Heath Ledgers Joker

[The Dark Knight]

thecolorsblend, you don't get it or you don't want to. TDK takes commonly known Batman concepts and turns them on their ear. The origin of his appearance doesn't matter one thing, the trademarks of the character are still there but done differently.

You say "The Joker *IS* the Joker", well you are correct. His characteristics and behaviour remain the same. You are merely looking at the origin of Ledger's appearance and ruling everything associated with the character out.

Just like he appears from nowhere with no clear origin. This masterful move sees The Joker as an absolute, allowing this mysterious character no sympathy with a back-story. True to form, he is always telling people different stories for his origins- this time for his facial scars.

This new version IS fresh and adds a new spin, while being absolutely faithful to the character.

[thecolorsblend]

thecolorsblend, you don't get it or you don't want to. TDK takes commonly known Batman concepts and turns them on their ear.

"Turning them on the ear" is one thing.  Throwing them out, creating new characters and slapping existing names on them is quite another.

The origin of his appearance doesn't matter one thing, the trademarks of the character are still there but done differently.

The origin of his appearance is of mixed input, you are somewhat correct.  The nature of his appearance means basically everything to the character.  Again, he's deformed.  HE CANNOT EVER TAKE IT OFF.  It's who he is.

You say "The Joker *IS* the Joker", well you are correct.

I said a lot more than that but you're ignoring it.

His characteristics and behaviour remain the same.

No they don't.  The Ledgeker never belittled anybody for "not getting the joke".  He didn't adapt cheap clown tricks into deadly weapons.  Granted, an exploding whoopee cushion probably wouldn't play in Nolan's world but to throw out essentially everything the character has been in the comics for decades isn't "inventive", it's revisionism.

You are merely looking at the origin of Ledger's appearance and ruling everything associated with the character out.

No I'm not.  I can't think of a single notable thing the Joker ever did with a knife in the comics.  On the other hand, he used a gun to cripple Barbara Gordon, a gun to whack Sarah Essen, a crowbar to beat Jason Todd absolutely senseless and a lot of explosives to blow him up.

And that's just his weapon of choice in TDK.  Don't even get me started on his lack of a sick sense of humor.

This new version IS fresh and adds a new spin, while being absolutely faithful to the character.

He's the Joker in name only.  And understand, I wouldn't mind if Nolan had selected a different character with a lot less development and personality to him and then re-envisioned said character from the ground up.  But the Joker already has a persona ready to be adapted from the comics.  That character is not in the movie.  The Joker in the comics is not a knife-toting, make up-wearing serial killer.

[The Dark Knight]

I am ignoring squat. I used your statement to say that it is what the Joker is as a character, not what he looks like - on both counts, which he still has. Ledger's Joker still looks the same, but with different reasoning behind it, and remains faithful to the character.

Ledger is a Joker for our times, realised in Nolan's realistic setting. He prefers the use of knifes, taking on any situation armed only with a knife is very much in line with The Joker's fearless attitude. For this version, you would not arm him with childish tools. Hint, this is a different interpretation.

Don't get me started about 'revisionism'. Who's the fool that made The Joker the killer of Batman's parents? That there is a bigger revisionism than anything Ledger's Joker has done.

It is NOT creating new characters and slapping existing names on them. It is still fundamentally The Joker, whether you bother to recognise this or not.

[thecolorsblend]

Yeesh, you are getting WAY too worked about this.  Until you simmer down a little, I'm out of this.  Seriously man, smoke a cigarette or something and cool off.

[DocLathropBrown]

Both of you need to stop. But frankly, colors, I find your line of reasoning toward everything but the permawhite issue unfounded. I'm very critical of Nolan's approach to Batman and the fans' accepted ideals, and I don't agree with you at all on this.

Read any current comic book that features the Joker. He is now THAT openly sadistic and less clownish. He has been changed from "clownish killer" to "creepy psychopath." Not something I'm too fond of, but it's still the Joker. Ledger was very much identifiable as the Joker, and for you to be so adament against it just proves you're letting your anti-Nolan bias dictate your opinion (And I never thought I'd be defending Nolan!). And I don't give a damn about whether or not Heath is alive when it comes to this argument. I was being harsh in my judgement of him, and he didn't meet my negative expectation.

You're the only person I've seen react to Ledger this way. Frankly, it's baffling.

[The Dark Knight]

But frankly, colors, I find your line of reasoning toward everything but the permawhite issue unfounded. I'm very critical of Nolan's approach to Batman and the fans' accepted ideals, and I don't agree with you at all on this.

Thankyou. Someone can see some sense at least.

Read any current comic book that features the Joker. He is now THAT openly sadistic and less clownish. He has been changed from "clownish killer" to "creepy psychopath." Not something I'm too fond of, but it's still the Joker. Ledger was very much identifiable as the Joker, and for you to be so adament against it just proves you're letting your anti-Nolan bias dictate your opinion

Exactly.

You're the only person I've seen react to Ledger this way. Frankly, it's baffling.

Very much so.

[DocLathropBrown]

Exactly.

But this is not to indicate that I agree with your assessment of him being clouded by nostolgia, as that's insulting.

You walk a fine line, and so does he. You are underestimating him as a human being and overestimating the importance of your own opinion. He's probably used to having to react in such a way because I'll bet he comes from an environment that's hostile to his opinion.

You're both being too damn touchy. But if you stopped speaking in definitives, he'd stop reacting so strongly. It's your opinon that Jack's performance was weaker. It's your opinion that TDK is the first real artistic Batman film.

As a Burton-defender myself, it's incredibley hard to sit there while someone's practically insulting you by not taking the care (or interest) to make clear they mean no disservice to Burton's legacy. It's not a hard thing to grasp. When I see "IMO, Burton's film was inferior," I have no problem being civil or passing it by. When I see "Burton's film was weaker and had no depth... (etc)" I have the overwhelming urge to vehemently disagree.

I don't think some people realize that they generate heat in so subtle ways. I know some actually don't care, but others who think Burton fans are overdefensive freaks often don't realize that they're offending people with the overbearingness of their presentation.

In a perfect world, Burton fans shouldn't be so damn touchy in the first place (and this goes for plenty of Nolan fans as well) and should be able to brush it off or be civil, but, well, "It's not a perfect world."

[Azrael]

A general impression is that many Nolan fans can't "stand" a single bad review of "their" film. If you see the comments in some bad reviews in Rotten Tomatoes, there are many... Bat Attacks. I think (and hope) this is a minority of comic book readers, since it's an attitude not dissimilar to that of the obsessive Star Wars people that couldn't "stand" bad reviews of their beloved Revenge of the Sith. It's as if THEY made the film, and THEY expected profit from it. It's like a film is their reason for existence (which is not, and I feel sorry for obsessive people of any kind, be it Batman comics, Nolan/Burton films, or Star Wars vs. Star Trek or whatever).

Some of the defensive stance Burton fans have comes from the tendency of the Nolan fans to completely demolish the perception of the old films, constantly saying how bad everything is about those films, how "Nicholson was a harmless prankster", how "cartoony the city was", how "happy Elfman's music was" etc. etc.

It's like the old Roman empire around Constantine's time when Christianity was established as an official religion, and the Christians demolished countless Greco-Roman pagan temples in favor of the new Christian churches, because they considered their religion would gain power by destroying all remnants of the old polytheism, including architectural and sculptural masterpieces. Instead of focusing on how they'll organize their church and worship the One God, they attacked the old religion (and its artistic/architectural expressions). They had a point, however, they wanted to homogenize the population of the empire under a single banner.

It's a far-fetched analogy, and the admiration of movies in the internet age has nothing to do with the politics of ancient Europe, or any kind of politics, but this is how it comes out: Nolan camp and Burton camp? What is this?

Instead of saying how good this film actually is, they never miss a chance to say how bad (they think) the old films are and how this corrects every flaw in them. Instead of simply admiring the new thing for what it is, they try to demolish the old one as if the new thing gains anything at all this way.

What is this the point of something like this? What is the point of degrading a film succesful, big and generally accepted as good for the time it came out, in "defense" (it looks like a defence) of a much more modern and improved product?

It feels like subconsciously saying "MY movie is better", to which attitude the only logical answer is: "Why so serious?" It's only movies.

My defensive stance as a Burton fan comes only from one place: I don't like hurried misjudgements of any kind. I don't live by movies, I can perfectly be happy if the whole internet bashes films I love, the point is I dislike inaccurate comments and personal opinion posing as fact.

[The Dark Knight]

Some of the defensive stance Burton fans have comes from the tendency of the Nolan fans to completely demolish the perception of the old films, constantly saying how bad everything is about those films, how "Nicholson was a harmless prankster", how "cartoony the city was", how "happy Elfman's music was" etc. etc.

I will say when something is good. Returns is my favourite Batman score, closely followed by Batman (1989).

[Azrael]

The problem is not when someone has opinion A or B, but when he expresses that opinion as a fact (it's bad because I don't like it). "I'll say when something is good". Define good.