OT: Dark Knight

[Sedale Threatt]

Comparing Nicholson and Ledger is almost apples and oranges. The entire theme, atompshere and intent of the respective films are totally different. As such, so are the villains.

Burton's Batman was a more cosmetic work built primarily as a showcase for his unique sense of style. A charismatic, over-the-top scene chewer like Nicholson is ideal for a project like this. His take was zany, entertaining and totally devoid of any real menace.

Ledger's performance, likewise, is perfectly suited to a film with a much darker edge. One of the Joker's many personas over the years is that of a psychotic murderer, and Ledger and the Nolan brothers did a fabulous job bringing this interpretation to life.

Personally, I prefer the latter. Not because Ledger died, but because I found his Joker to be infinitely more interesting.

[ChocolateThundr]

Kobot,

No one is admiring Heath's performance because he died, so please stop using that as an excuse. All the hype surrounding his performance is based one what....his actual performance as the Joker. And IMO the two face part is an actual continuance to a third movie, if there is one. I felt that Nolan wanted a sense of both permanence and continuance into the movie's ending. And it certainly felt like it had continuity to me, with the way that "The Dark Knight" is explained at the end. I respect your opinion but IMO Nicholson's Joker, along with that entire film, is way more 'corny', as you puts it than Two Face in The Dark Knight, but it is ok because that was Burton's direction with that movie.

I think the problem with the two face part is that Heath's Joker was so stunning that by comparison the two face part appeard exactly not so. I did feel a drop off, but I didnt have any problems with it as the ending redeemed it.

[hermes]

you can't really compare the two jokers, they were completely different characters
ledger's was more dark, and sinister
that said, i'm a fan of both, one doesn't really appeal to me more than the other
but both are amazing

[Kreuk]

Kobot,

No one is admiring Heath's performance because he died, so please stop using that as an excuse. All the hype surrounding his performance is based one what....his actual performance as the Joker. And IMO the two face part is an actual continuance to a third movie, if there is one. I felt that Nolan wanted a sense of both permanence and continuance into the movie's ending. And it certainly felt like it had continuity to me, with the way that "The Dark Knight" is explained at the end. I respect your opinion but IMO Nicholson's Joker, along with that entire film, is way more 'corny', as you puts it than Two Face in The Dark Knight, but it is ok because that was Burton's direction with that movie.

I think the problem with the two face part is that Heath's Joker was so stunning that by comparison the two face part appeard exactly not so. I did feel a drop off, but I didnt have any problems with it as the ending redeemed it.

you can't tell me that no one is admiring heath's performance simply because he died. or else i wouldn't be reading all this junk about him maybe being only the second actor to win a posthumous Oscar. he did a stellar job, but with all the good movies coming out this year... if he wins... for sure he got a little help from his friends.

i guess my beef isnt so much with ledger or two face, but more with the way nolan and/ or the editors constructed the movie.

i think two face shouldve been left out entirely.. if anything he couldve been introduced at the end of the movie.

it should have been a showcase for batman and the joker. nothing more. nothing less.

and joker should have died at the end. he isnt coming back. so why keep him a live?

they should have just let him fall off the building. why did batman have to grapple him and leave him hanging?

ultimately i just prefer burton's vision over nolan's... michael keaton wasnt so bad himself

[ChocolateThundr]

Kobot,

No one is admiring Heath's performance because he died, so please stop using that as an excuse. All the hype surrounding his performance is based one what....his actual performance as the Joker. And IMO the two face part is an actual continuance to a third movie, if there is one. I felt that Nolan wanted a sense of both permanence and continuance into the movie's ending. And it certainly felt like it had continuity to me, with the way that "The Dark Knight" is explained at the end. I respect your opinion but IMO Nicholson's Joker, along with that entire film, is way more 'corny', as you puts it than Two Face in The Dark Knight, but it is ok because that was Burton's direction with that movie.

I think the problem with the two face part is that Heath's Joker was so stunning that by comparison the two face part appeard exactly not so. I did feel a drop off, but I didnt have any problems with it as the ending redeemed it.

you can't tell me that no one is admiring heath's performance simply because he died. or else i wouldn't be reading all this junk about him maybe being only the second actor to win a posthumous Oscar. he did a stellar job, but with all the good movies coming out this year... if he wins... for sure he got a little help from his friends.

i guess my beef isnt so much with ledger or two face, but more with the way nolan and/ or the editors constructed the movie.

i think two face shouldve been left out entirely.. if anything he couldve been introduced at the end of the movie.

it should have been a showcase for batman and the joker. nothing more. nothing less.

and joker should have died at the end. he isnt coming back. so why keep him a live?

they should have just let him fall off the building. why did batman have to grapple him and leave him hanging?

ultimately i just prefer burton's vision over nolan's... michael keaton wasnt so bad himself

If the movie was just about Joker and Batman, the themes of this movie(not about terroism/patriot act and stuff like that), which I am too lazy to elaborate as others who watched the movie has explained this thoroughly in the community thread, would not work. And if my memory serves me correct, wasnt Two Face introduced near the end. Two Face is the result of the conflict and struggle between the good and evil of Batman and Joker and again thats a bad explanation and others has explained this.

And about Joker dying, that would not hold true to the whole story of Batman. In the movie, the Joker said something like "Me and you are destined to do this forever" to Batman, thus connecting this movie to the whole Batman/Joker saga in the comics.

And as for Heath winning oscars because of his death. I recount this one article saying that, like you said, there has been only one actor in history to have won an oscar posthumously, and his argument was that Heath's death actually hurts his chances of winning oscars, not helping it. And history has shown this to be true. Heath getting or not getting an oscar is not important for recognition. The general concensus is that Heath owns the role of the Joker, and therefore his performance is being recognized and remembered.

[Danny Darko]

I wasn't even thinking about Heath's death during the movie, which was the beauty of it. If had sat there and kept thinking about it I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie as much as I did. Never liked Heath in any role he's ever been in, but the execution of the writing for this Joker was amazing. I'm sad he is gone because if they had done a 3rd Bale movie without Joker and brought him back for a 4th it would have been fricking awesome assuming that 3 wasn't a total bomb.

Speaking of 3- do they do it, and who do they bring in for a nemesis? My friends feels that making up a whole new villain is the answer. looking at the old gallery of villains for Batman, I think he's right otherwise you have:

Poison Ivey- probably a schlocky sexual tension bunch of crap
Egg Head- too campy
Tut- Interesting, but this might take the terrorist theme further only in a racist way
Freeze- Arnold ruined that role for me
Catwoman- sick of her
Penguin- hmmm potential considering Joker was redone successfully.
Ras Algul- covered in the first movie, but still a cool character in the comics
Two Face- No thanks liked the effects, not impressed with the character

I like the idea of creating a whole new character and taking liberties.

[Jajwanda]

The Hangman Killer and the Riddler.

[rpa]

The Hangman Killer and the Riddler.

The Riddler could be perfectly molded to fit not only what the new series is trying to do but also be a completely new type of villain within the series. Batman Begins gave us a more aristocratic, "societal justice" type of villain, The Dark Knight gave us a psychopath to the max. The third film in the trilogy could give us a more intelligent, cunning, & creative villain that could rival them all.

The problem they're going to have in picking the next villain (if they haven't already done so) is maintaining the realism of the current series. You can't really use Mr. Freeze or the Penguin because they're just too "comic book"-y; you can't use Catwoman (and I believe they already said they wouldn't) because there's very little that's compelling about her (IMO).


EDIT: btw I thought the movie is being incredibly overrated. It's way too long, too much of the scenes have redundant "points", and the plot (and movie itself) are just all over the place.

[Jajwanda]

The biggest question is how to kill off the Joker. What do you do with him? Just explain that he's in maximum security in an isolated room in the middle of nowhere?