Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
But I think we can all agree that this is the one, true Joker:
The Dark Knight
- Thread starter ExtremeSleuth
- Start date
slimjimmed
Well-known member
After I watched this movie, I felt like I had ptsd. It really blew my socks off. I usually don't like excessively violent/action movies unless there is some kind of counterweight that can base it in believability or reality in my head. This film had enough of it for me to be totally engaged on more than one level.
I think I need to see it again though. Batman Begins really blew me away the first time too, but when I watched it at home recently it wasn't as great as I remembered. I think this is different though, even though I got that same visceral reaction.
To touch on some earlier comments; I really think Maggie Gylenhall was a major gravitas upgrade over Katie Holmes. The bimbos on his arm as playboy Wayne make sense as his superficial cover while I think Gylenhall has the rare beauty and brains that Wayne would be drawn to, not to mention their history. (On a personal level, I think she is smoking hot. Just goes to show that beauty is in the eyes if the beholder).
I also dig what MattinSTL observed in his spoiler about the Joker Batman relationship. It is an interesting thought. Unlike the first film, this one has layers upon layers.
I am still thinking about it even though I saw it on Friday and am still unraveling my impressions.
As far as a sequel goes...I don't know. I would definitely see it, but I don't know how you could top this or how much more there is to mine out of the Bruce Wayne's character. I don't want just another episode with fill-in-the-blank villian. That would flatten the series out for me and leave it without its aforementioned weight.
Weren't elements of the Riddler from the Long Halloween comic fused into the character of the Joker? I think one possibility for a new area to explore would be
the Black Mask who was fixated on killing Bruce Wayne. The character isn't so interesting but I like the idea of Bruce Wayne as a targer rather than Batman. I also like that he has no silly superpowers which don't fit into the Nolan Batman. Finally, and I could be wrong about this, doesn't the Black Mask story take Bruce Wayne out of Gotham and into the countryside?
I think I need to see it again though. Batman Begins really blew me away the first time too, but when I watched it at home recently it wasn't as great as I remembered. I think this is different though, even though I got that same visceral reaction.
To touch on some earlier comments; I really think Maggie Gylenhall was a major gravitas upgrade over Katie Holmes. The bimbos on his arm as playboy Wayne make sense as his superficial cover while I think Gylenhall has the rare beauty and brains that Wayne would be drawn to, not to mention their history. (On a personal level, I think she is smoking hot. Just goes to show that beauty is in the eyes if the beholder).
I also dig what MattinSTL observed in his spoiler about the Joker Batman relationship. It is an interesting thought. Unlike the first film, this one has layers upon layers.
I am still thinking about it even though I saw it on Friday and am still unraveling my impressions.
As far as a sequel goes...I don't know. I would definitely see it, but I don't know how you could top this or how much more there is to mine out of the Bruce Wayne's character. I don't want just another episode with fill-in-the-blank villian. That would flatten the series out for me and leave it without its aforementioned weight.
Weren't elements of the Riddler from the Long Halloween comic fused into the character of the Joker? I think one possibility for a new area to explore would be
the Black Mask who was fixated on killing Bruce Wayne. The character isn't so interesting but I like the idea of Bruce Wayne as a targer rather than Batman. I also like that he has no silly superpowers which don't fit into the Nolan Batman. Finally, and I could be wrong about this, doesn't the Black Mask story take Bruce Wayne out of Gotham and into the countryside?
KyleProhaska
Veteran
My intention was to just show JN's Joker, nothing more.....just for fun.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Lol...that would be a hilarious picture to photoshop together.
"Please for the love of money!....MAKE ANOTHER!"
"Please for the love of money!....MAKE ANOTHER!"
Blade Borge
Well-known member
Think about a 300 million dollar batman movie. Although, when I think about it, I'm not sure where that 180 million dollars went for this film. Actually, yes I do. A bulk of it went to the cast. That's interesting. Whereas most directors would use that extra money on effects, Nolan chose to use it on the cast.
Still, I'd like to see him with a hundred more million to play around with on effects/stunts/that sort of thing.
Still, I'd like to see him with a hundred more million to play around with on effects/stunts/that sort of thing.
John C Lyons
Veteran
The third movie should stay focused on Bruce Wayne/Batman and his struggles. I mean after all that went down in this one the guy could very understandably really go off the deep end. Lower budget, no big star villain(s), very scaled-down, just the inner struggle brought to the fore-front and continue his relationship with the law enforcement and his "Dark Knight" situation and maybe cover the copycat Batmans more. Maybe have Bruce hang it up at the end. Let Christian Bale get to show off his chops in the trilogy.
The movie would not do very well (or would it?) and it would get 1/3 as much box office probably. But Nolan's good at the psychological stuff and then he could get out of the franchise and be proud with his efforts.
But seriously though, there's too much money involved to do that ALTHOUGH to me I can't see the Nolans just going the usual "bring in a new bad guy" route and do the same song and dance. I'm betting they've got something more unique up their sleeve than following the formula for this kind of genre. Thoughts? I know you guys want the Riddler, but come on, that's so Schumacher. And the Joker had plenty o' riddlerific stuff in this one. If I was Nolan I would cringe if someone even suggested Riddler, Catwoman, or Mr. Freeze. They're tainted until next reboot IMO.
The movie would not do very well (or would it?) and it would get 1/3 as much box office probably. But Nolan's good at the psychological stuff and then he could get out of the franchise and be proud with his efforts.
But seriously though, there's too much money involved to do that ALTHOUGH to me I can't see the Nolans just going the usual "bring in a new bad guy" route and do the same song and dance. I'm betting they've got something more unique up their sleeve than following the formula for this kind of genre. Thoughts? I know you guys want the Riddler, but come on, that's so Schumacher. And the Joker had plenty o' riddlerific stuff in this one. If I was Nolan I would cringe if someone even suggested Riddler, Catwoman, or Mr. Freeze. They're tainted until next reboot IMO.
Last edited:
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Yeah, but how much did they spend on the Tumbler and the BatBike? What I would love to see... (Prepare for Soap Box) is what Sandy Colera could do with even half of that.(End Soap Box)
GageFX
Carbonite Member
I think it would be awesome to scale WAY down in budget, do the "inner struggle", have Riddler as the "invisible" (zodiac) bad guy, and bring Batman back to his detective roots.
I'm thinking Se7en with Gordon and Batman in the Pitt/Freeman roles with Batman doing his thing "behind the scenes", and The Riddler as the invisible mastermind.
I'm thinking Se7en with Gordon and Batman in the Pitt/Freeman roles with Batman doing his thing "behind the scenes", and The Riddler as the invisible mastermind.
John C Lyons
Veteran
I'm with you, minus Riddler. There's gotta be other worthy candidates.
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
That's a good call, comparing The Riddler to Zodiac. I've read a lot about that case, and Zodiac always struck me as a psychopath who wanted to play a Batman villain to the police.
Finally got time to return to this 
First of, I would like to say what I don't like about Nolan. I'm certainly not saying I like gimnicks- what I like is a director showing some kind of distinctive look, or personality, behind the camera, or on the frame. I got the same feeling in " Batman Begins" and " The Prestige". There is hardly any " soul" in the framing, in the composition. Everything is fine, tough, but just too fine, too " academic" . The Joker 180 shot- that was gimnicky: it was something completely out of the regular shooting style. The same goes to the crane, steadicam, handheld shots. It all felt pretty academic, and there's no cinematic coherence for using some of these techniques if not for covering and for general " wow" factor. He can be an excelent actor's director, or a good co writer, but IMO, this movie needed another director. Batman just felt " out of place" in the Dark Knight world Nolan created.
As for the story,, it is good, but not " that" good. You want a good superhero film? Look at "V" for Vendetta. That's a very good superhero film.
One thing that really bothered me was the " get the guy out of the scene to get him in a credible, dangerous situation". What do I mean by this? I hate it when things happen out of the screen. Maggie is kidnapped, Harvey the same, etc, etc. Just for the sake of plot twists. This is just a cliche, a boring technique to create a resolve.
As for The Joker's (Heath's) performance, yes, it was good, but was the role that "hard" as to say " Oscar worhty"? Heath's Joker felt like a Psycophatic Jack Sparrow, which is fine for the film.
In 1989, Jack Nicholson's Joker was, IMO, a breacktrough in Villain performaces in a Superhero film. There are some traces of Jack's Joker in Heath's performance, if you compare them. Jack's Joker was a breaktrough because it was not an over the top, high pitched stylized Villain. It was scary for how " realistically twisted" it was.
I really enjoyed detective Jim Gordon's performance. That was top notch casting.
Bottom line, did I enjoy the movie? Yes. I liked the closure, specialy "the best of the 3 of us" speech, and "Batman is what Gotham needs it to be" speech.
But IMO, 1 and 2 (Burton) are more metaphorical, better achieved cinematicaly, and, overall, better films.
I'm a Batman Comics fan, by the way, specially Miller's work. This Batman is very inspired by it, but I believe it lacks the " soul" of the books. If this script was given to Burton... Masterpiece l
First of, I would like to say what I don't like about Nolan. I'm certainly not saying I like gimnicks- what I like is a director showing some kind of distinctive look, or personality, behind the camera, or on the frame. I got the same feeling in " Batman Begins" and " The Prestige". There is hardly any " soul" in the framing, in the composition. Everything is fine, tough, but just too fine, too " academic" . The Joker 180 shot- that was gimnicky: it was something completely out of the regular shooting style. The same goes to the crane, steadicam, handheld shots. It all felt pretty academic, and there's no cinematic coherence for using some of these techniques if not for covering and for general " wow" factor. He can be an excelent actor's director, or a good co writer, but IMO, this movie needed another director. Batman just felt " out of place" in the Dark Knight world Nolan created.
As for the story,, it is good, but not " that" good. You want a good superhero film? Look at "V" for Vendetta. That's a very good superhero film.
One thing that really bothered me was the " get the guy out of the scene to get him in a credible, dangerous situation". What do I mean by this? I hate it when things happen out of the screen. Maggie is kidnapped, Harvey the same, etc, etc. Just for the sake of plot twists. This is just a cliche, a boring technique to create a resolve.
As for The Joker's (Heath's) performance, yes, it was good, but was the role that "hard" as to say " Oscar worhty"? Heath's Joker felt like a Psycophatic Jack Sparrow, which is fine for the film.
In 1989, Jack Nicholson's Joker was, IMO, a breacktrough in Villain performaces in a Superhero film. There are some traces of Jack's Joker in Heath's performance, if you compare them. Jack's Joker was a breaktrough because it was not an over the top, high pitched stylized Villain. It was scary for how " realistically twisted" it was.
I really enjoyed detective Jim Gordon's performance. That was top notch casting.
Bottom line, did I enjoy the movie? Yes. I liked the closure, specialy "the best of the 3 of us" speech, and "Batman is what Gotham needs it to be" speech.
But IMO, 1 and 2 (Burton) are more metaphorical, better achieved cinematicaly, and, overall, better films.
I'm a Batman Comics fan, by the way, specially Miller's work. This Batman is very inspired by it, but I believe it lacks the " soul" of the books. If this script was given to Burton... Masterpiece l
Last edited:
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Saw it again tonight, better the 2nd time through... wow.
I thought this was a well-directed film. Sure there weren't a lot of whiz-bang camera movements/angles, etc. But I think he decided that the locations/sets were the stars. Why ruin them with a bunch of snazzy shooting? Remember also that you could drop Nolan from the reigns, but a better (more inventive) shooter doesn't necessarily mean a better director. Cause most shooters tend to lack a lot of the other qualities that make good directors. Therefore you gain better shots but lose things like smart casting, tone, possibly performances, etc.
Who would you want to see in there? Fincher? It definitely would've looked better but the movie wouldn't have had nearly as much of a soul.
Re: The Joker... Is the character of the Joker really that hard to play? I mean you just act crazy. I feel like that's one of the easiest things for an actor to do. It seems much harder to me to act natural and "real" than it does a crazy lunatic.
Who would you want to see in there? Fincher? It definitely would've looked better but the movie wouldn't have had nearly as much of a soul.
Re: The Joker... Is the character of the Joker really that hard to play? I mean you just act crazy. I feel like that's one of the easiest things for an actor to do. It seems much harder to me to act natural and "real" than it does a crazy lunatic.
John C Lyons
Veteran
Going to see it again tomorrow night myself. Trying to plan an outing with some of my peeps who don't venture to the theatre that often anymore... I think the movie will be a good one to bring them out on.
Blade Borge
Well-known member
Just realized I haven't given my 2 cents on this movie yet...
It has a definite darker feel than BB. The 'Knight' seemed longer and made BB seem like one of those bonus add-ons, an appetizer if you will. It hit all the right notes as far as realistic motivation, keeping the audience on the edge of their seat (it was so thrilling not knowing where the story was going to go).
The ending took me to a place I didn't think I was going to go, but it was poetic none the less.
If I had quarrel with this movie is that it had a 'movie and a half' feel to it. I wish there could have been an intermission after the first 2/3 of the movie, but that's what DVDs are for!
What can I say about Heath that hasn't already been said?
It just goes to show that Nolan really knows what he's doing and can see far enough to know when he's made the right decision. When I first heard about Ledger's casting, I thought Nolan might have made a mistake, but he knew, man did he knew...
Mad props to Gary Oldman at the end with Harvey, I believed every word he said.
It has a definite darker feel than BB. The 'Knight' seemed longer and made BB seem like one of those bonus add-ons, an appetizer if you will. It hit all the right notes as far as realistic motivation, keeping the audience on the edge of their seat (it was so thrilling not knowing where the story was going to go).
The ending took me to a place I didn't think I was going to go, but it was poetic none the less.
If I had quarrel with this movie is that it had a 'movie and a half' feel to it. I wish there could have been an intermission after the first 2/3 of the movie, but that's what DVDs are for!
What can I say about Heath that hasn't already been said?
It just goes to show that Nolan really knows what he's doing and can see far enough to know when he's made the right decision. When I first heard about Ledger's casting, I thought Nolan might have made a mistake, but he knew, man did he knew...
Mad props to Gary Oldman at the end with Harvey, I believed every word he said.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Huge, huge fan of the original Nicholson Joker. But after reading this and seeing TDK, I just watched the Burton "Batman" again. And I have to say... it didn't hold up *at all*. Nolan's TDK is superior on every level. But the biggest disappointment was the Joker, because I remembered it as being so much better; and now, in comparison, the Ledger Joker was far more believable.
I think what made the Nicholson Joker so amazing was because it was Jack Nicholson doing it. The hugeness of the personality just transcended the role to the point where it was the sheer spectacle of seeing one of the most celebrated actors of our time, acting like that -- and watching an actor of his stature flitting and dancing around like that was just incredible at the time. But I always saw Jack in it. It was Jack playing the Joker. Heath WAS the Joker.
Now, part of that is also due to the realistic style of TDK vs. the comic-book style of Burton's Batman (even though this first one was far more realistic than the atrocities Schumacher fawned off on us). Jack Palance was particularly hard to watch (I love Jack Palance, but his Grissom was pretty awful), and that's what Nicholson had to act against, so I give Nicholson all the props in the world.
But I still think Ledger's portrayal was much more riveting. Jack did a fantastic job and he really broke new ground. I remember when I first heard that Nicholson was going to play the joker, I thought it must be a joke or a typo, the concept seemed ridiculous. But he absolutely did an excellent job and raised the bar. What Ledger did was take Jack's groundbreaking work and perfect it. I doubt we'd have Ledger's performance if it hadn't been for Jack paving the way. But between Ledger and Jack? No contest, Ledger wins.
I think what made the Nicholson Joker so amazing was because it was Jack Nicholson doing it. The hugeness of the personality just transcended the role to the point where it was the sheer spectacle of seeing one of the most celebrated actors of our time, acting like that -- and watching an actor of his stature flitting and dancing around like that was just incredible at the time. But I always saw Jack in it. It was Jack playing the Joker. Heath WAS the Joker.
Now, part of that is also due to the realistic style of TDK vs. the comic-book style of Burton's Batman (even though this first one was far more realistic than the atrocities Schumacher fawned off on us). Jack Palance was particularly hard to watch (I love Jack Palance, but his Grissom was pretty awful), and that's what Nicholson had to act against, so I give Nicholson all the props in the world.
But I still think Ledger's portrayal was much more riveting. Jack did a fantastic job and he really broke new ground. I remember when I first heard that Nicholson was going to play the joker, I thought it must be a joke or a typo, the concept seemed ridiculous. But he absolutely did an excellent job and raised the bar. What Ledger did was take Jack's groundbreaking work and perfect it. I doubt we'd have Ledger's performance if it hadn't been for Jack paving the way. But between Ledger and Jack? No contest, Ledger wins.
Last edited: