posted
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 .
Posts: 349 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it wrong that I could easily identify about 95% of the locations? LOL And the party scene was my office lobby Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm most definitely pumped about Heath Ledger. Actually, this whole cast is gonna be phenomenal.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 753 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 450 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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? Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
posted
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"? Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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". Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
