I used to believe that Ledger's Joker was damn near infallible, but now I don't. He's one of my favorites and one of the most entertaining, but Palpatine's probably my top pick in this sort of genre.
^ Rather than refute this, all the poor guy got was a series of caustic "no u"'s. Between the Joker and Palpatine, I think the advantage lies overwhelmingly with the Emperor. His schemes and manipulations occur on a galactic scale and even the most unbelievable development is tempered by the fact that in addition to being a genius, Palpatine is the beneficiary of powerful clairvoyance and precognition due to the Force in addition to the dark side clouding the Jedi's collective judgment and perceptions. Even then, the man suffers some setbacks which he must cleverly redirect into victories.
Meanwhile, Nolan makes the Joker's schemes absolutely ridiculous, affording him a level of near omniscience. When he does fail, it's for ludacris reasons: Not one of the convicted felons in Gotham had the ruthless stones to push the button and save their asses? The Joker failed to convince murderers to murder? It was heavy-handed and thoughtless, IMHO.
The Joker's manipulation of Dent is equally unconvincing as is Dent's rationale for supporting chaos, after it was the Joker who was responsible for Rachel's death. The-editing-room summed it up permanently: "I'm not going to kill the Joker for murdering Rachel, I'm going to kill Batman and Gordan for failing to save her."
Meanwhile, Palpatine sets the stage for Anakin's manipulations across (at the very least) two films. It's more developed and more realistic than what happened to Dent. More importantly, it's essential to understand the difference between 'the dark side' and Dent's decision. As we know from Star Wars, the dark side doesn't always enter through rational choice. Palpatine's plan to corrupt Luke (which very nearly succeeded) was simply to goad him into drawing from the dark side's power; it's an addiction.
I think the Joker's great, but I just think, upon further clarity, Nolan became too wrapped up with making the Joker seem uber-l33t that it came off bad.
Just a matter of preference and I think Palpatine's character, from methods to motivations, is just more understandable, fallible, and impressive.
I love Palpatine, but I honestly don't see him as a great villian. He seems to be evil simply for its own sake. That's cool and all but it just doesn't make him a deep or complex character.
Scale is irrelevent in terms of who is the superior characters. Some of the greatest characters of all time deal with things on the personal level. On the very smallest scale possible. Just because a guy can blow up planets doesn't mak him a good character.
This is a good thing because? I'm sure being able to predict teh future makes it really fvcking easy for him to do stuff. Gee, what a great character trait. I sure love the guy now.
Actually alot of those guys did want to press the button. But the guards armed with machine guns kinda stopped them.
No it isn't. As the Joker rightly points out, he didn't do a goddamn thing to Rachel. He didn't kidnap her. He didn't tie her to that chair and set the clock running. It was the corrupt police that he had spent years fighting against who did that. The corrupt police who called for Batmans surrender because the Joker was killig cops, and who then turned around and helped the Joker. The very police who hours before he had been praising. And they turned and they stabbed him in the heart, proving that 'when the chips are down, these civilised people will eat each other.'
Thats what turned him. Thats called called a fvcking realistic motivation. Better than UNLIMITED POWAH at any rate.
Sure.
'You should get power because I think you teh greatest jedi ever and I know about this dude who can bring people to life even though I myself cant do it. Also kill Dooku. DO IT!'
Reeeeal realistic.
No, you don't get to write off Dents corruption after he fvcking goes insane and then write that its believable for Anakin to be a retard because teh darkside makes you dumb. Thats stoopid.
Wat.
'UNLIMITED POWAH!' Well I suppose having the most basic and cliche motivation possible is certainly ..... well its certainly a thing.
Palpatine is the same cliche villian who wants to conquer the galaxy that we see in everthing. He wants power for powers sake. Real awesome character right there.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on May 26th, 2011 at 09:41 PM
'Tragic depth and political weight'? What a load. There was nothing 'tragic' about Anakin's fall at all. He was nice as a kid, but also unbearably annoying. And by he time of AOTC he's so different he might as well be another character. After that Anakin is a massive prick 24/7. His fall was lame as hell because he never even fell. Also the political wieght was Dictatorship = Bad. Yeah, my mind was blown too.
Don't care. Action is filler between charcters talking.
Again, don't care. Though I'll take the Dark Knights realism before the PT's stark plastic environments any day of the week.
The only valid point in the entire thing.
This guy doesn't seem to realise that Character /=/ Voice. Cool, I guess.
Anakin is a ****tard. Batman is a ****ing awesome. He has actual depth. Anakin was an unlikable emo brat. Who actually liked Anakin in teh PT? Anyone? Didn't think so.
Gotta love how teh guy equals fight scenes with character though.
As explained above, this is retarded.
At least Racheal didn't make me want to gouge my eyes out. Those 'romance' scenes are the worst things in the prequels bar none.
This is also stupid. Being a space opera allows them to be badly written and cliche? Yeah, no. The Dark Knight is teh infinately better written of teh two.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, moving on....
Seriously, why did you make me read this Gideon?
Star Wars: Dictatorships = Baaaaad.*
Dark Knight: Vigilantism, Questions on the Human Condition, Whether Mankind is Ultimately Good or Evil, Escalation in the face of Vigilantism leading to a deconstruction of the dichotomy of Superhero and Villian.
*this is said in teh whiniest voice you can muster btw.
If this guy gives me brain damage, can I sue?
Thank God, its over.
Really Gideon? Really? This guy convinced you? Seriously!?
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on May 26th, 2011 at 10:13 PM
N., I'm really not interested in getting into this with you, because this comes down to preference and opinion. If you'd like a discussion, that's one thing, but spare me the previously mentioned caustic no u's. (Which is all you've offered: 'lulz this is retarded', 'TDK is better', 'retarded', rinse and repeat.)
First and foremost, I'm not arguing that ROTS is either better or less than TDK in terms of being a quality movie; the real issue being discussed is which has the better villain. So I'm not necessarily agreeing with anything else that the writer opined.
This depends on what we're judging the characters in question.
Palpatine's achievements and ambitions are essential to the character, as are those of the Joker's. It is not performance we're evaluating, since that is the product of the actor, who is not the character. When I ask myself who is the better villain, I ask myself who is more dangerous, more intelligent, more powerful, the better "villainous" personality, and, to an extent, which is more realistic. Whether or not Ledger is a better actor than McDiarmid is as irrelevant to me as whether or not TDK is a better film than ROTS because the performance of the actors matters, to me, only insofar as whether or not they do a good job conveying the character's personality. For example, I consider Jack Nicholson to be ten times the actor Ledger was, but Ledger's Joker was better in that he was scarier and more entertaining.
Now with that said, that Palpatine operated on a galactic scale is essential in identifying which villain was more dangerous. The Joker terrorized Gotham City, which is no mean feat; Palpatine tore the galaxy asunder and plagued it for decades.
Not at all.
As Yoda explains, the future is always in motion, which is why even with the advantages of clairvoyance and precognition, Palpatine is fallible. He failed to foresee the Federation's defeat at Naboo, failed to foresee Maul's death, failed to foresee Amidala's survival in Attack of the Clones, failed to foresee Kenobi's survival above Coruscant, failed to foresee his defeat at Mace's hands, failed to foresee Yoda's survival and attack, failed to foresee Anakin's injuries, and failed to foresee the birth and escape of Luke and Leia.
Palpatine's constant failures make him more compelling to me, because it indicates that his victory is, thematically, uncertain. He can still be outwitted, beaten, and killed. This prevents the obstacle from ever being boring, even though the audience knew the outcome of the story. The films show us that while Palpatine had to achieve victory for the sake of continuity, within the universe itself he was not infallible.
The Joker, on the other hand, operates with a level of near omniscience afforded to him by the writers that is damn near comical. It's sheer fiat and comes off as something akin to fanboyism on the part of Nolan, who was clearly intending for the Joker to be formidable. But where is the advantage of his enemies? Where does he lose? Where is he outwitted, beaten, where does he suffer failures?
It's great to see a badass villain, but an invincible one is no different than a Gary Stu and that is how the Joker comes off to me.
The guards eventually succumbed to cowardice, though, and were willing to let the button be pushed. The cocky business guy eventually handed it off to the black guy, who dumped it out the window. Why weren't these murderers, criminals, and convicts scrambling to save their skins?
That the Joker didn't personally kidnap Rachel is irrelevant; it was at his direction that it happened and so he bears responsibility, far more than either Batman or Gordon. There's no getting around it and I'm not succumbing to the Joker's horrible manipulation of basic logic: He was responsible for the kidnapping and murder just as much as Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust.
Here's another problem: Are you really going to dispute that the lust for power is unrealistic? You do realize that this sort of shit happens in politics and world history quite often, right?
It's not unrealistic. Unoriginal? Perhaps, but quite plausible.
More importantly, am I supposed to buy that Dent was mentally affected by Rachel's death but Anakin wasn't at the thought of Padme's? Why? Explain to me why I should evaluate them differently other than because you happen to like one scenario over the other.
We can trade one-liners and sarcastic jabs the entire discussion, but why? You don't think I can dumb down the plot of Dent's corruption in an equally disingenuous manner? You underestimate my ability to do so: I've seen Janus in action, remember?
The dark side of the Force isn't simply a series of choices, N. Why else would Yoda tell Luke that the dark side forever dominates the destiny of its users? Why is it that dark siders commit atrocities and villainy after succumbing for the most noble of intentions? It's not to be equated with outright evil; it's clearly a metaphysical addiction. That is a consistent theme throughout the entirety of the saga.
In that sense, it is perfectly understandable why Anakin seemed so committed to it. And even then, doubts and uncertainty plagued him even after slaughtering the Separatists on Mustafar, as per Lucas's commentary.
Equally, I find the Joker's "agent of chaos" motivation cheesy. It's relatively original, but compelling. Meanwhile, lust for power has corrupted real men and women throughout history. It's plausible and realistic.
Would you mind articulating a bit more? You love Palpatine as what, if not as a great villain?
George Lucas's commentary on Palpatine in ROTS indicates that Palpatine genuinely believed that he was doing the galaxy a favor by replacing the incompetent Republic with the Empire. Lucas even goes so far as to say that perhaps Palpatine was right, but the price that the galaxy would have to pay for such a transition was simply too high.
Me? I believe differently: I believe Palpatine was a man who was raised and trained by the Sith to abandon all concept of morality and inner turmoil for decisive action. He exists solely to aggrandize himself, the malignant narcissist that he is, and doesn't give a single thought about the needs and feelings of others unless they can benefit him.
I respect your opinion, but I'm not sure I understand it. What is complex about the Joker and not the Emperor?
I thought Dooku had the potential to be more of an excellent Villian than Sidious, but he blew it. If he had truly been trying to ride Sidious's power and connections to bringing about political change, with the end intention of confronting and destroying the Sith himself (since he really did fancy himself one of the greatest warriors in the order) only to be gradually overcome by the draw of the dark-side until after the war, he finds he cannot kill sidious because of his desire to learn more of the dark side.... that woulda been cool.
May 26th, 2011 07:11 PM
