Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Through some rip in the multiverse, all of the villains from the first four Batman movies(Old continuity) come to Nolans version of Gotham City. They are not necessarily working together, but may, and at the very least have reached a pact of non agression. They get all of their resources and goons, but have to work their way to the top. Batman/Bruce Wayne of the Christian Bale variety has all of his resources and unlimited prep time. What happens?

How is unlimited prep time even possible?

Originally posted by jaden101
How is unlimited prep time even possible? Bruce will be aware that this event is going to happen on a certain date. He knows the date, but not where the dimensional rip takes place.

Batman takes them out

Batman gets owned. The villians in the Batman Anthology are Leagues better then those in the Nolanverse. Why they have to be to go toe-to-toes with the Batman from those movies. Who own Bale Batman in every possible way.

See while Nolans Joker was running around blowing up random crap and acting like an emo ***** in runny make up. Burton's had managed to infilitrate not only Gothams orginized crime, but also managed to get his foot in the door of more or less every buissness. At least the processing and shipping part. How else could smiling gas be combination of so many things. Unfortunatly for Bale Batman he wont have the resources and tech to figure out what not to buy or use and so Gotham dies. Its big picture picture kind of a thing. As well as a tech thing. The only villian to come close in the Nolanverse is Ras and even he is pretty low tech in comparison to say Riddler who can mind control a town or Mr. Freeze who can freeze one. Hell even Penguins arsenal could straight up level Gotham. We also know that all of them with the possible exception of Joker are willing to work together. At least to meet their own ends. So Bale Batman is even more gimped then he naturaly is by facing 5 to 6 villians and their goons/forces.

Lets try this another way Bale Batman has a souped up atv, Mr. Freeze has a space ship. Bale Batman has a fancy cell phone, The Riddler has a mind control ray. Mr. Freeze can physically manhandle Anthology Batman who is a class 2(as in 2 ton strength) and bullet timer. Bale Batman get owned by puppies. You do the math.

whoa

seriously that was just the dumbest thing anyone has ever said ever

So how does Bale get out of this?

Bale would get out of it with his ten times better fighting training his,the fact that he is stronger, better at stealth and just better at everything besides being ridiculous.

Originally posted by batmanfan136
Bale would get out of it with his ten times better fighting training his,the fact that he is stronger, better at stealth and just better at everything besides being ridiculous.

Hate to tell you this pal, but Anthology Batman is stronger. Unless you have a feat from Bale Batman that rivals punching threw the armor plating on the Batmobile or head butting threw aircraft glass. I've said it before, but i'll say it again. When Anthology Batman wants to be all stealthy he can do it just fine. Just look at the chemical plant fight. Not to mention he is tougher walking off things like plane wrecks etc and quicker blocking bullets and the like. As for fighting ability Anthology wadded threw crowds of baddies like they were nothing. Where as Baleman had trouble with a handfull in a straight fight.

However Anthology Batman isn't in this match his villians are and Baleman doesn't have the tech needed to go head to head with them. He doesn't have the computer laboratory facility to figure out Jokers gas. Nor does he have anything to stop Riddlers mind ray, Freeze's space ship etc. Infact what is Baleman going to do when Riddler sets up his Island fortress. Row over in a canoe?

how bout bending the barre ll of a gun and when has bale's batman had a problem in a straight fight besides when he was fighting Ra's al Gaul to which he didn't even had that much of a problem with. and no matter how stealth he was in the anthology, nothing in that was as stealthy as he was in bale's films

Pretty sure I heard servomotors whirring as Bats bend the barrel of that gun.

You did hear motors it was an attachment on his gauntlent. Its the same way he tore apart the van. While it adds to his strength it has limited application.

Originally posted by batmanfan136
how bout bending the barre ll of a gun and when has bale's batman had a problem in a straight fight besides when he was fighting Ra's al Gaul to which he didn't even had that much of a problem with. and no matter how stealth he was in the anthology, nothing in that was as stealthy as he was in bale's films

As described above servomotors in the gauntlet, but even if he could bend a gun barrel. It doesn't compare to taking apart armor with you hands. The stuff Anthology Batman oulled off in the chemical plant was just as stealthy as anything Baleman pulled off. Again while Baleman needed stealth to win fights Anthology Batman didn't.

Also, that rifle was a Mini 14, the barrel isnt that thick, a peak human might be able to bend it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Also, that rifle was a Mini 14, the barrel isnt that thick, a peak human might be able to bend it.

That's pretty much it even if Baleman. Did it bare handed(which he didn't) it wouldn't compare to Anthology Batman's strength feats. In other words even mechanicaly assisted Baleman is not as strong as Burton/Schumacher Batman.

Originally posted by Nightstick
That's pretty much it even if Baleman. Did it bare handed(which he didn't) it wouldn't compare to Anthology Batman's strength feats. In other words even mechanicaly assisted Baleman is not as strong as Burton/Schumacher Batman. Also, the guy holding the rifle wouldnt have been able to hold it straight as he did if Batman did it on brute strength. The rifle would have been pointed downward.

Nicholson Joker surrenders and shakes Baleman's hand in congratulations of fivctory.

Originally posted by Luminatus
Nicholson Joker surrenders and shakes Baleman's hand in congratulations of fivctory.

Why in the hell would he do that. Nicholson's Joker is infinatly better then Ledgers.

Baleman has nothing that can stop Nicholson's Jokers gas. He wouldn't even be able to find it. While TDK Joker survived on dumb luck and idiotic opponents. Batman Joker managed to infilitrate multiple companies and produce and ship to stores. Joker Brand Products. Which takes a lot more planing, brains, resources, and know how then placing large conspicous explosives and hoping nobody notices a la Ledger Joker.

Frankly considering he weathered a beatdown at the hands of Anthology Batman and even got the drop on him once. I figure Nicholson Joker has a shot at winning a fight against Baleman. Well taking any beating he can dish out and catching him with dirty tricks any how.

Originally posted by Luminatus
Nicholson Joker surrenders and shakes Baleman's hand in congratulations of fivctory. lol

Originally posted by Nightstick
Nicholson's Joker is infinatly better then Ledgers.

Originally posted by Darth Martin


What's so hard to understand?

Nicholson's Joker was smart, scary, charasmatic, and funny.

Ledgers Joker was the kind of guy all the little goth emos want to be like. The kind of guy that'd set up a web site for his death poetry and wack off to the Crow. I'm mean seriously the guy had to get up every morning and do his f*cking make up. I wouldn't be suprised if his lair was full of Maryln Manson and Rob Zombie posters.

Well honestly i'd have to say that if you didn't think that both ledger's, and nicholson's portrayal were good, you have some kind of bias here. Whether it be the oh, so infamous Tim Burton fandom or something else. Legders joker was just the right amount of dark and malicious, not to mention the manerisms. This was what the joker was. Nicholson was a completely different take on hte joker character. Both of them worthy of enormous praise. And since they are giving an obvious overtone of "reality" to the new batman movies, the whole, falling into a vat of chemicals thing was just to cliche in this case. So scars and makeup are perfectly acceptable.

Catwoman, penguin, riddler, ivy, and freeze give the origional's way too much of an edge on bale's batman. Two Face and Joker are right up his alley.

Originally posted by omgchos
Well honestly i'd have to say that if you didn't think that both ledger's, and nicholson's portrayal were good, you have some kind of bias here. Whether it be the oh, so infamous Tim Burton fandom or something else. Legders joker was just the right amount of dark and malicious, not to mention the manerisms. This was what the joker was. Nicholson was a completely different take on hte joker character. Both of them worthy of enormous praise. And since they are giving an obvious overtone of "reality" to the new batman movies, the whole, falling into a vat of chemicals thing was just to cliche in this case. So scars and makeup are perfectly acceptable.

I can tell you that its not Tim Burton Fandom. The truth is while I enjoyed "Batman" and "Batman Returns". "Batman Forever" was likely my favorite of the bunch.

As for Ledger's Joker being "this is what Joker was". Joker has jokes and gags and a good laugh from time to time. Ledgers whole melonchaly emo goth. I hate the world thing. Not very Joker like at all. Infact Nicholson was some how lighter and darker then Ledgers all at the same time. He was sadistic, but charming. Ledger not really scary, unless you find skinny, wannabe emo goth rockers scary. Maybe its just me, but he spent to much time spouting nonesensical anarchy idealogy to be scary. Its also not real dark its death poetry I practice witchcarft and listen to Manson dark. In the end Nicholson made a character unlike anything else around him. Where as Ledgers was aside from scars, make up, and speech impediment. Is a bog standered supposedly super intelligent Hollywood bad guy. In the Vain of the much better played Hannnibal Lector(not that "Silence of the Lambs" was great movie) or Cyrus Grissom. Infact we have seen Ledger style villians played better on CSI.

I have to ask why is it that everytime somebody says they didn't like Ledgers Joker or TDK. It is immediatly assumed they have a bias. Lets be honest. As sad as it is the only reason Ledger's performance got the hype it did was because he passed away.

Now Eckhart as Dent and Latter Two-Face in the small role they gave him was great. A different take from Tommy Lee-Jones, but equally as good if not better. Kane was no Gough, but still a solid perfomance as was Freemans. Oldman(?)(the guy who played Gordon) was decent as well. Were they enough to save the movie. No it was still mess. A mess with some potential, but a mess none the less. For the record "Begins" was better. Still not a great movie, but Freeman, Kane, and Neeson most of all made it watchable.

As for over tones of "reality" anybody who thinks they can give reality to a movie about man in a Bat suit fighting gangs of machine gun armed goons with his mystic ninja-fu. With out acknowledging the sillyness of the concept. Is kidding themselves.

Originally posted by Nightstick
I can tell you that its not Tim Burton Fandom. The truth is while I enjoyed "Batman" and "Batman Returns". "Batman Forever" was likely my favorite of the bunch.

As for Ledger's Joker being "this is what Joker was". Joker has jokes and gags and a good laugh from time to time. Ledgers whole melonchaly emo goth. I hate the world thing. Not very Joker like at all. Infact Nicholson was some how lighter and darker then Ledgers all at the same time. He was sadistic, but charming. Ledger not really scary, unless you find skinny, wannabe emo goth rockers scary. Maybe its just me, but he spent to much time spouting nonesensical anarchy idealogy to be scary. Its also not real dark its death poetry I practice witchcarft and listen to Manson dark. In the end Nicholson made a character unlike anything else around him. Where as Ledgers was aside from scars, make up, and speech impediment. Is a bog standered supposedly super intelligent Hollywood bad guy. In the Vain of the much better played Hannnibal Lector(not that "Silence of the Lambs" was great movie) or Cyrus Grissom. Infact we have seen Ledger style villians played better on CSI.

I have to ask why is it that everytime somebody says they didn't like Ledgers Joker or TDK. It is immediatly assumed they have a bias. Lets be honest. As sad as it is the only reason Ledger's performance got the hype it did was because he passed away.

Now Eckhart as Dent and Latter Two-Face in the small role they gave him was great. A different take from Tommy Lee-Jones, but equally as good if not better. Kane was no Gough, but still a solid perfomance as was Freemans. Oldman(?)(the guy who played Gordon) was decent as well. Were they enough to save the movie. No it was still mess. A mess with some potential, but a mess none the less. For the record "Begins" was better. Still not a great movie, but Freeman, Kane, and Neeson most of all made it watchable.

As for over tones of "reality" anybody who thinks they can give reality to a movie about man in a Bat suit fighting gangs of machine gun armed goons with his mystic ninja-fu. With out acknowledging the sillyness of the concept. Is kidding themselves.
That is a very broad look at the character he played and you know it. And that's the thing, see even i did it at first. I went into comic book movies expecting the exact mirror image of the comics. And this is not how to look at it. The anarchy thing is something he said once to turn dent to the dark side. He doesn't believe that crap that he says. As micheal caine adequately put "some men just want to watch the world burn". I didn't even go into the movie with the "can't wait to see ledger as the joker", attitude. I went in for the Eckart two face to see if he could do the role justice. And i agree he did spectacular. The only problem i had was not that you liked the Nicholson batman more, it was the "you're stupid for thinking the heath ledger batman was good", attitude. Like a said they are completely different roles/characters. Neither was what the sociopath from the comics truly was. And without years of character build, neither will ever be. But the assumption that it got hype because he died is mostly not true. I'm sure it added to it. But ever since the origional teaser hit the theaters and youtube, there was plenty of hype.

Originally posted by omgchos
That is a very broad look at the character he played and you know it. And that's the thing, see even i did it at first. I went into comic book movies expecting the exact mirror image of the comics. And this is not how to look at it. The anarchy thing is something he said once to turn dent to the dark side. He doesn't believe that crap that he says. As micheal caine adequately put "some men just want to watch the world burn". I didn't even go into the movie with the "can't wait to see ledger as the joker", attitude. I went in for the Eckart two face to see if he could do the role justice. And i agree he did spectacular. The only problem i had was not that you liked the Nicholson batman more, it was the "you're stupid for thinking the heath ledger batman was good", attitude. Like a said they are completely different roles/characters. Neither was what the sociopath from the comics truly was. And without years of character build, neither will ever be. But the assumption that it got hype because he died is mostly not true. I'm sure it added to it. But ever since the origional teaser hit the theaters and youtube, there was plenty of hype.

Uh watch the world burn(I.E chaos) is well more or less a different way of saying, you know anarchy. I don't think anybody is stupid for likeing TDK or Ledger Joker, but the hyping him(and the movie) at the expence of Nicholson and "Batman" is just rediculas and needs to be rebuked. Why, not because Ledger's was the worst villian ever, I have seen worse, but simply because it was nothing special, nor was it the best portyal of this kind of villian I have seen, Again with everything in TDK and "Begins" they tried to damn hard and took it far to serious.

I didn't expect it to be a mirror image of the comic. None of them were and I still liked some of them.

While it is true that the movie and Ledger were huge from the begining. His passing is what propelled it from being huge in the Comic Book Forum crowd to being good in the potential Oscar crowd.

On another note its good to find another fan of Eckart's perfomance it is all to often over shadowed by people singing Ledgers praises.

Have to agree with with that guy on the Nicholson Vs. Ledger, Nicholson was far more enjoyable.

I'm sick of the whole "Ledgers Joker is emo" nonsense. If any of the posers ever met Ledgers Joker, they'd be pissing their pants before they get gassed or get a gunshot to the face.



TDK Joker IS insane, he betrayed his own philosophy several times.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I'm sick of the whole "Ledgers Joker is emo" nonsense. If any of the posers ever met Ledgers Joker, they'd be pissing their pants before they get gassed or get a gunshot to the face.

Take your garden variety emo-kid off the street today, give him a machine-gun and the minerals to actually shoot me with it, I'd be scared too. So what's your point?

In short:

Not scary - http://trickledown.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/emo-kid.jpg

Give him a machine-gun, he's scary.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch

TDK Joker IS insane, he betrayed his own philosophy several times.

What?

Originally posted by Robtard
Take your garden variety emo-kid off the street today, give him a machine-gun and the minerals to actually shoot me with it, I'd be scared too. So what's your point?

In short:

Not scary - http://trickledown.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/emo-kid.jpg

Give him a machine-gun, he's scary.

Is the average emo an actual nilhilist like TDK Joker? Are they a tactical genius? A specialist at mind****ery and subterfuge? Are they talented chemists?

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Is the average emo an actual nilhilist like TDK Joker? Are they a tactical genius? A specialist at mind****ery and subterfuge? Are they talented chemists?

Highly doubtful, but give them a machine-gun and the will to use it, they're just as scary.

Originally posted by Robtard
What? People claim that he was making some sort of important point about humanity. While it COULD be true, the fact that he's still acting the way he does despite being proved wrong when Batman doesn't kill him means that he's doing this just to stir s*it up.

Originally posted by Robtard
Highly doubtful, but give them a machine-gun and the will to use it, they're just as scary. Well, yeah. Joker isn't an emo though, just saying.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
People claim that he was making some sort of important point about humanity. While it COULD be true, the fact that he's still acting the way he does despite being proved wrong when Batman doesn't kill him means that he's doing this just to stir s*it up.

Yeah, like he said "I'm an agent of Chaos", Joker likes to cause trouble, it's what makes his day.

What was your original point though?

That Nightstick was misjudging him.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Well, yeah. Joker isn't an emo though, just saying.


Emo-esque and he definitely highly appealed to all the 14-20'ish emos out there when the film came out, because he was so "dark."

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
That Nightstick was misjudging him.

Not by a whole lot.

Well it's not his fault, I doubt that's what Ledger intended, though how would I know? I'm saying that I didn't see him that way.

Originally posted by jaden101
How is unlimited prep time even possible?

Well this doesn't make much sense seeing as Batman gets to plan until victory is 100% certain.

Nightstick, no offence, but you clearly have zero taste. Your completely off-base on pretty much all your points. One thing I noticed was that he wouldn't stand up to Jokers gas, ignoring that Lucius solved scarecrows toxin in one night.

Nolan Batman stands a chance with some of these with his prep time, so I give it a 50/50 split.

It's unlimited prep, so he literally can not lose here. Silly base for a Vs. fight, but it is what it is.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's unlimited prep, so he literally can not lose here. Silly base for a Vs. fight, but it is what it is. I was basically asking if Bales Batman would have the resources to win. Rorschach could have unlimited prep against Dr Manhattan, but he'd never win.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I was basically asking if Bales Batman would have the resources to win. Rorschach could have unlimited prep against Dr Manhattan, but he'd never win.

Dr. Manhatten is god-like, that's why.

And the Riddlers mind control device and Mr Freezes freeze gun doesn't operate on the same science the Nolanverse does.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
And the Riddlers mind control device and Mr Freezes freeze gun doesn't operate on the same science the Nolanverse does.

While the original Batman was set in a more comic-book/unrealistic/fantasy environment, Baleman isn't a moron, Fox definitely isn't a moron and they have billions to drawn upon.

So it stands to reason with "unlimited prep", Batman wins, sure it maybe 3 years of prepping, but it is, what it is.

Originally posted by Nightstick
What's so hard to understand?

Nicholson's Joker was smart, scary, charasmatic, and funny.

Ledgers Joker was the kind of guy all the little goth emos want to be like. The kind of guy that'd set up a web site for his death poetry and wack off to the Crow. I'm mean seriously the guy had to get up every morning and do his f*cking make up. I wouldn't be suprised if his lair was full of Maryln Manson and Rob Zombie posters.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Bruce will be aware that this event is going to happen on a certain date. He knows the date, but not where the dimensional rip takes place.

Unlimited prep time means he can prepare for an infinite amount of time.

Which he can't...cos he'd die.

Originally posted by jaden101


Which he can't...cos he'd die.

It's Batman.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's Batman.

Covers a multitude of sins...Doesn't cover of dieing from Parkinsons through old age though.

Originally posted by jaden101
Covers a multitude of sins...Doesn't cover of dieing from Parkinsons through old age though.

Batman with prep defeats Parkinson's, HIV and Rabies(once set), easy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Batman with prep defeats Parkinson's, HIV and Rabies(once set), easy.

If Ali couldn't beat parkinsons...Batman aint got a hope.

Rabies...BATman...nice link.

Originally posted by jaden101
If Ali couldn't beat parkinsons...Batman aint got a hope.

Rabies...BATman...nice link.

If the Bat-kick can take down the Hulk, Clay ain't got a Jews chance in a Hezbullah pep-rally, ergo, Batman uppercuts Parkinsons, adn don't give me any of that "Parkinsons' will just go to the ropes" nonsense.

Thanks, I try hard.

Originally posted by Robtard
If the Bat-kick can take down the Hulk, Clay ain't got a Jews chance in a Hezbullah pep-rally, ergo, Batman uppercuts Parkinsons, adn don't give me any of that "Parkinsons' will just go to the ropes" nonsense.

Thanks, I try hard.

Bat-kick schmat-kick.

I have the utmost respect for Mr Wayne. He is my hero.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I have the utmost respect for Mr Wayne. He is my hero.

The man keeps a catamite, you perverse bastard.

Arguable only in the Golden Age Comics and Schumacher movies.

A "cured" pederast, is still a pederast.

I said "arguable". From what I see, there's nothing to suggest any tomfoolery.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Nightstick, no offence, but you clearly have zero taste. Your completely off-base on pretty much all your points. One thing I noticed was that he wouldn't stand up to Jokers gas, ignoring that Lucius solved scarecrows toxin in one night.

Nolan Batman stands a chance with some of these with his prep time, so I give it a 50/50 split.

I take it I don't have any taste because I didn't buy into the TDK or Ledger hype? Go ahead spout the party line about how grim and realalistic it is, about how it rejuvinated a dead franchise, about how Ledger gave pathos and reality to the Joker, yada yada yada. Go ahead its all the same nonsense I've heard sense we first saw Ledger's "Scared and angry visage" sense he first time he uttered his oh so iconic lines "Why so serious?". In the end my opinion of the movie is the same a "deep", "dark", and meaningless mess with terrible pace and editing. The truth is while TDK may be a better movie then "Batman and Robin" neither it nor "Begins" is as well put together from structual point of view.

By the by. How are my pont off base. I am just curious which propaganda peice you bought into about TDK/Ledger.

As for the actuall match. Scarecrows gas was a single compound they had a sample of not a combination of half a dozen things from half a dozen stores. That's the difference. It's not breaking down and analysing one sample its going threw an entire store and finding all the right combinations. Unfurtunatly for Baleman he doesn't have Anthology Batman's super computer and similiar tech.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I'm sick of the whole "Ledgers Joker is emo" nonsense. If any of the posers ever met Ledgers Joker, they'd be pissing their pants before they get gassed or get a gunshot to the face.



TDK Joker IS insane, he betrayed his own philosophy several times.

Sure they would, Ledgers Joker is after all a larger then life self indulgent on the part of the film makers and audience, romanticized version of said subculture. A real life cop wouldn't know what to do with McClane or Riggs either and a real life heavy weight would get mauled by Rocky. It doesn't change that at least in the movie world Riggs is a cop and Balboa is a boxer.

Originally posted by Nightstick
Sure they would, Ledgers Joker is after all a larger then life self indulgent on the part of the film makers and audience, romanticized version of said subculture. A real life cop wouldn't know what to do with McClane or Riggs either and a real life heavy weight would get mauled by Rocky. It doesn't change that at least in the movie world Riggs is a cop and Balboa is a boxer.
The joker is not a representation of emo people. And neither is emo a subculture. And how does anything you said after that apply to the fact that the TDK joker was a sociopathic killer, who would kill you as soon as look at you. Being afraid of that kind of person in no way equates to the unrealistic portrayal of cops in movies. And what does rocky have to do with this?

Originally posted by Eminence


Tell me with a straight face that's not how he acted, that he didn't spout the same anti-authority and anarchy rheotoric as said subculture.

Originally posted by Nightstick
Tell me with a straight face that's not how he acted, that he didn't spout the same anti-authority and anarchy rheotoric as said subculture.
Like i said before. He only did the anarchy bit to sway two face into his killing spree. All the rest of his stuff was just to, as i said before, watch the world burn.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Is the average emo an actual nilhilist like TDK Joker? Are they a tactical genius? A specialist at mind****ery and subterfuge? Are they talented chemists?

Was TDK Joker a tactical genius? I recall huge conspicious crude bombs and idiotic opponents? Most emo's are actually rather good at driving people nuts(think about it were talking about overweight guys in tight purple womens pant, what's that do to your mind?)? On the other hand he had at least passable skill in chemistry.

I'm sorry TDK Joker was not some insane, unstoppable mastermind. He was more like another couch surfing emo, with a copy of the anarchists cook book.

Originally posted by omgchos
Like i said before. He only did the anarchy bit to sway two face into his killing spree. All the rest of his stuff was just to, as i said before, watch the world burn.

Watch the world burn=chaos=anarchy more or less. No it wasn't the entirety of his mess of a philosophy, but it more or less sums it up. No matter how much angst and darkness you want to read into his rather bog standered performance. For the record talk to people in said subculture. For the most part their "philosophy" is just as transient and mood dependent.

Also for all your claims of praise for Nicholson, for all your claims of my bias. I see no attempt by you defend Nicholson and considering more people were taking shots at him then Ledger Joker and did so before I expressed my oppinion on TDk/Ledger Joker. It would appear that while you pretend to walk the fence you have a far different, far more bias oppinion on the matter in reality.

Originally posted by Nightstick
Watch the world burn=chaos=anarchy more or less. No it wasn't the entirety of his mess of a philosophy, but it more or less sums it up. No matter how much angst and darkness you want to read into his rather bog standered performance. For the record talk to people in said subculture. For the most part their "philosophy" is just as transient and mood dependent.

Also for all your claims of praise for Nicholson, for all your claims of my bias. I see no attempt by you defend Nicholson and considering more people were taking shots at him then Ledger Joker and did so before I expressed my oppinion on TDk/Ledger Joker. It would appear that while you pretend to walk the fence you have a far different, far more bias oppinion on the matter in reality.
Again you fail to make a point. I said once that you might have nicholson bias. Only once. You just keep spouting this pointless mess. Most anarchists are not emo in the first place. Emo isn't even a subculture. Its a made up word to describe lil outcast kids who wear tight pants and cut themselves. Get your facts straight man.

Originally posted by omgchos
Again you fail to make a point. I said once that you might have nicholson bias. Only once. You just keep spouting this pointless mess. Most anarchists are not emo in the first place. Emo isn't even a subculture. Its a made up word to describe lil outcast kids who wear tight pants and cut themselves. Get your facts straight man.

For the love of god. You people can take things a little to literal. I used Emo(as well as goth and punker rocker(who if you ask them are different groups, that is if they are in the mood for labels) to invoke a certain image and group. It was an easily identified commentary on the nature of Ledgers character and no it wasn't perfect, but it made my point and still does.

As to whether it is a subculture or not. Well freind it has identifible styles, moors, and ethics(some identified by you yourself above). That differ from the mainstream societies in which it exists.

All that aside as interesting as this conversation is. It is derailing the orginal purpose of the thread and as it is oppinion based. Is likely to go unresolved.

See what i mean about not making a point. When you are insulting or otherwise degrading something the "same diffeence argument" does not apply.

Originally posted by omgchos
See what i mean about not making a point. When you are insulting or otherwise degrading something the "same diffeence argument" does not apply.

I'm sorry what the hell are you talking about? What same difference argument?

More to the point, what points have you proven and your made. To some up your argument so far its been. "hey you don't like what I like you must be biased, wrong, or stupid". You started with claiming bias, moved on to wrong, and are know creeping into stupid territory. So stop.

Originally posted by Nightstick
I'm sorry what the hell are you talking about? What same difference argument?

More to the point, what points have you proven and your made. To some up your argument so far its been. "hey you don't like what I like you must be biased, wrong, or stupid". You started with claiming bias, moved on to wrong, and are know creeping into stupid territory. So stop.
Actually i said that stacking up ledger's and nicholsons performance, and saying nothing except that ledgers was emo garbage shows an obvious bias. I never went to stupid until you started making stupid points avout how the joker is emo because he wants anarchy. WHich is when you said goth, punk, emo, and anarchy are all the same(same difference). Its completely false. So you my friend are the one who has moved and taken up residence in the stupid territory.

Originally posted by omgchos
Actually i said that stacking up ledger's and nicholsons performance, and saying nothing except that ledgers was emo garbage shows an obvious bias.


I think the word you are looking for is prefrence. Not bias. Maybe you didn't hear, but people are allowed to have oppinion that are different from your own.

Originally posted by omgchos

I never went to stupid until you started making stupid points avout how the joker is emo because he wants anarchy. WHich is when you said goth, punk, emo, and anarchy are all the same(same difference). Its completely false. So you my friend are the one who has moved and taken up residence in the stupid territory.

Again for those intent impaired. Describing Ledgers Joker as an Emo, Goth, or Punk Rocker invoked the needed images to illustrate my point/oppinion on his character and performance at least to the none literal, non-over anylitical members of the audience. For the record I never said that all those groups were the same. Infact it was you not me in your typical arrogance that relagatted them to "lil outcast kids who cut themselves" instead of identifing them as a social group.

For the record your own bias is in plain site now. You are abviously a member of the have to worship Ledger party. Because while you claim a certain affinity for Nicholson and the other Batman pictures. Comments in other threads would suggest you have never watched them.

Originally posted by Nightstick
I think the word you are looking for is prefrence. Not bias. Maybe you didn't hear, but people are allowed to have oppinion that are different from your own.



Again for those intent impaired. Describing Ledgers Joker as an Emo, Goth, or Punk Rocker invoked the needed images to illustrate my point/oppinion on his character and performance at least to the none literal, non-over anylitical members of the audience. For the record I never said that all those groups were the same. Infact it was you not me in your typical arrogance that relagatted them to "lil outcast kids who cut themselves" instead of identifing them as a social group.

For the record your own bias is in plain site now. You are abviously a member of the have to worship Ledger party. Because while you claim a certain affinity for Nicholson and the other Batman pictures. Comments in other threads would suggest you have never watched them.
laughcry Aww you got your feeling hurt because im pwning you in 2 threads at once. I mean seriously i started of with nothing excpet that i thought you analysis of ledgers role was false and that MIGHT indicate bias. Go back and look i made no accusations. No matter how many big words you put into your responses, it will not change the fact this whole time you have been changing the subject and making false analysis. I used to be a big fan of the batman movies actually. All accept the steaming pile that was Batman returns. Until i found them too childish to be taken seriously by me. I make no attempts at swaying people to my side of the opinion. You just seem content in insulting me changing the subject by convoluteing your post with big worded babble whenever you make a mistake. It quite ammusing to be sure.

Originally posted by Nightstick
Was TDK Joker a tactical genius? I recall huge conspicious crude bombs and idiotic opponents? Most emo's are actually rather good at driving people nuts(think about it were talking about overweight guys in tight purple womens pant, what's that do to your mind?)? On the other hand he had at least passable skill in chemistry.

I'm sorry TDK Joker was not some insane, unstoppable mastermind. He was more like another couch surfing emo, with a copy of the anarchists cook book. Well the Joker accomplished everything he wanted, didn't he? He was always 2 steps ahead, and you are just plain ignorning evidence to say the Nolanverse is full of idiots.As has been mentioned before, The Joker does indeed have a mess of a philosophy. Want to know why? He's LYING. TDK Joker did everything for his own amusement and preferences. If anything, The Joker is more liked a whacked out Max Stirner than a true anarchist or nihilist.

Originally posted by omgchos
laughcry Aww you got your feeling hurt because im pwning you in 2 threads at once. I mean seriously i started of with nothing excpet that i thought you analysis of ledgers role was false and that MIGHT indicate bias. Go back and look i made no accusations. No matter how many big words you put into your responses, it will not change the fact this whole time you have been changing the subject and making false analysis. I used to be a big fan of the batman movies actually. All accept the steaming pile that was Batman returns. Until i found them too childish to be taken seriously by me. I make no attempts at swaying people to my side of the opinion. You just seem content in insulting me changing the subject by convoluteing your post with big worded babble whenever you make a mistake. It quite ammusing to be sure.

You are not pwning me in anything. Infact a grande majority of most your post make little sense.

More over with your they are to childish for me now comments you more or less proved everything I've said about you. That you over-anylise and that you at least currently hold a bias against the older Batman films.

Also the idea that you can take any Batman movie seriously. Is just bizarre. Its a dude in a Batsuit fighting crime.

Originally posted by Nightstick
You are not pwning me in anything. Infact a grande majority of most your post make little sense.

More over with your they are to childish for me now comments you more or less proved everything I've said about you. That you over-anylise and that you at least currently hold a bias against the older Batman films.

Also the idea that you can take any Batman movie seriously. Is just bizarre. Its a dude in a Batsuit fighting crime.
So you just argued that because i felt them childish that makes me wrong and that the fact they are in fact childish makes you right? And there you go with personal insults again. Is that what you have been reduced to?

Originally posted by Nightstick
I never said whether they were childish one way or another. I did say its a bizare concept to take seriously. Which be honest with yourself it is. I did say for all your fence walking "I like both" at the begining you are obviously in the pro-Ledger/TDK. Unless you are going to back track and say that childish is a good thing. Though it'd be a hard sell as you said you used to like them as in past tense. As for personel insults you can't really take the moral high road with that one you have been slinging insults and accusations from post on lets look back at just a couple.



and



On a different note . As this converstation is entirely off topic. I'd like to apologies to the thread starter.
Hahah those aren't even insults. When someone takes a poke at somebody and they use their own insult against them, its justified. Yours were right outta the blue. And you keep assuming that im"pro-ledger" whatever that means. And those movies were extrememly childish in the sense that they were almost a running joke. They were more funny than serious most of the time. And when i movie tries to be serious but comes out funny then that is childish. So all in all my origional point stands. You can't compare ledger and nicholson in the roles they played. They were completely separate movies. The only similarity is the material it was "based" off of. You apperently took that as a personal insult. All i ever meant was that anyone who tries to say which is better is waisting their time. It's like you can't accept that both nicholson and ledger did a good job, and that both deserve credit for their acting prowess. You seem to think because i didn't like the movies that i didn't like nicholson as the joker. This is a baseless assumption. I can like a role someone plays and still hate the movie over all. I used to think they were good like i said. So don't sit here and make childish insults about a well acted role in some poor attempt to raise jack nicholson a peg.

If you are so concerned about the thread than stop responding and concede that you took my origional post the wrong way. And made an improper analysis about TDK/joker. I never made fun of nicholson but you keep going about ledger being an emo anarchist punk goth. Do you even know what you are actually saying? I mean its just repetitive jargin. It's not even an opinion. Its like you want nicholson to be better.

Originally posted by omgchos
Hahah those aren't even insults. When someone takes a poke at somebody and they use their own insult against them, its justified. Yours were right outta the blue. And you keep assuming that im"pro-ledger" whatever that means. And those movies were extrememly childish in the sense that they were almost a running joke. They were more funny than serious most of the time. And when i movie tries to be serious but comes out funny then that is childish. So all in all my origional point stands. You can't compare ledger and nicholson in the roles they played. They were completely separate movies. The only similarity is the material it was "based" off of. You apperently took that as a personal insult. All i ever meant was that anyone who tries to say which is better is waisting their time. It's like you can't accept that both nicholson and ledger did a good job, and that both deserve credit for their acting prowess. You seem to think because i didn't like the movies that i didn't like nicholson as the joker. This is a baseless assumption. I can like a role someone plays and still hate the movie over all. I used to think they were good like i said. So don't sit here and make childish insults about a well acted role in some poor attempt to raise jack nicholson a peg.

If you are so concerned about the thread than stop responding and concede that you took my origional post the wrong way. And made an improper analysis about TDK/joker. I never made fun of nicholson but you keep going about ledger being an emo anarchist punk goth. Do you even know what you are actually saying? I mean its just repetitive jargin. It's not even an opinion. Its like you want nicholson to be better.

I'm not sure the words opinion and insult mean what you think they mean. Look'em up and get back to me. Okay.

Saying someone has bias is an insult is ithmm

I disagree.

Its a theory that i put forward, in the context of your faulty analysis of TDK heath ledger role. I said that you may have a bias Or Something Else. Go look at the post and you will see how much you have gone off topic and how much you have misrepresented the point i made.

You thought Tommie Lee-Jones was as good as Eckhart as Two-face. He was awful, ergo, you have no taste. To top it off you seem to have genuine hatred of Ledgers Joker (a fictional character) and comtempt for the character. Now you can say that you don't like the character or his beliefs, but you have to admit that it was a good portrayal of the character. At the end of the day, you have to admit that he was a solidly 3 dimensional character and not just a 'tricked out emo' as you implied him to be. He has ideals, likes and dislikes, hes no more 2-D then Nicholsons (though imo better in every way).

Also, you shouldn't let your problems with the editing or directing affect your conclusions about the characters, becuase they're ultimately unrelated.



That he was interesting. Surprisingly I can actually come up this one by myself, in the cinema. You see, I, unlike you, can actually form opinions that are only impacted by my own experience and not any petty bias against a fictional character.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You thought Tommie Lee-Jones was as good as Eckhart as Two-face. He was awful, ergo, you have no taste. To top it off you seem to have genuine hatred of Ledgers Joker (a fictional character) and comtempt for the character. Now you can say that you don't like the character or his beliefs, but you have to admit that it was a good portrayal of the character. At the end of the day, you have to admit that he was a solidly 3 dimensional character and not just a 'tricked out emo' as you implied him to be. He has ideals, likes and dislikes, hes no more 2-D then Nicholsons (though imo better in every way).

Also, you shouldn't let your problems with the editing or directing affect your conclusions about the characters, becuase they're ultimately unrelated.



That he was interesting. Surprisingly I can actually come up this one by myself, in the cinema. You see, I, unlike you, can actually form opinions that are only impacted by my own experience and not any petty bias against a fictional character.
Thats what i kept saying. I just said taht he did a good job and if you can't admit it you may have some kind of bias. I liked them both. But he took offense at me saying that his take on the role was wrong.

Originally posted by omgchos
Saying someone has bias is an insult is ithmm

I disagree.


Bias. Indicates a certain level of dishonesty. It's not unlike calling some one a liar. However you only mentioning that you called me bias is nice cherry picking. As you also called me stupid

Originally posted by omgchos

Its a theory that i put forward, in the context of your faulty analysis of TDK heath ledger role. I said that you may have a bias Or Something Else. Go look at the post and you will see how much you have gone off topic and how much you have misrepresented the point i made.

How about we have looksy at what you wrote.....

Originally posted by omgchos
Well honestly i'd have to say that if you didn't think that both ledger's, and nicholson's portrayal were good, you have some kind of bias here.


Tha'ts right its not that I may have a bias. Its that you honestly believe I do.

Originally posted by omgchos

Whether it be the oh, so infamous Tim Burton fandom or something else.


Here you mention the possiblity of something else, but what's mentioned here is not a lack of bias, but rather that it may be caused by some thing other then Burton Fanboy-ism

Originally posted by omgchos

Legders joker was just the right amount of dark and malicious, not to mention the manerisms. This was what the joker was. Nicholson was a completely different take on hte joker character. Both of them worthy of enormous praise.


Why if they are both worthy of praise do you feel the need to only defend ledger? I mean you agreed with this

Originally posted by Nephthys
At the end of the day, you have to admit that he was a solidly 3 dimensional character and not just a 'tricked out emo' as you implied him to be. He has ideals, likes and dislikes, hes no more 2-D then Nicholsons (though imo better in every way).


Or at least felt no need to defend Nicholson's performance

Nor did you feel the need to say anything in regards to such comments as this

Originally posted by Luminatus
Nicholson Joker surrenders and shakes Baleman's hand in congratulations of fivctory.

or this in regards to Nicholsons Joker being better

Originally posted by Darth Martin


Yet when you detected an insult to Ledger's Joker. You were all over it. Curious behavior for somebody who liked both equal. Again this indicates that if one of us is being bias or dishonest about our opinion. Its you. If you don't like Nicholson just say it.

Now you have lodged the complaint against me that I called Ledger an Emo, Goth, and Punk Rocker. Claiming that he is not.

I have admitted that my commentary was not meant to be taken literaly a concept you still don't seem to understand. How ever it is interesting to note that his look was based on the punk rock look and their is deffinatly some some goth and emo influence in both his appearence and appearent ideology. You trying to pretend like their isn't is silly. The costume designers have more or less said so(at least in regards to punk rock).

Now so you understand the concept of none literal review/commentary lets have look at some things you have written.

Originally posted by omgchos
I used to be a big fan of the batman movies actually. All accept the steaming pile that was Batman returns. Until i found them too childish


Hmm. I doubt you literaly mean that the characters act like children or that it was directed at children, but you said it anyway. No doubt to intone your feeling that it was silly. For referance the definition of childish

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/childish

Nor is it likely that you believe. "Batman Returns" is literaly made of excrement(I image that was the manner of pile you were referancing), but it invoked the neccesary visual image and had the right social and vernacular connotations to make your point. So you said it. Same way I used Emo.

Once again. While it may be hard for you to understand. People can honestly have opinion that differ from you. You liked Ledger fine, you liked or disliked Nicholson fine. Its your deal.

Now I on the other hand found Ledgers performance less then stellar. Though some it was not his fault. Some of the fault falls to the character as it was written. A character that seemed at least to me to be an over the top jalopy of every anti-authority, counter culture subcultue their is. Far from scarey or smart he came across like Napoleon Dynamite in face paint intoning how bad ass he was.

Again. Just so you understand this is my honest opinion and some of what I said of should not be taken completly literal. Do you understand?

Originally posted by Nephthys
You thought Tommie Lee-Jones was as good as Eckhart as Two-face. He was awful, ergo, you have no taste. To top it off you seem to have genuine hatred of Ledgers Joker (a fictional character) and comtempt for the character. Now you can say that you don't like the character or his beliefs, but you have to admit that it was a good portrayal of the character. At the end of the day, you have to admit that he was a solidly 3 dimensional character and not just a 'tricked out emo' as you implied him to be. He has ideals, likes and dislikes, hes no more 2-D then Nicholsons (though imo better in every way).


No I can say this the character sucked and his performance was nothing special. As I said before others have played similiar characters better. He wasn't a 3 dimensional character. We learned nothing about him. What did he like? What did he want? No, I'm sorry the character was a bad characticher of the subcultures i've already noted, mixed with bad Hollywood manic, genuis villian cliche's. Played by I guy who had no buisness playing the role. He wasn't scary, nor creepy, nor did he come across particularly smart. Now was Nicholson a 3 dimensional character, not particularly though he far more of a character and arch then Ledger. Had an actualy story. The real difference though is that Nicholsons character was unique and he played it to a T. It helps that he fit the role perfect.

Originally posted by Nephthys

Also, you shouldn't let your problems with the editing or directing affect your conclusions about the characters, becuase they're ultimately unrelated.


It doesn't I liked Two-Face, Alfred, and Lucius. The comment about the quality of the film were more directed at the comments about how bad the Batman Anthology films were.


Originally posted by Nephthys

That he was interesting. Surprisingly I can actually come up this one by myself, in the cinema.


Fine I'll play along. What did you fin interesting about him?

Originally posted by Nephthys

You see, I, unlike you, can actually form opinions that are only impacted by my own experience and not any petty bias against a fictional character.

You displayed distain for "Forever" Two-Face. Does that mean you have a bias against him? or simply that you disliked the character/performance?

Originally posted by Nightstick
Bias. Indicates a certain level of dishonesty. It's not unlike calling some one a liar. However you only mentioning that you called me bias is nice cherry picking. As you also called me stupid



How about we have looksy at what you wrote.....



Tha'ts right its not that I may have a bias. Its that you honestly believe I do.



Here you mention the possiblity of something else, but what's mentioned here is not a lack of bias, but rather that it may be caused by some thing other then Burton Fanboy-ism



Why if they are both worthy of praise do you feel the need to only defend ledger? I mean you agreed with this



Or at least felt no need to defend Nicholson's performance

Nor did you feel the need to say anything in regards to such comments as this



or this in regards to Nicholsons Joker being better



Yet when you detected an insult to Ledger's Joker. You were all over it. Curious behavior for somebody who liked both equal. Again this indicates that if one of us is being bias or dishonest about our opinion. Its you. If you don't like Nicholson just say it.

Now you have lodged the complaint against me that I called Ledger an Emo, Goth, and Punk Rocker. Claiming that he is not.

I have admitted that my commentary was not meant to be taken literaly a concept you still don't seem to understand. How ever it is interesting to note that his look was based on the punk rock look and their is deffinatly some some goth and emo influence in both his appearence and appearent ideology. You trying to pretend like their isn't is silly. The costume designers have more or less said so(at least in regards to punk rock).

Now so you understand the concept of none literal review/commentary lets have look at some things you have written.



Hmm. I doubt you literaly mean that the characters act like children or that it was directed at children, but you said it anyway. No doubt to intone your feeling that it was silly. For referance the definition of childish

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/childish

Nor is it likely that you believe. "Batman Returns" is literaly made of excrement(I image that was the manner of pile you were referancing), but it invoked the neccesary visual image and had the right social and vernacular connotations to make your point. So you said it. Same way I used Emo.

Once again. While it may be hard for you to understand. People can honestly have opinion that differ from you. You liked Ledger fine, you liked or disliked Nicholson fine. Its your deal.

Now I on the other hand found Ledgers performance less then stellar. Though some it was not his fault. Some of the fault falls to the character as it was written. A character that seemed at least to me to be an over the top jalopy of every anti-authority, counter culture subcultue their is. Far from scarey or smart he came across like Napoleon Dynamite in face paint intoning how bad ass he was.

Again. Just so you understand this is my honest opinion and some of what I said of should not be taken completly literal. Do you understand?

Ok first the childish bit.....
# Of or suitable for a child.
# Behaving immaturely.
All of those stupid looking gadgets and colors where they shouldn't be is childish enough. Men in big green tights, and every villain is made to look like they have just popped out of a carnival. Like the vido i posted in the other thread, the penguin is sitting in a mini batcar bouncing around in it likes it's a video game making little kid comments while driving the batcar. And on top of that the gadget he put on the bottom looked like a box with an antenna and a spinning top stuck to it. Poison Ivy looked like something out of a saturday morning cartoon, and mr freeze looked like a transformer. Not to mention the whole freezing thing he did. It looked like one of those old cartoons where someone stays out in the snow to long and little icicles form on them. And they stay alive for what 10 minutes while incased in ice. I disagree. There are many more things i could mention, but if you like them fine i don't care. But don't tell me they don't have a childish aspect to them.

Then the Bias......

Twisting my words does not prove you right. I said you probably have bias, specifically tim burton fanboyism. Or something else. Something besides bias. And btw i think by now i've proven that you do indeed have bias. And saying someone is bias is not an insult. It denotes no lack of honesty. It indicates that because you like or agree with something that you look at all other things in a different way. Like if i am a die hard mission impossible fan(the show that is). And when i go and see the Tom Cruise movie where Phelps turns out to be the bad guy, i am outraged. Because he was the main character in my favorite show. I won't look at the movie for what it is, ill focus on the fact that they have altered a favorite character of mine. This is true for a few people i know. And when i tell them they are obviously biased towards the show they don't take it as an insult as a child would. They see it for what it is. The Truth.

Now the last bit......

Saying a movie is a steaming pile of shit and calling a character from a movie a representation of a subculture of emo people is not even in the same ball park. One is a comment on quality while the other is a comment on substance. I like how you always twist words and fail miserably it is quite amusing. And you say i never defend Nicholson. Against what should i be defending him. So far you have insulted ledger, and i defended him. If you had insulted nicholsons character in such a biased and inaccurate way i would have(now your even going as far as to put words in my mouth?). And why shouldn't i take what you say litteraly? Are you being sarcastic? Should i just put you on my ignore list because by your own admission you gonna be talking nonsense and nothing you say should be taken seriously?

Originally posted by omgchos
Ok first the childish bit.....
# Of or suitable for a child.
# Behaving immaturely.
All of those stupid looking gadgets and colors where they shouldn't be is childish enough. Men in big green tights, and every villain is made to look like they have just popped out of a carnival. Like the vido i posted in the other thread, the penguin is sitting in a mini batcar bouncing around in it likes it's a video game making little kid comments while driving the batcar. And on top of that the gadget he put on the bottom looked like a box with an antenna and a spinning top stuck to it. Poison Ivy looked like something out of a saturday morning cartoon, and mr freeze looked like a transformer. Not to mention the whole freezing thing he did. It looked like one of those old cartoons where someone stays out in the snow to long and little icicles form on them. And they stay alive for what 10 minutes while incased in ice. I disagree. There are many more things i could mention, but if you like them fine i don't care. But don't tell me they don't have a childish aspect to them.


While I'll admitt that their are elements that could be taken as childish. Their was also a fair bit of death, destruction, and mayham. So calling it childish is not entirely accurate. Nor can it be taken entirely literaly. Yet it got your point across. In an applicable way. Much the same way that my commentary on Ledger Joker while not 100% literal or accurate reasonable convayed my opinion on the matter.

Originally posted by omgchos

Then the Bias......

Twisting my words does not prove you right. I said you probably have bias, specifically tim burton fanboyism. Or something else. Something besides bias. And btw i think by now i've proven that you do indeed have bias. And saying someone is bias is not an insult. It denotes no lack of honesty. It indicates that because you like or agree with something that you look at all other things in a different way. Like if i am a die hard mission impossible fan(the show that is). And when i go and see the Tom Cruise movie where Phelps turns out to be the bad guy, i am outraged. Because he was the main character in my favorite show. I won't look at the movie for what it is, ill focus on the fact that they have altered a favorite character of mine. This is true for a few people i know. And when i tell them they are obviously biased towards the show they don't take it as an insult as a child would. They see it for what it is. The Truth.


Lets break down your Mission Impossible example. So these people you know. First claim that the Mission Impossible movie is bad. Then you correct them to the truth. That its not bad they are just bias. Strange. Even while claiming their is no dishonesty. You draw a distinction between an honest reaction/opinion and a bias one.

The second problem is while a bias may have been true for your Mission Impossible fans. Its not the only reason why some one may like the Mission Impossible TV show and not the movie.

I get the idea that the basic crux of your argument is that I dislike Ledger(Joker) because I like Nicholson(Joker). Because obviously nobody could dislike Ledger on his own merit. , but lets put this argument to rest. I liked Joker from the Adam West show, Nicholson Joker, Joker from Batman the Animated Series, Joker from the comics, Joker from Bird of Prey the TV show etc. So its not NIcholson fanboyism. "Forever" was my favorite Batman movie. So its not Burton fanboyism. I was a fan both Jones's and Eckhart Two-Face. So its not even a bias against style change. Though I will admitt that I prefered the style of the Batman Anthology over that of the Nolanverse Batman. That's not to say that the Nolanverse was with out it good parts. As I have already mentioned Ras, Gordon, Lucius, Alfred, Dent etc.

In other words your seeing bias where it doesn't exist. I realise it comes as a suprise to you, but some of us simply didn't like Ledger Joker or TDK. I know saying this will have little impact on you brainwashing, but I thought i'd say it anyhow.

Originally posted by omgchos

Now the last bit......

Saying a movie is a steaming pile of shit and calling a character from a movie a representation of a subculture of emo people is not even in the same ball park. One is a comment on quality while the other is a comment on substance. I like how you always twist words and fail miserably it is quite amusing. And you say i never defend Nicholson. Against what should i be defending him. So far you have insulted ledger, and i defended him. If you had insulted nicholsons character in such a biased and inaccurate way i would have(now your even going as far as to put words in my mouth?). And why shouldn't i take what you say litteraly? Are you being sarcastic? Should i just put you on my ignore list because by your own admission you gonna be talking nonsense and nothing you say should be taken seriously?

You can try and make all the symantic distinctions you want, but if you'd be happier with me calling Ledger Joker a steaming pile of sh*t. I'm comfortable with that. Though I still think emo b*tch in runny make up is more descriptive and just as apt.

Sorry. Pretending like you'd defend Nicholson Joker when you haven't is just silly.

As for the literal vs non-literal thing. If ya haven't figured it out yet from examples like Batman Returns is not actually made of excrement etc. Then yes by all means put me on your ignore list. I'd rather not deal with your jibberish anyhow.

wtf is mayham.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
wtf is mayham.

A mis-spelling of mayhem.

Back on topic while Nolonverse Batman may be out of his league facing Joker or a reinforced Riddler, or Mr. Freeze. He'd have a shot at Penguin who is crude by comparison to the others, and Catwoman if he could catch her alone and by suprise. He could even go up against Two-Face. His real problems starts when he either goes against super tech or the villian team up.

Originally posted by Nightstick
A mis-spelling of mayhem. I know, just messin with ya.