[ December 16, 2007, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Puffy Treat ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
And here is where I guess we'll see the trailer (officially) come online.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
I saw what someone thought to be a poster for the Dark Knight movie a while ago, probably not true, but it was still pretty creepy .
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Yeah, that's fan-made.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Is it wrong that I could easily identify about 95% of the locations? LOL And the party scene was my office lobby Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
If a realistic Gotham City is wrong, I don't want to be right!
(Not that I oppose the Gothic, Dark Deco traditional look...but this better suits Nolan's vision.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Looks pretty intense. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Who else is pumped about Heath Ledger?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
wow,that looks good.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
I'm most definitely pumped about Heath Ledger. Actually, this whole cast is gonna be phenomenal.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Heh, I remember posting (not here, though- another board) that Ledger would make a fantastic Joker back when the news first broke of his casting, and was immediately laughed out of the forum. He was dismissed either as a pretty face by people who had only seen him in "The Patriot," or "that gay cowboy" by people who obviously had not his performance in "Brokeback Mountain." Well, who's laughing now?
Oh, right. It's Ledger. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
^^ My thread about the announcement of Ledger being cast as the joker.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
For those who have qualms about downloading files, it can also be seen here.
It looks superb--another surefire winner. I don't think they can seriously screw up something like this, if it's the same team doing the same take on the same series.
Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
I was not excited when they announced Heath would be the Joker. But... dang. He nailed it.
And by 'nailed it', I mean they seem to be going with something similar to the Joker from 'The Killing Joke'. In tone, at least. I don't know if they're being faithful to the character from the comics because my only exposure to the Joker has been 'The Killing Joke', the animated series and the Michael Keaton movie.
In any case, me likey.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
It looks like it is going to be amazing. And I think Heath Ledger has really brought something new to the table. It looks like he's done a really good job.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I recall people as being curious about Ledger's performance, but not being overtly negative.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777: For those who have qualms about downloading files
Well, the page on the official site offers it as a hi-def download, but one can also watch it there. Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I was excited about Ledger's casting but was still unsure about what he would do with the part.
And wow...it doesn't even sound like him. And the way he holds himself and how he looks in the makeup...its just amazing and truly creepy.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I do wish that people on certain other message boards would cease with the "Nicholson did it better! Ledger is just a pale imitation of Nicholson!" posts.
Then again, these also tend to be the people who think Tim Burton was the very first person to do a darker take on Batman.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
I don't understand why Nicholson is held in such high esteem concerning his portrayal of the Joker. His performance was very much "Jack Nicholson as the Joker" rather than just "the Joker," you know?
Judging from the trailer, Ledger has actually become the Joker. Amazing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nicholson was born to play the joker, that's why he was so good. That does not mean his the ONLY take on the character that could be any good, but anybody who sees Jack Nicholson in movies and then reads about the joker can easily put two and two together.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
While I really enjoyed the trailer and am now actually looking forward to the movie for once, I'm still a little bit worried about the Joker in this film. Not Ledger's take on it (he seems to have done that well from what we've seen), but the whole make-up thing. As I watched the trailer (and the six minute prologue as well), it seemed like the make-up on his face was getting more and more smeared and running and all. This give some support to the rumor that Joker only wears make-up and is not (as it has been dubbed) permawhite. Something about Joker just being some psychopath in make-up bothers me. *shakes head*
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
What I like about the trailer is that they are staying true to a more graphic-novel-esque view than just a comic book. The artistry is any bit as beautiful in my opinion as 300 was (if maybe just a different style).
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: Something about Joker just being some psychopath in make-up bothers me. *shakes head*
Admittedly I was never a huge Batman fan (as I never read comic books), but the idea of the Joker being a psychopath in make-up actually appeals to me more. It makes it that much scarier when he commits the atrocities he does. The idea that a physically ordinary man can become that far gone, mentally, is much more frightening to me than an Evil Evil Dude with superpowers. The former is how you get Hannibal Lector. The latter is Mojo Jojo.
In a sense, it's actually the same thing separating Batman from other comic book heroes. He doesn't have any inherent superpowers- he's just so incredibly driven (nearly psychotically so, himself) by his self-appointed mission that he manages to come off as superhuman through sheer force of will, intellect and discipline.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
I think Ledger looks much more psychotic and whimsical and even evil than Nicholson did.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Since when does the Joker have superpowers? I mean he's just a slightly psychopathic guy whose mental state was broken by his skin/hair been permanently colored that way. As he said in The Killing Joke, all it takes is one bad day.
EDIT: Sorry that may have come off harshly. It's just making the Joker wear make-up is like saying Frodo was just a short human and not a hobbit.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The script-writer and director have stated some of the reasons why their version of the Joker is wearing make-up.
1. Now they don't have to explain his origin. Instead of the elaborate chemical bath set-up, people can draw the obvious conclusion that he was one of the unfortunate victims of what happened to the Narrows in the first film.
2. While his scar "smile" will be constant, they wanted his clown-look to deteriorate during the course of the film...becoming more chaotic and messy. Like his scars have become infected.
While I'm very much a Batman purist, I think this choice fits in with the somewhat different paradigm for the Nolan-verse Batman.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by happymann: What I like about the trailer is that they are staying true to a more graphic-novel-esque view than just a comic book. The artistry is any bit as beautiful in my opinion as 300 was (if maybe just a different style).
Hate to break it to you, but graphic novels ARE comic books. One is just a classier term, or denotes the pages being bound, or that the book covers a complete story arc. The terms are still completely interchangeable.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I recognize that I may be in the minority of movie-goers on this one, but I would have been fine with them having his skin perma-white without explaining his origin at all. The Joker was around for years in the comics before they actually got around to the "chemical bath" origin story, iirc.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
You do recall correctly.
That was also back in the day when the target audience of Batman was far different than it is now. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I also would have been fine with him being permawhite with no explanation. That'd fit with the comics just fine. Really if it's just make-up, then this movie can't top Burton's Batman for me. I'm not a 100% comics purist, but I am one of the ones who believes you don't mess with core elements unless you absolutely need to. This doesn't seem to be a case of necessity though.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
As big a core element as...oh...revealing the Joker was really a gangster named "Jack Napier" and that he was the one who killed Bruce Wayne's parents? Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Yeah, all things considered I like that they're leaving his real origin vague more than I dislike that they're making the white face be makeup. One of my favorite bits of the trailer is the "nothing in his pockets but knives and lint" with the explaination that they have no clue who he really is.
And there's at least one major plot point that makes Nolan's Joker score dozens of points over Burton's Joker, for me personally. So all in all, I'm not too upset over the makeup thing.
--Enigmatic
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I've watched it several times, and I still can't believe that's Heath Ledger. I'm not one of those who dislikes him or has seen only one or two of his movies, either.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
I was just trying to portray the feeling of it in saying that it's more graphic novel and less comic book. I'm not really trying to split hairs.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by happymann: I was just trying to portray the feeling of it in saying that it's more graphic novel and less comic book. I'm not really trying to split hairs.
I think porcelain girl's point is that your statement has no meaning, because graphic novel = comic book. "It feels more like an apple than an apple."
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
A graphic novel is a novel told in comic book form. While all graphic novels are comic books, not all comic books are graphic novels.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
That statement still has no meaning, as there are plenty of comics labeled "graphic novels" that are not "a novel told in comic book form".
There are graphic novels that are focused on illustration experiments.
There are graphic novels that are completely plot-less.
There are graphic novels that are visual essays about what cultural gestalt the author thinks Alice in Wonderland came from.
There's a graphic novel called Understanding Comics that's -about- the art form of comics itself. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Really if it's just make-up, then this movie can't top Burton's Batman for me.
If you'd like, you can believe that his permawhite skin keeps getting stained by additional chemicals over the course of the movie, rendering it in different colors throughout. It's just as scientifically plausible, and apparently it'll preserve the character's motivations for you.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
So I have to insert imaginary scenes into the movie throughout just to make it seem plausible? That's great.
I know I'm in the minority about it (as I've seen everyone else, not just here, raving about how great it is), but it just bothers me as someone who has been reading Batman comics and watching Batman stuff since I was really little. I know who Joker is, and so far to me this doesn't seem much like Joker.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
What I was trying to say was more like "It's more of a manzana than an apple." Sure, they are both still apples, but the first has a more Spanish feel to it.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Personally, I disagree with the labelling of something like Understanding Comics as a graphic novel. I think the only reason it would be considered such is there's no shelf on the shop for "graphic essays." Not all books are novels and not all comic books are graphic novels.
This is not to say the difference is one of seriousness or tone or quality or that graphic novels deserve more or less respect than comic books. I'm not a literary critic saying "I never read comics I only read graphic novels" or anything like that. To me the difference is kind of like the difference between movies and tv shows. A movie or graphic novel is longer and typically a self-contained story (yes, sequels and trilogies blur that distinction), while a tv series or comic book is more often a shorter chunk of storytelling usually dependant on the espisodes before or after it for the complete story.
With Batman, for example, if you were to put all of the issues from the HUSH story arc and bind them together, that's a graphic novel. But if you were bind together Batman issues 1-10, that's more of an anthology of short stories. (It's also worth noting for this comparison that more and more of the major comic book titles currently do larger multi-issue story arcs instead of a series of one-shots like used to be the norm.)
Just my $0.02.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
pfresh85, why did the major (and I do mean major) alterations Burton made to the Joker's origin, identity, motivation, and role in Bruce Wayne's life not bother you as much Nolan haveing the character use make-up over scars instead of "permawhite"? Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Enigmatic, the very first "graphic novel" was a collection of short stories, not a single continuous story.
Because "graphic novel"=! a novel.
It's a dressed up, more professional term for a comic book. Sort of like how "Sequential Art" is the classier term for "comics". Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Puffy, of the alterations in Burton's version, the only one that really bothered me was Jack Napier's involvement in the murder of the Waynes. I understand why they did it (a. so they didn't have to introduce someone like Joe Chill and then just write him off and b. so that the final conflict between Batman and Joker would be that much more dramatic), but it does bother me some.
As far as the other ones, the rest that I can think of don't really bother me at all. Joker's involvement in organized crime and bribing cops and such? No problem. Joker being a psychopath with a knack for chemistry? Isn't that sort of how he is in the comics anyways?
I really can't think of any other changes that stick out and bother me in Burton's film. I'm sure there are some I may be overlooking (and feel free to bring them to my attention), but none of them stand out to be as violating the general idea of who Joker is. This make-up thing does seem to me to violate the general idea though. Now if the make-up was just temporary (like that's how he did at the start and then it became permanent or something), I'd still be fine with it. But from we've seen in the trailer and from the pictures, it seems like it's just make-up that wears away over time, revealing that the Joker is nothing more than a psychopath with a clown fetish.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: Enigmatic, the very first "graphic novel" was a collection of short stories, not a single continuous story.
And I disagree with that labelling. My post was more a matter of "should" than "is". If any and every comic book is a graphic novel then the term is useless. The distinctions I gave provide the term a meaningful use.
quote:Because "graphic novel"=! a novel.
Of course not. However, graphic novels are a subset of novels, otherwise the term is a misnomer. In fact, if I were to make a Venn Diagram, graphic novels would be the intersecting set of novels and comic books.
quote:It's a dressed up, more professional term for a comic book. Sort of like how "Sequential Art" is the classier term for "comics".
Yes, "Sequential Art" is a useless term. I can't really think of a distinction to make between "sequential art" and "comics" in any sense. And yes, "graphic novel" first came into being in much the same sort of way, used by people who wouldn't deign to read a "comic book." But the insistence by many comics readers that ALL comic books are graphic novels is just as silly to me. A collection of short stories told in a visual medium is a Graphic Anthology, not a Graphic Novel. A single issue of an ongoing comic book that comes out on a monthly basis is not a Graphic Novel (though it may very well be one chapter in one).
Btw, I realize that this whole thing may sound like I'm taking this way more seriously than I actually am. I'm not trying to argue with you, per se, but just point out what I feel is a useful distinction in the language.
--Enigmatic
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the Joker is nothing more than a psychopath with a clown fetish
The Joker is nothing more than a psychopath with a clown fetish.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The tone in which Ledger says "Like me!" in the preview is quite wonderful. I'm looking forward to this.
I loved Burton's Batman; he did a terrific job in creating a believable world. Nolan's Batman is more about creating a Batman I could almost believe exists in this world.
(Microwave superweapons that can vaporize water underground without also causing nearby humans to blow up aside.)
On that note, I'm more than willing to reserve judgement on whether he's committed some sort of cardinal sin in his interpretation of The Joker. I want to see where this ride will go.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the Joker is nothing more than a psychopath with a clown fetish
The Joker is nothing more than a psychopath with a clown fetish.
I thought that was the point.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the Joker is nothing more than a psychopath with a clown fetish
The Joker is nothing more than a psychopath with a clown fetish.
I thought that was the point.
No no no. The Joker, regardless of context, is supposed to be merely a psychopath with a clown fetish--not just in this particular version.
Just as Batman is merely a rich guy with a savior complex. And suit.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I know my opinion isn't very popular, but I've never really liked Tim Burton's style in any of his movies. I applaud that they're different, breaking from the norm, often creative, and dark in humor.
But I don't think ANY of his movies register on my "classics" or "greats" list. The closest is Edward scissorhands, because the story is so well done. The rest of them seem like a vehicle for his weird/morbid sense of humor.
That said, I have no ties to the old Batman, Jack Nicholson, or Tim Burton. I *loved* Batman Begins, and Dark Knight looks awesome.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Maybe my problem is that I've never even experienced the 1989 Batman flick. Perhaps I'd have mixed opinions if I'd seen the classic.
But this is a new take on the series, and I feel that it's probably the best so far. I mean, it's really difficult to top Batman Begins. Even the Spider-Man movies somewhat pale in comparison.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think pfresh's beef with a makeup-oriented rather than permanent skin tattoo oriented Joker is pretty darn silly, and that the Joker really is basically a sadistic, murderous lunatic with a clown'n'laffs'n'Batman fetish (consider the things that define Joker, not just are associated with him), but it's a personal taste issue. No big whoop.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I wonder if they'll have the guts to keep The Joker alive at the end of the movie?... I'd actually be curious to see what Nolan might do with, say, Harley Quinn...
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
Agreed. I am rather tired of the bad guy having to die at the end of all the batman movies. The joker is supposed to be his arch enemy, lets not kill him off after an hour and 29 minutes or so from meeting each other.
Although, scarecrow didnt die. And we didnt actually SEE the body of Raj Al Ghoul (you can correct me on spelling if you feel like it). Although I dont see how he would have survived.
Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
From what I recall, Nolan has stated in an interview that they were going to keep the Joker around until the end of the trilogy, at least.
And Cillian Murphey is listed on IMDB as being in The Dark Knight. So we should see Scarecrow again, as well.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
First I heard that it was a trilogy. Thats kind of dissappointing.
I'd like it to keep going, as long as Nolan keeps directing, we dont have new people playing batman every movie and that we NEVER EVER have to see something like the batman on ice movie that killed the first series.
Posted by Youth ap Orem (Member # 5582) on :
I'm Batman!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not only did we not see the body of al'Ghul, we don't really know if it even was al'Ghul. I mean, in movie terms, both Liam's character and al'Ghul are still in play, if they aren't the same person that is.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
I adopted the idea that the older man was al'Ghul, and when he died, Liam then took the name. When Liam dies, some other leader of the group takes the name. That way the character retains the immortality that the series suggests he has, without introducing anything supernatural into the series.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
I've been very surprised at the support for Tim Burton's Batman. I was never a big fan of it. It just came off too cheesy for me. Admittedly, he did some interesting stuff, It just didn't play as Batman to me. This new Joker is one I can be excited about, Jack Nicholson, although he did a great job with it, was not the Joker I feel he could have and should have been.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who says the first al'Ghul we saw even died? Honestly. He was pinned under a wooden beam in a burning fortress, but was left with his throat unslit and his head firmly attached to his body. He, too, is still totally in play if the creators want him to be.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)