|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Dec 17, 2011 22:57:45 GMT -5
Even if you hate the movie you have to give it credit for dispelling the notion of Batman as the campy guy with shark repellent spray and restoring the vision of the grim and forboding Dark Knight in the public conscience.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Dec 17, 2011 22:58:29 GMT -5
Also who could forget this commercial. I remember it was on the VHS Remember that and Daffy & Bug's pep talk before the movie, great memories. The Daffy and Bugs Commercial
|
|
Sc
Don Corleone
Must think of something witty to put here...
Posts: 1,417
|
Post by Sc on Dec 17, 2011 23:08:08 GMT -5
In retrospect, I'm not as fond of this movie as I used to be. It was a good movie, just not a really good Batman movie. Jack Nicholson was a great villain, but a lousy Joker. It definitely shows that Tim Burton hadn't actually touched the comics when he made it. I don't read the comics so I base this on what I've seen in the movies and animated shows, wasn't Nicholson's Joker way closer to what he is in the comics than Ledger's Joker?
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Dec 17, 2011 23:13:10 GMT -5
This This This ESPECIALLY this!!!! Couldn't agree any more! IMO, Begins sucked, even worse than Batman and Robin, and I wonder why it gets the love it does. You can't be serious with this. Dead serious. I don't like Batman Begins at all. It is by far the most boring, confusing piece of garbage ever. Thank gosh Dark Knight picked up the slack.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 17, 2011 23:24:20 GMT -5
In retrospect, I'm not as fond of this movie as I used to be. It was a good movie, just not a really good Batman movie. Jack Nicholson was a great villain, but a lousy Joker. It definitely shows that Tim Burton hadn't actually touched the comics when he made it. I don't read the comics so I base this on what I've seen in the movies and animated shows, wasn't Nicholson's Joker way closer to what he is in the comics than Ledger's Joker? Not really. The Animated Series sort of took some of Nicholson's Joker's personality traits and applied it to the series a bit, but overall Ledger's is more faithful to the graphic novels in the 80s and 90s from which Nolan wanted to focus on. You can't be serious with this. Dead serious. I don't like Batman Begins at all. It is by far the most boring, confusing piece of garbage ever. Thank gosh Dark Knight picked up the slack. How was it confusing? The only thing I could get is the Ra's Al Ghul trickery being moderately confusing, but it was pretty easy to understand otherwise. I generally prefer TDK to Begins, but Begins has by far the best Batman/Bruce Wayne performance of any single Batman movie. So it has that going for it.
|
|
Sc
Don Corleone
Must think of something witty to put here...
Posts: 1,417
|
Post by Sc on Dec 17, 2011 23:34:02 GMT -5
I don't read the comics so I base this on what I've seen in the movies and animated shows, wasn't Nicholson's Joker way closer to what he is in the comics than Ledger's Joker? Not really. The Animated Series sort of took some of Nicholson's Joker's personality traits and applied it to the series a bit, but overall Ledger's is more faithful to the graphic novels in the 80s and 90s from which Nolan wanted to focus on. It just seems like the name Joker is more suited for the character in Batman 1989 and the DCAU than the anarchist that laughs a few times in The Dark Knight.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 17, 2011 23:44:10 GMT -5
Not really. The Animated Series sort of took some of Nicholson's Joker's personality traits and applied it to the series a bit, but overall Ledger's is more faithful to the graphic novels in the 80s and 90s from which Nolan wanted to focus on. It just seems like the name Joker is more suited for the character in Batman 1989 and the DCAU than the anarchist that laughs a few times in The Dark Knight. Maybe so, but the character is treated differently by every writer that writes it so it's left open for interpretation. I prefer the guy who is the polar opposite of Batman (like in TDK), as opposed to the pissed off former mob associate who laughs a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 18, 2011 0:27:40 GMT -5
The Joker in The Dark Knight is a lot like the interpretation of the character from The Killing Joke by Alan Moore, and also subsequent interpretations of the character from the comics in the 80's and 90's. In the comics, "Jack Napier" never existed, much less kill Bruce's parents. That was a guy named Joe Chill, which Batman Begins got right.
Mark Hamill's Joker shared some characteristics with Jack's Joker, but I thought of him more as a cross between the Silver Age Joker (which, goofy as it was, the 60's TV Joker was pretty accurate too, but then lol Silver Age) and the more psychotic modern character. The comics Joker at the time also started to take some cues from TAS Joker, even officially introducing Harley Quinn into the comics' canon.
Again, I enjoyed Jack's Joker for what it was. He was a really good movie villain. But he wasn't really the Joker so much as Jack Nicholson in clown makeup.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Dec 18, 2011 0:33:44 GMT -5
I don't read the comics so I base this on what I've seen in the movies and animated shows, wasn't Nicholson's Joker way closer to what he is in the comics than Ledger's Joker? How was it confusing? The only thing I could get is the Ra's Al Ghul trickery being moderately confusing, but it was pretty easy to understand otherwise. I generally prefer TDK to Begins, but Begins has by far the best Batman/Bruce Wayne performance of any single Batman movie. So it has that going for it. No, the story isn't confusing. The action is. It's a dark quick cut a thousand times close up on everything mess. Half the time I have no idea who's doing what to who. I've had to watch it many times to figure out what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 18, 2011 0:35:33 GMT -5
I prefer both Burton movies to any other Batman films.
The Nolan movies have done incredibly well, but personally I just find them dull, or over elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Dec 18, 2011 0:40:47 GMT -5
The Joker in The Dark Knight is a lot like the interpretation of the character from The Killing Joke by Alan Moore, and also subsequent interpretations of the character from the comics in the 80's and 90's. In the comics, "Jack Napier" never existed, much less kill Bruce's parents. That was a guy named Joe Chill, which Batman Begins got right. To be fair, Bob Kane did go on record as saying that had the Joker been around when Batman debuted he would have been the one to kill Bruce's parents. Or more accurately, Bill Finger would have had the idea and Bob Kane would have taken credit for it.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 18, 2011 0:42:02 GMT -5
Personally I always preferred Jack Napier to be the killer of the Waynes than "Joe Chill"
I like the idea of the Joker effectively creating Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 18, 2011 0:54:07 GMT -5
The Joker in The Dark Knight is a lot like the interpretation of the character from The Killing Joke by Alan Moore, and also subsequent interpretations of the character from the comics in the 80's and 90's. In the comics, "Jack Napier" never existed, much less kill Bruce's parents. That was a guy named Joe Chill, which Batman Begins got right. Mark Hamill's Joker shared some characteristics with Jack's Joker, but I thought of him more as a cross between the Silver Age Joker (which, goofy as it was, the 60's TV Joker was pretty accurate too, but then lol Silver Age) and the more psychotic modern character. The comics Joker at the time also started to take some cues from TAS Joker, even officially introducing Harley Quinn into the comics' canon. Again, I enjoyed Jack's Joker for what it was. He was a really good movie villain. But he wasn't really the Joker so much as Jack Nicholson in clown makeup. I'd say it's a mix of The Killing Joke, A Death in the Family, and The Long Halloween in a way. Either way though, you are completely on the ball with every other description. Personally I always preferred Jack Napier to be the killer of the Waynes than "Joe Chill" I like the idea of the Joker effectively creating Batman. But The Joker isn't going to randomly kill the two most important citizens in Gotham in a dark alley just to rob them. That's not the kind of thing he would do.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Dec 18, 2011 0:59:18 GMT -5
But The Joker isn't going to randomly kill the two most important citizens in Gotham in a dark alley just to rob them. That's not the kind of thing he would do. The Joker, no. But the lowly guy the Joker was before he became the Joker could be driven to that level of desperation. That's how most of his origins place him in the chemical plant in the first place after all.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,961
|
Post by Sephiroth on Dec 18, 2011 1:53:26 GMT -5
Not long ago I read a book about "the dark age" of comics and the important role this movie had in that time period. It was amusing to hear just what a nightmare the film was to get made-even despite its success Tim Burton still refers to it as one of the worst experiences of his life. The part that struck me the most is how he tried so hard to sell Michael Keaton as a possible Batman to the studio and comic book execs, and the argument he made in favor of it; he told them "we can't have a no-name up against Jack Nicholson or he will just get totally dominated on the screen, and how am I supposed to take a serious, dramatic star like Deniro and make him look realistic getting into his Batman tights?" I also read that the J. O'Barr, the artist and author of The Crow comics, said that because of the Batman movie he was unable to get any black inc for the cover of his comics and had to use "midnight blue" instead, and that when his comics got made into a movie he openly declared "I hope I'm doing the same thing to Batman now!"
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Dec 18, 2011 3:36:14 GMT -5
Nolan's Batman is the comic's version. The guy is built like a brick sh**house and has trained maniacally to be a crimestopping machine. Burton's Batman is not that guy, he bought a bunch of stuff and did enough training to beat-up the average thug. Joe Shmoe Michael Keaton just doesn't cut it.
Bale is a also better Wayne than Keaton, more believable as a playboy and I like how he plays-up Wayne's public personna to be pretty douchey.
Both guys made departures from the comics in terms of Joker but Nolan did it better.
I don't like how Burton used the costume but again didn't go with somebody that physically fit the part. Willem Dafoe is traditional Joker, not a pudgy old Nicholson. I also didn't like the origin change with Joker being a mobster.
Nolan took some liberties with the look but was true to modern characterization. Ledger seemed more truly deranged than Nicholson, like Alfred said he just wanted to watch the world burn.
I don't think Nolan's stuff is perfect by any stretch but I don't think Burton's stuff was any better than the first Schumacher flick. I'd actually take Batman Forever over Batman Returns. Of course his stuff is better than Batman and Robin but the bar is set low there.
At the end of the day Burton not giving a rat's ass about the source material showed IMO.
|
|
Beast Army Ass
Hank Scorpio
What being a Philadelphia sports fan feels like.
Posts: 7,149
|
Post by Beast Army Ass on Dec 18, 2011 3:46:59 GMT -5
For myself, I just take each pair (89/Returns, Forever/Robin, and Begins/TDK) as separate entities loosely based on the same concept. In that vein, I found the Burton part to be just as good as Nolan's films. I especially love this movie, to the point that I can consistently watch it and be entertained. And Returns I found to be just dandy as well (with the side effect of Michelle Pfieffer helping me with puberty). The way I see it:
Burton: Focused on the darker aspects of the comics, but kept it obvious that it was a comic world Schumacher: Focused on the campier aspects, but kept it obvious it was a comic world (likely why these are so loathed as at this point the concept of Batman was trying so hard to escape that past) Nolan: Focused on making it both dark AND realistic (which is why I believed these were such a hit...because at least in some sense the world feels more fleshed out in all aspects)
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Dec 18, 2011 5:04:48 GMT -5
Honestly, despite the lack of faithfulness to the book in some respects I enjoyed watching both this film and Batman Returns so much more than Begins or TDK. And the less said about Joel Schumacher's Batman films, the better.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Dec 18, 2011 5:16:29 GMT -5
I watched the four films of the Burton/Schumacher series earlier this month (I do this almost every December). The first flick couldn't really hold my attention all that well.
Though I do hold a place in my heart for all Batman movies. Batman's such a great character I can find something to enjoy or appreciate about every Bat-flick. BATMAN BEGINS is my favorite, though. *shrug*
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,037
|
Post by dav on Dec 18, 2011 5:27:42 GMT -5
But The Joker isn't going to randomly kill the two most important citizens in Gotham in a dark alley just to rob them. That's not the kind of thing he would do. The Joker, no. But the lowly guy the Joker was before he became the Joker could be driven to that level of desperation. That's how most of his origins place him in the chemical plant in the first place after all. Seems as if that might undermine part of Batman's origin. It wasn't one of his enemies or a maniac doing that deed, it was simple, random crime that could have happened to anyone. A sudden twist of fate that could effect anyone from the lowest to highest. Having it be a foe just seems as if it would be a fate thing and not the random twist of fate that shows that the crime took away everything from Bruce.
|
|