[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

Burton creates a setting that makes the things going on in his stories believable in the character's world. I can't reconcile the idea of 'realism' with the kind of 'comic book heroes' for which Nolan wants to write. You can't say you're adding 'realism' and still have a guy dress up as a freaking bat. Joker may have been more 'real world like', but Batman sure as shit wasn't.

So you're saying that you accept a world where a shark-lookin' motherfucker runs around with a bunch of Gaga rejects painting (because?) to a Prince song and making women hold on to their popcorn bowls is believable to you; but a guy with a Glasgow grin and makeup committing terrorist actions designed to prove a philosophical point? "Man fuck that, that shit's FAKE".

The reason WHY Nolan's joker resonated so much is that he is relevant to our world. The guy is an Osama Bin Laden figure, except instead of Bin Laden who did what he did for Islam, the Joker does it for sheer anarchy. (Interestingly enough, the Joker is in alot of ways what jingoistic Americans imagined Bin Laden to be: "A madman spreading terror "For teh Evulz")

That's why that camcorder scene was so terrifying, we can actually see that happening.

The fact that you were not able to suspend your disbelief is not the fault of Christopher Nolan, nor Ledger. The Willing Suspension of Disbelief (read WILLING) is prevented not by a failure in Nolan's storytelling or world-crafting, but your own prejudices and biases.

If Nolan truly had failed to craft a believable world (Like Joel Schumaker did with Batman & Robin) the move would not have had the success it did. TDK has a 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Batman 1989 only pulls in a 71%

Burton wasn't even TRYING to craft a believable world, he was just doing his thing with his typical gothic aesthetic, and he threw Batman in their because he was being paid to make a Batman movie.

This is scarier...


than this????

Yes.

I just didn't like this version of Joker...The insanity coupled with narcissism in Nicholson's performance highlights how insane his character truly is and creates a contrast for the darkness, however slight. If someone walked up to you with a feather pen and then killed you with it....that would be humurous in a sick and twisted way. The pencil scene was similar to that, but not funny.

Wait, so in your book "insanity + narcisim = levity" and "Feather-Pen death = funny" "pencil disappearing gag = not funny" but you don't (Can't) explain why this is. Your point against Ledger's joker relies once again, solely on dismissing the performance (In a really stupid way, might I add) as "Talk Talk Talk Dark and Explody".

You haven't actually backed up your thought process Graz, you've just made your initial assertions in a new way.

Try again.

Another similar scene was him staring Batman down as he's flying at him in the 'batpod'. Are those both in the comic or just similar for similarities sake?

That's a pretty common scene in movies actually. You see that "Chicken Showdown" in the 300, In Lord of the Rings, in Troy, etc. I'm sure that trope was done in the comics at some point as well.

But let's take a look, here are the two scenes back to back:

Burton's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyA3BMltIUI

Nolan's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSmt...tailpage#t=88s

Pretty similar, but do you notice the difference? In Burton's batman is actively TRYING to kill the joker, but despite his Star Wars viewfinder, machine guns and missiles he FAILS and the Joker gleefully shoots him down.

in Nolan's the Joker is actively TRYING to get Batman to kill him. He is attacking other people specifically to enrage Bruce Wayne and force him to break his one rule. The Joker is willing to DIE to prove the point that deep down everyone is a product of their environment, and when Batman wipes out rather than Kill him, the Joker actually mouths "Fuck" and furrows his brow. HE WANTED TO DIE.

Nolan's scene is actually far more true to Batman (Batman doesn't kill, WTF are you doing Burton? That's rule #1), and contains far more subtext and depth than Burton's. In Batman, it's just a cool scene in TDK it's a clash of ideas. It's two men putting their ideology on the line to the point that they are both willing to suffer and risk death for it.

So while the scenes are superficially similar, there's just no comparison and Nolan's is far superior.

I don't know why it's not enough for me to simply say that I liked Burton's version better because I found it more entertaining than Nolan's.

Because you think you actually have a valid point (You don't).

And somehow it's perfectly fine for others to parrot the idea that: "Jack played jack, Heath WAS the Joker!" that I've seen all over the web since the movie came out. I know you people are far more intelligent than that so please quit using such a lazy argument if you tell people to 'back their shit up.' Describe the actual layering and nuances if you really know what they are, cuz I sure as fuck do not!

I've allready done that multiple times (see above for the most recent).

Maybe I'm missing something?

Yes, you are.

Maybe they're not really there? Please enlighten me as to how an accomplished actor who had a career of diverse roles long before he ever acted in Batman(41 movies before) was somehow not as good or nuanced/layered(wtf does that even mean?) in his performance as a guy who only had 16 roles before The Dark Knight? Does that even make sense? If you're going to go with the lame idea that Batman(1989) is a kids movie because of it's PG-13 rating....it's the same as that for TDK! I guess that would make them both kiddie movies.

No one's saying Jack's performance was bad. It worked very well for that movie, and he was the highlight of it, but when you compare it to Ledger's it pales. Now part of this was the script he was working with, because Burton's movie didn't require any level of philosophical depth or subtext, Batman 1989 wasn't a clash of ideas or archetypes, it was a guy in a bat costume fighting a guy in a clown costume.

TDK was a benevolent dictator fighting against a malicious anarchist. TDK was conservatism vs. liberalism. Batman's use of the Cell Phones was synonymous with the Bush administration's wire-tapping. Harvey Dent's revolver interrogation was synonymous with US's waterboarding. BATMAN GOES TO CHINA, IGNORING THEIR RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY TO APPREHEND A CRIMINAL. This movie was testing American ideology, in a post 9-11 world. Instead of the twin towers collapsing, Batman's appearance is the Catalyzing event, and in the end it is more important that Batman, who is the ultimate benevolent dictator, be deposed from power and step down (despite having done no wrong) and a corrupt and broken, but still populist, democratic system be propped up despite it's failure (Harvey Dent - an elected official dies a hero).


TDK is a conversation about whether or not America still works

At the end of the day who the better Joker is is just a matter of opinion and neither is 'right' or 'wrong.'

Sorry Gras, what you have said is a thought terminating cliche Which joker you LIKE better is a matter of opinion, but which Joker is a better piece of art can and has been judged objectively: Nicholson's has been found wanting.

In all categories one can reasonably use: The skill displayed by the performer, the subtext inherent in the role, the aesthetic congruence/unity of the work, how true it was to the source material, etc. Ledger wins hands down.

You don't have to like it. Your tastes are based upon what you enjoyed as a child. Your artistic tastes seem to be grounded in nostalgia and an adherence too a specific aesthetic and specific type of story. You wanted TDK to be a different movie, that doesn't mean it's failed as a movie, that means you have failed as an audience member.

If you want a campy superhero movie, go watch the 1989 Batman movie, If you want a modern version, go watch Iron Man, Go watch the Hulk go watch Spiderman. If you want to see Tim Burton do what he does best, go watch Sweeney Todd, but don't say that the Dark Knight failed as a movie, or Ledger's performance was "lackluster", or that it's popularity is due to a "Cult of Personality" or that Nolan is unable to craft a believable world: that is just straight pig-headed stupidity, and patently, objectively WRONG.

Let's be real here: you admitted defeat the second you played the "Everyone's opinion is equal and valid" card, because your point was never "I just don't like it" From the beginning with your snarky, dismissive comments and attitude you tried to give it outside legitimacy. The SECOND you employed the "it's a matter of opinion" you shot your own argument full of holes.

All opinions are NOT equal. My opinion will plow your opinion's girlfriend from behind while staring it RIGHT IN THEY EYES and your opinion will fap and cry itself to sleep in the corner.