and Ledger played it as "You look at me and I'll gut you..." His Joker is what I imagine it would be like to have a camera crew following Jeffrey Dahmer or J.W. Gacy around. He's just pure, undiluted id waiting for a chance to set you on fire and giggle as you scream.

        • by oahazmatt (868057) on Monday July 21 2008, @10:23AM (#24274745) Journal
          The Joker went through so many changes through the comics due to two factors: 1) The Comics Code Authority, and 2) Writers.

          The Comics Code Authority came about when Dr. Frederic Wertham performed studies and offered his expert analysist that comic books were the cause of juvenile crime and behaviorial issues. Think Jack Thompson of the comic book world.

          The CCA set an insane amount of rules that had to be met for comics to be displayed in retailers (before the launch of the direct-dealer comic book stores we have today). Good always had to win. No implications of significant advancement in relationships (effectively bringing Clark Kent and Lois Lane's relationship to a standstill). References to the occult, zombies, etc, were unacceptable.

          The CCA went so far as to censor Archie comics. There was a panel in which Betty and Veronic make sand representations of themselves on the beach. The panel had to be redone to include lines to indicate the sand-models were wearing bathing suits.

          So, of course, the Joker could not be an insane lunatic on killing sprees with the CCA looming overhead. It wasn't that he wasn't a psychopath, he wasn't allowed to be shown to be a psychopath.

          With the direct market, the CCA's grip on the industry was loosened. Some writers have taken to writing their own vision of the Joker, which will also cause variations in behavior. You can find one of my favorite variations in "Batman: The Killing Joke".
        • by TrekkieGod (627867) on Monday July 21 2008, @11:21AM (#24275867) Homepage Journal

          Many state that Ledger's Joker is a world of difference better than Nicholson's. But how does he compare with the comic book's Joker?

          As you've stated yourself, there were quite a few different comic book jokers. I think this joker is closest to the one in the killing joke, in that his aim is to force batman to face his own madness.

          The Killing Joke portrays the Joker as a normal joe who is trying to get ahead and ends up in a vat of chemicals and becomes the insane criminal everyone knows.

          Kind of. The storyline in the killing joke was admittedly, by the Joker himself, not his true origin. He said that he prefers his past to be multiple choice, and that he himself doesn't quite remember exactly what happened to him.

          Similarly, we don't witness the origin of the Joker in this movie, and that's a good thing. The Joker also tells two conflicting stories of how he got his scars, which fits with what the joker said in the killing joke.

          There are other variations of the Joker, some showing him as completely off his rocker, others showing him as super sane but highly dangerous. Which is the most accurate? And which version does Ledger portray?

          Depends on how you choose to define "accurate." I always prefer the interpretation of a villain that is most realistic, so to me, the best interpretation of the joker is one where he is a psychopath, and thus is able to laugh at his very violent antics. Ledger portrays a highly intelligent complete psychopath, and his relationship to Batman is much more interesting than the usual, "I do bad stuff and try to escape the hero who is trying to stop me." He wants Batman to stop him. It's very cool.

      • by cptnapalm (120276) on Monday July 21 2008, @11:54AM (#24276613)

        The only things I've ever seen Ledger in were Knight's Tale and 10 Things I Hate About You.

        Those and Dark Knight.

        He deserves an Oscar for the Joker.

        Let me tell you how I described his performance to a friend of mine who was curious:
        Heath Ledger is not in this movie. The casting people traveled to Gotham City and got the Joker on a work release program.

        One thing a lot of people seem to be expecting is that Ledger is totally over the top. He's not. If you see the film, try not to have preconceptions for how you think he will act the part. Go in that way and I assure you that you will be impressed.

  • by SageinaRage (966293) on Monday July 21 2008, @08:55AM (#24273119)
    It's the latest Joker flick, Batman is just a secondary character.
  • Good movie (Score:5, Interesting)

    by halcyon1234 (834388) on Monday July 21 2008, @08:55AM (#24273123) Journal

    It didn't disappoint me. I enjoyed the portrayal of The Joker. I'm sure there'll be much debate about Ledger vs. Nicholson (as well as endless Batman/Alternate Universe Joker-on-Joker slashfic).

    I also enjoyed that there wasn't any silly microwave/waterborn silliness. I know, I know, comic book movie. But still...

    • by Hatta (162192) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:07AM (#24273339) Journal

      Cesar Romero [wikipedia.org] is the only real Joker.

    • Yeah, Joker was awesome - but the biggest criminal of all time of course is Batman's alter ego, Mr. Wayne.

      Mr. Bruce Wayne is the better class of criminal [dealbreaker.com] that the Joker talks about - someone who would make the white collars on Wall Street look like children.

      So, being behind white collar crimes when you are a superhero at night is fine, but you don't enjoy others doing the same? Interesting take, this Batman movie thingy.

    • Re:Good movie (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raftpeople (844215) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:51AM (#24274099)

      I'm sure there'll be much debate about Ledger vs. Nicholson

      I doubt it.

    • Re:Good movie (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Fozzyuw (950608) on Monday July 21 2008, @10:26AM (#24274809)

      Here are my thoughts.

      The Good

      • Good story. Good character dialog. Lost of subtle references to modern social-political topics.
      • Attempts to make more realistic. I can suspend plenty of belief for a comic book movie, but a lot of the elements where changed to be more real. Face paint instead of chemical alteration. Little tidbits about about ex-CIA extraction plans. None of that swinging to safety at the last minute (how did he survive that fall off the penthouse?)
      • Good special effects. "Two-Face" was particularly cool.

      The Bad

      • No matter what, I just can't get over Bale's "raspy" Batman voice. It simply bugs me and did so in the previous film as well.
      • Chicago. Maybe it's because I live too close to Chicago and been there plenty of times, but I lost some immersion when I could easily identify some landmark buildings. Sure, I didn't see the Sears Tower, but Harvey Dent's office was overlooking the Chicago River and their round car park high-rises. That and all the cars had Illinois license plates. I didn't know Gotham was in Illinois? I was just waiting to see "Cubs" and "Bears" sticks on peoples cars.

      Other than that, I really enjoyed it. The Joker really did have an awesome performance.

  • by east coast (590680) on Monday July 21 2008, @08:58AM (#24273171)
    Bruce Willis really dead the entire film. That's why the kid can see him and everyone else ignores him!

    What? Oh, sorry. Wrong film.
  • The Dark Knight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DocturKnowles (1146091) on Monday July 21 2008, @08:58AM (#24273183)
    I'll go ahead and comment here but keep it short and sweet. Pros - Heath Ledger was the epitome of psychosis. BRILLIANT acting. In the original Batman movie (think '60s) and later in the Burton films the Joker was more or less a silly villain. He was out for revenge or just doing it for the kicks but he wasn't crazy. He had his fun and went home. The Dark Knight's Joker was fantastically evil. I will see this movie again just to re-watch Ledger's performance. Cons - Some cheesey dialogue. The Bat-Bike was so-so. Scarecrow and Two Face seemed under used. All in all I'd give this movie a nine out of ten. Ten out of ten for acting and sheer awesome. Eight out of ten for cheese and missed opportunities.
  • I mean, don't get me wrong, Christian Bale is a good actor; but to be honest, when it comes to movies about the Black Knight, I don't really think that anybody can top Martin Lawrence's performance.
  • One Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kellyb9 (954229) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:10AM (#24273379)
    Loved the movie, loved the portrayal of the Joker, just one question. Who is the next Batman Villian? Since Ledger presumably rendered the Joker unportrayable (literally, I can't imagine anyone being able to even come close), I imagine they'll use someone else from the Batman universe, but who? My guess is the Riddler.
  • Boats (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Amorymeltzer (1213818) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:11AM (#24273405)

    The ethical dilemma on the two ferries toward the end of the flick was excellent. The Joker's rants are enough to make you think (if you haven't already) but that one line was really, truly excellent:

    "Well, we're still here, which means they haven't pushed the button."

    Above all else, the best thing about this movie was the trip into the different aspects of the human condition. Whether it's the chaotic Joker, fair Two-Face, pure Fox, kind Alfred, or incorruptible Batman, or any of the others, we get, as The New Yorker paraphrased, a rare glimpse into the abyss.

  • by SirLurksAlot (1169039) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:15AM (#24273483)

    First I want to say I loved it, easily the best movie I've seen this year. Nolan did a great job at keeping it dark and gritty, and I can be satisfied with that alone. Some of the aspects of the movie really did seem forced though. For one thing it seemed like Harvey made the transition to Two Face very quickly. Yes, there he went through a lot, but his character never gave off a sense that it affected him all that much until the end. There was only one scene to really show that he might've been unhinged somewhat before becoming Two Face, and even then he seemed to be very much in control. It just seemed like there wasn't enough foreshadowing that he was capable of being a true monster. Aaron Eckhart gave a great performance, but I think if Harvey had been given more a backstory (such as how they introduced him in Batman: TAS, talking to a shrink) the overall effect would've been more profound.

    • by tgd (2822) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:18AM (#24273539)

      I think that was the point -- the Joker even commented that the descent to madness takes just a little push. That's what the hospital scene was -- Harvey was holding it together even through everything that happened until a little push, then his whole personality crumbled around him.

  • Two-Face's face (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Samurai Cat! (15315) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:21AM (#24273593) Homepage

    One thing I noticed, and liked, was the fairly obvious nod to the old comics when it came to how they handled Two-Face's disfigurement.

    The bit with the back side of the mouth, looking like he's going "grrrr!", and the eyeball floating in the socket - that look is pretty much lifted straight from some of the old Batman comics, as far as how Two-Face looked.

    It kinda sent a chill up my back - when he first turns his head, I had a flashback to my youth when I was big into comics, remembering how Two-Face was illustrated back then.

  • by Semaphore_99 (1317235) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:36AM (#24273845)
    Spoiler alert: I enjoyed the movie overall. Loved the action and joker was great. However there were some major plot holes. 1. When batman rescued what's her name in the Fund Raising scene ... wasn't joker still at the top of the building with all of the people? What happened with that? 2. Who put Harvy Dent and what's her name in the oil barrel rooms? Joker said he didn't do it. (This one's an interesting plothole and I think the hint "What time is it?" might have given it away ...) Maybe I'm reading more into it than there is. Possible villain for 3rd movie? I also felt that the fall of Harvy Dent to Two-Face wasn't that believable. I believe the movie needed more attention to detail there. The scenes with him felt kind of rushed.
    • by m93 (684512) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:11AM (#24273417)
      Yes. This is also a flaw in Batman Begins. However, if you think about it, the pacing and framing of each scene is akin to what you would see in a comic book. In essence, each scene is a frame. Am I the only one who thinks this?
    • by foniksonik (573572) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:30AM (#24273725) Homepage Journal

      Personally I thought that was part of it's brilliance... the director didn't feel the need to explain everything. I hate it when movies try to wrap everything up in neat little bows so the audience doesn't have to think (a little.. not like the independent films where the entire story is a brain puzzle).

    • by tgd (2822) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:13AM (#24273435)

      If you think seeing Batman on some shitty ass laptop is even remotely comparable to seeing it on a giant IMAX screen, I have a pencil trick I'd like to show you ...

      • Re:Great Movie! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by nelsonal (549144) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:16AM (#24273501) Journal
        As best I can tell, he gave him purpose. Dent was crushed by the loss of his love, his loss of control, and his disfigurement. The Joker gave him purpose (revenge on those who gave up Dawes and Dent) combining it with his sense of justice (they were corrupt cops he'd wanted to bust before). Now with nothing left to lose, he could go after them on his own terms. The change (or revealing of his true nature) began with his interrogation of Scarecrow.
        • Re:Great Movie! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Asmor (775910) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:23AM (#24273623) Homepage

          That wasn't his true nature, though (also, I don't think that was Scarecrow, though I could be wrong. I thought it was just some random punk the Joker recruited).

          Remember, until it got burnt, his coin was double-headed, so when he said "Heads I don't shoot you, tails I do," it was a total bluff and he never would have actually shot the guy.

          • Re:Great Movie! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by FredFredrickson (1177871) * on Monday July 21 2008, @09:36AM (#24273855) Homepage Journal
            Indeed- Harvey always struggled between his good side and his bad side. His nature was good, he wanted the good guys to win. His bad side was just willing to do what it took to accomplish his goals, something he had always considered, but never acted on until now- now that he has this vice, a scapegoat, even.

            Interestingly, this dynamic that exists in Harvey in TDK, as well as in the comics, gives Two-Face much more depth than the one-dimensional characters in the original movies (Batman-Forever). So the real question is- did they seriously do all that build up for him to just die at the end?

            My theory is that the next villain will be a combination of some new villain such as the riddler or the penguin, and a little more two face mixed in, as batman tries to convince harvey not to lose his good side and to do the right thing.

            This, of course, requires harvey not to be dead. So maybe he's just sleeping?
    • by pragma_x (644215) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:24AM (#24273641) Journal

      The Joker simply took advantage of Dent's vulnerability after having lost the love of his life. He explained to Dent that this happened due to the corrupt elements within the police force; that the "good guys" weren't all good.

      The Joker also explained himself as little more than a "dog chasing cars" that "wouldn't know what to do once he caught one." He has no motivation for the destruction of Gotham other than sheer nihilism. As others have explained: he is a force of nature.

      So, in that moment it was laid out for Harvey. The good weren't all good, and the bad not all bad.

      Dent decided that this applied to himself as well. He then went on a vendetta, using his "lucky" coin as judge and jury, since sheer fate was the only form of justice left to him.
      --

      For as we all know: money can't buy knives.

      • by skraps (650379) on Monday July 21 2008, @09:36AM (#24273857)

        I would much rather have seen Katie Holmes DIAF. She's a scientologist...? And married to Tom Cruise...?

        But you're right about the continuity. It'll unfortunately have to happen again with Heath Ledger.