how can anyone forget Heath's Joker's firetruck? That is the Joker's humor! And the dressing up as a nurse? Not to mention the blowing up of the hospital, you know when he keeps pressing the button to make a bigger explosion. All of those traits and gags are true to the Joker. Therefore, Heath's Joker rocks.
Originally posted by DethRose
how can anyone forget Heath's Joker's firetruck? That is the Joker's humor! And the dressing up as a nurse? Not to mention the blowing up of the hospital, you know when he keeps pressing the button to make a bigger explosion. All of those traits and gags are true to the Joker. Therefore, Heath's Joker rocks.
QFT...
Dark Knight wasn't about Batman... It was about Joker...
That portrayal was the best... and it will never be seen again... bawling
I never thought Bale was GREAT in either movie. He is adequate but he never really gets a ton to work with. I'm starting to think it's the character of Batman on screen though. As Bruce mainly broods, entertains people and then he is most compelling when he is fighting crime. I personally though think Batman got to do the most in this film and I was happy with that, especially the action scenes this time.
A load of Burton fans are confused as to why Nolan fans are praising Heath's Joker and his dominance of the film while condemning the fact that the villains upstaged the hero in the original movies. Well, I think that's a misunderstanding. The Dark Knight is fundamentally about Batman and his conflict; he's still the central character with human emotions and real moral conflicts. After all, it's his ethical dilemma that carries the film's narrative.
In the Burton movies, Batman is really just a one-dimensional, uninteresting character with little emotional relevance to the story.
I don't think that is necessarily true. The scripts were not as good in the Burton films I agree but I still felt the struggle between his two identities and his life of isolation and obsession with crime. And thankfully in the Burton movies Batman had a lot less dialogue. He talked way too much IMO in the Dark Knight and that voice grated.
I didn't feel any sort of struggle coming from Bruce. I mean, seriously- the man had no problem getting whatever he wants. The Batman identity never got in the way of his personal desire and such. He displayed no sort of moral or emotional value to the story; in fact, he repeatedly murdered people (and got a completely selfish 'revenge', too), and that is shown to be completely okay. He doesn't mind it. That's simplistic and one-dimensional.
Bale's Batman, however, was a very interesting character who adds a lot to the story; his ethical choices are, in particular, riveting and thought-provoking. He's a flawed character, even directly within the movie. The Dark Knight also questions Batman's motives and the general sanity of a vigilante who dresses up like a bat; did Burton's films have any of that? No.
The revenge aspect isn't shocking considering what he discovered though that whole plot twist wasn't right. Even Bruce went after Joe Chill in Begins. I don't feel he was simplistic or one dimensional at all. And I don't think Bruce was 100% complex in the Dark Knight either. I think he had more compelling stuff to work with in Begins, but Begins was boring to me.
I don't think the plot twist 'wasn't right'. I didn't have any problem with the fact that the Joker killed Bruce's parents; the only problem was that the whole plot point was undeveloped and endorsed simplistic vigilante justice by letting Bruce kill the Joker and be absolutely cool with it. In Batman Begins, Bruce didn't kill Joe Chill, and the movie portrays that aspect of selfish revenge as wrong. Really, do you want a Batman who is perfectly fine with killing nonstop, using selfish revenge, and has the ability to lead a perfectly normal life and still has no actual emotional conflict or dilemmas to deal with? THAT'S one-dimensional.
Btw, I agree that Bruce's story in Begins was more compelling, but that's because the whole movie was about him. TDK is really an ensemble movie.
Originally posted by SelinaAndBruceOne of the things I was suprised by when I first saw the movie was how impressive Bale was and how overhyped Ledger was. I think that was mostly because it is usually more impacting to see a tragic character rather than pure evil. Bale did everything that was required of Bruce Wayne, which is a human being trying to become an ubermensch. He is an almost perfect human being physically and mentally, but is having his ethics pushed to the limit. If the character seems boring, it is because he is almost at the pinnacle of perfection, or tries to be. This idea that an actor try to push "beyond" the role required makes little sense for Bruce/Batman because he is his philosophy.
I never thought Bale was GREAT in either movie. He is adequate but he never really gets a ton to work with. I'm starting to think it's the character of Batman on screen though. As Bruce mainly broods, entertains people and then he is most compelling when he is fighting crime. I personally though think Batman got to do the most in this film and I was happy with that, especially the action scenes this time.
Originally posted by Bat Dude
After watching the performance a couple more times (thanks to my TDK DVD), I think we overrated Heath Ledger's (R.I.P.) Joker a tiny bit...Don't get me wrong, he's still bar none the best live action Joker we've ever had the pleasure of viewing (Jack's is still good, though, especially during the Joybuzzer scene), but he didn't seem "amazing" anymore after the first viewing (maybe that's just me)...
Let me put it this way: Is Heath's Joker the best we've seen? Hell yeah. Is he untouchable in the role? Absolutely not.
I think it's just like with Christian Bale as Batman: The first time you saw him in character, you were in awe, and immediately went on the internet to rant about how awesome he was, but after repeated viewings, you begin to realize it isn't the perfect performance...
But yeah, Ledger > Nicholson, though I still enjoy Jack's Englehart/Rogers Joker...
The same could be said with just about any role, not just Heath's Joker.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I don't think the plot twist 'wasn't right'. I didn't have any problem with the fact that the Joker killed Bruce's parents; the only problem was that the whole plot point was undeveloped and endorsed simplistic vigilante justice by letting Bruce kill the Joker and be absolutely cool with it. In Batman Begins, Bruce didn't kill Joe Chill, and the movie portrays that aspect of selfish revenge as wrong. Really, do you want a Batman who is perfectly fine with killing nonstop, using selfish revenge, and has the ability to lead a perfectly normal life and still has no actual emotional conflict or dilemmas to deal with? THAT'S one-dimensional.Btw, I agree that Bruce's story in Begins was more compelling, but that's because the whole movie was about him. TDK is really an ensemble movie.
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I think Jack was the only good part of '89 Batman. His performace is very underrated by Ledger fanboys(though I admit that Ledger was better). '89 Batman is a failure on all levels when compared to TDK, even the visuals are better.
Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I don't really consider Batman having killed the Joker. I feel like the Joker did himself in by trying to escape that desperately after getting tethered to that statue.
Batman wanted to kill the Joker, and there is no indication he wouldn't have done it otherwise.