You like the sequels, but not the original

Started by Nephthys7 pages

How is that even slightly disagreeing with me? I said that I wanted a more comic-like Joker and you mentioned how scarier Ledger was to Nicholson's Joker.

How is that relevant to anything I've mentioned?

Nicholsons was a far more traditional, wacky clown serial killer Joker, simultaneously trying to be scary and funny, like how the Joker was commonly portrayed. I don't know if you meant comic-like as in 'more like in a comic' or as in comical, but Nicholson did both. He had his little Joker-gadgets and used the Joker toxin unique to the character and made his sociopathic humour yet still failed to deliver a proformance on Ledgers level.

And you said that a more 'comic-like' Joker would be more sinister than Ledgers one. That was what I disagreed with, citing that that had already been tried and found lacking.

And you don't seem to have a problem with Ledger's Joker, but with the whole Nolen-verse, which focus' on more realism and not being 'comic-like'. And as has been said Ledger still made his Joker similar to one of the incarnations in the comics.

Originally posted by Ultraviolence
I honestly would have liked a more comic-like Joker than this cater-to-the-majority-lick-his-chops-a-thousand-times less sinister version of the Joker. This simply wasn't the Joker I was expecting but I knew I wasn't going to get the Joker I was expecting.

Disagreed. The spirit, attitude, and personality of the character was the same to me. The only change was the setting.

Once again it's about the writing/directing/acting involved with the joker.

yeah, I get it. The joker is good in the film.

The story sucks big greasy, salty lugnuts. It's too convoluted, tries to incorporate to many villains, and climaxes two times too many.

Originally posted by One Free Man

The story sucks big greasy, salty lugnuts. It's too convoluted, tries to incorporate to many villains, and climaxes two times too many.

TDK?

it did'nt have that many villains in it and "It's too convoluted" it was easy to understand what was going on for me.

Originally posted by One Free Man
The story sucks big greasy, salty lugnuts. It's too convoluted, tries to incorporate to many villains, and climaxes two times too many.
Convoluted...?

What was hard to follow for you about the story?

And it only had two real villains.

Originally posted by One Free Man
The story sucks big greasy, salty lugnuts. It's too convoluted, tries to incorporate to many villains, and climaxes two times too many.
This is the part where I challenge you to name a better comic book film adaptation.

The only film on the same level as it is Watchmen IMO. None of the others are close.

Blade 2, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Terminator 2, Evil Dead 2, Army of Darkness (I find it totally AWESOME with Campbell's one liners), The Dark Knight, Batman Return's (yes, I admit it, I find it better that Batman (1989), Return of the King, etc.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Blade 2, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Terminator 2, Evil Dead 2, Army of Darkness (I find it totally AWESOME with Campbell's one liners), The Dark Knight, Batman Return's (yes, I admit it, I find it better that Batman (1989), Return of the King, etc.

whoa now. this is the like the sequals but not the original thread.Your not actually saying you didnt like Terminater One or Batman Begins are you? please tell me thats not the case,that you were thinking it was a thread where you liked the sequals better than the original cause Batman Begins and Terminater one are both very good and excellent films.Im thinking thats what you meant cause you mentioned you liked Batman Returns better than Batman 89.again your not suppose to like the original movie at all.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri [That's too easy of a get-out clause, though: "People wouldn't be saying it if he died.".

Why? Daniel Day-Lewis was praised as giving one of the best performances since Orson Welles in Citizen Kane for There Will Be Blood. Yet, if he died and got the same praise, people would say the same thing.

People that perish are treated differently once they die than they did when they were alive and that kind of logic works on a larger scale for famous people. Individuals tend to think only of the positive highlights of an individual and even unnecessarily praise them once they've died.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that's it is right or even reasonable but it is what people do. Also, I don't think that works evenly. Day-Lewis is known as one of the greatest method actors but Heath Ledger wasn't. Sure, Ledger was always praised as a great actor but not on the same scale as Day-Lewis. He might go from, let's say for argument's sake, seventy two percent popularity to ninety three percent popularity, whereas Day-Lewis is already high enough that he cannot go much higher once he's deceased.

I have to agree. People probably would say the same thing about Day-Lewis but that is because "people" aren't too bright for the most part.

It's very likely that his death garnered acclaim, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a revelation in that role, because he was.

I'd have to agree. I thought his role was superbly well done.

Also, I think what Ultra means by "comic-like" is comic book, not comic as in comical. To that I ask what would you have done? That Joker is so much like the one in The Killing Joke that it's uncanny. Considering that T.K.J. is considered to be the Joker's definitive story, what would you have done to make him MORE comic-like?

It depends, really. The Joker has a very unpredictable personality and I think that nailing his character isn't something that's really an easy task but some of the mannerisms were a little awkward and the Joker simply seemed "eccentric" instead of insane. I thought that Ledger's Joker was more akin to Brian Azzarello's Joker than the canonical Joker in "The Killing Joke."

I'm not saying the Joker in TDK was necessarily a lower quality Joker. I'm simply saying that Nolan's "realism" formulae may have been a little less symmetrical to the insanely hyperactive magic of the Joker I see in comic books. Ledger's Joker was great in it's own right but I see all of these biased fanboys constantly shouting, "Oh dear! It was so much like the comics! It was the greatest Joker ever! RIP! RIP!" It's rather annoying.

I don't think The Dark Knight was light years ahead of Batman Begins, but to suggest there's a better crafted superhero movie out there is ridiculous to me personally. Batman isn't a fly around, big explosions, C.G.I. style hero, you have to realise that. If the reason you think it isn't a good superhero movie is because it doesn't have half the glisten of Iron Man, then you need to learn to appreciate them for what they are and are not.

I'd have to agree with this. A lot of individuals believe that the superhero formula has to be the same in every media outlet it is placed in and I especially think that's incorrect regarding Batman. He shares similarities to those heroes but he is a whole different ball park.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
You like the sequel better? I haven't seen any of them all the way through but most claim the original Lethal Weapon is an action classic and THE definitive "cop buddy" film. It's on my "most wanted dvds" list.

yeah I only rented it cause many people were always coming up to me and saying-Dude have you seen Lethal Weapon? and when I answered no,they would say-Oh you got to see it,its awesome,its amazing and things like that.So I rented it going in expecting a lot so i was kinda let down by it I think is why I mainly didn't like it.

If nobody had said anything and I had just happened to have been watching it casually by chance,I probably would have liked it more than I did I think but because those people billed it up so much,I was let down by it I think.

When Lethal Weapon Two came out,even though people were saying the same thing again,I went in not expecting much since I was really dissapointed with the first film and to my pleasant surprise,I loved it.So the expectations played a big part in this case on those movies.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Convoluted...?

What was hard to follow for you about the story?

I still dont understand what the whole laou-skyhook thing was about, for instance.

Also, wtf was with the ending. bats HAS to be the bad guy? will gotham really commit suicide if they hear that the D.A. went insane after a painful and disfiguring injury? I dont even know the name of the D.A. in my district. 😮

edit: also, i'm critiquing it as a film, comparable to other films, not a comic book adaptation. Imo, bb was better even if I was.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I still dont understand what the whole laou-skyhook thing was about, for instance.

Also, wtf was with the ending. bats HAS to be the bad guy? will gotham really commit suicide if they hear that the D.A. went insane after a painful and disfiguring injury? I dont even know the name of the D.A. in my district. 😮

Gotham was in shambles, as far as crime rate goes. Harvey was getting shit done to fix it, he gave the people hope. If they knew he had fallen from grace, odds are they would have given up totally.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Gotham was in shambles, as far as crime rate goes. Harvey was getting shit done to fix it, he gave the people hope. If they knew he had fallen from grace, odds are they would have given up totally.
he had just been elected without one conviction, as I recall.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I still dont understand what the whole laou-skyhook thing was about, for instance.

The Chinese wouldn't extradite a native. Meaning, Gotham PD couldn't take Lau back after he left to his home country. Seeing as how Batman seemingly works alone, he improvised and brought him back under his own power.

The whole conversation on the roof involving Dent, Batman, and Gordon explained this pretty clearly.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
The Chinese wouldn't extradite a native. Meaning, Gotham PD couldn't take Lau back after he left to his home country. Seeing as how Batman seemingly works alone, he improvised and brought him back under his own power.

The whole conversation on the roof involving Dent, Batman, and Gordon explained this pretty clearly.

soooo its like revenge? also you can't convict a citizen of another country, especially after kidnapping him from his. Also I dont think the chinese would see that wth kind eyes. 😐

and one other thing, how does that sequence ad to the story, the characters, and/or flow? It doesnt. Its an arch that doesnt have much to do with anything.

it's as if in the midle of esb, luke went on a personal vendetta after boba fett and then tried to get vader.

Originally posted by One Free Man
soooo its like revenge? also you can't convict a citizen of another country, especially after kidnapping him from his. Also I dont think the chinese would see that wth kind eyes. 😐

and one other thing, how does that sequence ad to the story, the characters, and/or flow? It doesnt. Its an arch that doesnt have much to do with anything.

it's as if in the midle of esb, luke went on a personal vendetta after boba fett and then tried to get vader.

What do you mean? It's an integral part.

It was proof to the Joker and his goons that Batman has no jurisdiction, so it compounded his claims and made them turn to him for help. "Oh, Joker was right!", sort of thing.

It also aided Dent in locking up half of Gotham's crime bosses, so it cemented his place as Gotham's white knight, because he now had Lau and Batman was the only way they could get Lau: "If I get you Lau, can you get him to talk?", "I'll get him to sing.".

This, in turn, made Dent an even more viable target for the Joker's scheme. He had done something nobody else could and was viewed with in a more glowing light than anyone had been before. Belief that this guy was incorruptable was at an all time high and the public loved him for it. It's what made him a perfect example of what Joker was saying.

If he was just some good natured politician, it wouldn't have worked.

Try watching the movie first.

-AC

Originally posted by One Free Man
Once again it's about the writing/directing/acting involved with the joker.

yeah, I get it. The joker is good in the film.

The story sucks big greasy, salty lugnuts. It's too convoluted, tries to incorporate to many villains, and climaxes two times too many.

Once again, disagreed. The story felt so organic and flowing to me. Everything that happened felt like the logical next step from the scene prior.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
whoa now. this is the like the sequals but not the original thread.Your not actually saying you didnt like Terminater One or Batman Begins are you? please tell me thats not the case,that you were thinking it was a thread where you liked the sequals better than the original cause Batman Begins and Terminater one are both very good and excellent films.Im thinking thats what you meant cause you mentioned you liked Batman Returns better than Batman 89.again your not suppose to like the original movie at all.

It's his opinion, dude.

And to be honest, I'm fighting with "Batman Begins" because I'm still not sure if I actually liked it or not.

Nonsense, Batman Begins is a better film than Batman:TDK, this is just a fact.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nonsense, Batman Begins is a better film than Batman:TDK, this is just a fact.

More like fiction.