never portrayed that way before = to remake or make over If I admit that, then I belittle Heath's performance, because every person who has portrayed the Joker has never been done that way before.
From what I understand, the reboot is happening within 4 years. I don't know if they are going to bring the Joker back. I do agree that with other movie incarnations the Joker wasn't menacing, however he has been in comics and graphic novels.
The Joker in comics is not relevant to the discussion, which is the Joker in movies and how he's acted and portrayed.
How is it not relevant? So Mel Gibson reinvented Hamlet? EDIT: Fine, I will admit if you disregard all versions of the Joker and only use the Campy Batman Joker and Burton's Joker, then Heath reinvented the movie portrayal of the Joker. He did not reinvent the character of the Joker closely in the same way Batman TAS reinvented the character of Mr. Freeze.
It's not relevant because the movies are not real life recreations of the comics. They are merely based on the reference material. What happens in Comic Book A does not affect Movie B which does not affect TV Series C. Repeat. Otherwise, Batman TAS would basically be the 1989 Batman movie over and over again.
Okay...so I am sort of a Batman nut. Always have been. For whatever it is worth, I think you can say that Christopher Nolan re-invented The Joker. Heath Ledger was used to execute the role since, clearly, he was the closest to Nolan's vision in that role. Having said that, I agree with those that are in the camp of Ledger's performance being groundbreaking, not only in Batman lore. Not only in Superhero movie lore, but in movie lore in general. The performance is simply one of the best individual performances in cinema history. Batman is unique for a superhero in many ways, but the part that was always interesting to me is that he is the only superhero whose villains are arguably more popular than the hero. They have more character development, back story and name recognition than any other stable of villains. We all know who Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Bane, Killer Croc, Riddler, Ghul, and others are. Without looking it up, I don't know if anyone can go that deep with any other superhero (without, of course, being somewhat of an expert on any given superhero universe). Which helps hammer home how well Ledger did. For the most part, just about any of us can put on the makeup and "play" the part of The Joker. Ledger became him. Here we have an Oscar winning actor who won that award for playing a gay cowboy pretty graphically and caused quite a bit of controversy along the way. What is he remembered for? Playing The Joker in a Superhero movie. Why? Because he put on a clinic on how to take one of the most defined characters in superhero lore, and completely add layer, after layer, after layer to him. It is still hard to picture Ledger's face as anything other than what it was in TDK. It was THAT good. I think you can chalk that up to re-inventing a character. We all buy into Heath's portrayal, and The Joker's story from that movie more than any other. It's a credit to everyone involved. As for TDKR, I tend to agree with those who feel that Batman should have probably died (screw spoiler tags at this point). I think it would have been way more powerful to kill off Wayne. You can still do the end scene of Alfred in the cafe. Just simply have him see Selena Kyle/Catwoman by herself, essentially being exactly what Alfred had hoped Wayne could be. Content and starting over. Of course this probably means you have to have an establishing scene earlier in the movie between Alfred and Selena, but that is easy enough to do (she was, afterall, on the staff with Alfred and a small scene of Alfred looking after her is easy enough to get to). I also, if I want to nitpick, feel that Bane's death could have been played better. I honestly didn't think he was dead until the scene moved on and it was sort of like, "Oh...I guess he is dead." Catwoman coming to Batman's rescue is fine, but like others have said, you almost need Batman to deliver the final blow (much like how he didn't kill Raz, but didn't save him either in Batman Begins). Either that, or give John Black the final blow on Bane. At least that way, Batman can be assured that he is leaving Gotham in the hands of someone capable enough to rid the world of Bane. Also of note, anyone remember what Batman says to Sgt. Gordon in BB when he first visits him at home? Hint: Catwoman's most popular line in TDKR mirrors it. Nolan's continuity is insane.
You know who would of made a fantastic Joker? Denis O'Hare. Russell Edgington is basically the vampire version of the character anyway. His ability to play dark and sinister with a sense of caviler fun is even better than Ledger, IMO. Not really relevant, just a thought I had about actors who could of owned the part.
I hope they go ahead with a Catwoman spin-off prequel that takes place sometime during those 8 years between TDK and TDKR. They could show the Dent Act taking place, as well as the "underbelly" of Gotham City. Could make for a great crime drama film, with a villain like Black Mask or something. If Jonathan Nolan took over for that it would be great. Hathaway would do it, Chris Nolan already said he'd like to see something.
I liked the trilogy, probably the best representation of Batman on screen. Although I was a little bothered that Bruce Wayne after training for 7 years (Steam boat to League of Shadows) to be Batman only really puts on the cowl for roughly a 12-14 month span.
Just saw it and it was a great trilogy. I hope Nolan producing Man Of Steel brings something new to a really lousy franchise.
Finally saw it. I was blown away by the movie. Christopher Nolan is by far my favorite director. What a great ending to an epic trilogy.
Oh he absolutely changed the comic book movie landscape. Without Batman Begins we don't get Iron Man (Iron Man was an exact copy of Batman Begins), without Iron Man's success we probably don't get the same Thor or Captain America movies we did (perhaps we might not have even gotten those movies if Iron Man flopped) nor would we have gotten The Avengers or even the Amazing Spiderman (which again the Nolan films were used as templates). Nolan made all of the studios step it up in terms of showing the mainstream that comic movies could be and should be taken seriously. Without Nolan, I truly believe we would be getting the Ghost Rider/Fantastic Four quality comic movies.
Agree w/the premise, but Ironman is the only comic book movie that was redone that successfully, imo. It's way above the rest of those films.
Iron Man wasn't a copy of Batman Begins at all. It was the 1960s origins story updated for the modern era (Tony Stark originally made his fortune selling weapons for the Korean War) meshed with Ultimate Iron Man, minus some of the silliness like Ultimate Tony Stark being genetically engineered to have neural cells throughout his entire body, or being able to converse with his sentient brain tumor.
Not the actual origin story but the way the film was shot, the script was written, scenes, tone, pacing etc. Favreau admitted in every interview he gave that Batman Begins was the biggest influence on him for making this film. Much like how Nolan used inspiration from Blade Runner and Heat to make Batman Begins and TDK. Bottom line without Nolan I don't think we get the Iron Man we got nor do I think we get the more serious comic book films that followed. If Iron Man flopped Marvel Studios probably would have folded and thus we wouldn't have gotten the movies we did. Thor especially, I feel like would have been a goofy Ghost Rider/Fantastic Fourish type movie if even made at all.
I'm sure in terms of construction and production, BB was a big influence. But when I watched Iron Man, I didn't think, "Hey, this is like Batman Begins". And a lot of people wanted to compare the two movies because of their quality and similar protagonists. Regardless, my issue is with your statement that "Iron Man was an exact copy of Batman Begins". It wasn't.
While it was a bit of hyperbole on my part saying Iron Man was an exact copy of Batman Begins because there are obviously differences, the two movies are extremely similar. If Batman Begins never existed, we don't get the same Iron Man movie we got. The basic structure is spot on between the two, which is more of what I was getting at with my comment about how Nolan changed the comic movie landscape. So yes by me saying Batman Begins was an exact copy I am wrong. I honestly forget the website now (I'm sure you can google it to try and find it if you really care) but the site basically runs the two movies scene by scene pointing out the similarities between the two films regarding scene structure, the script, etc. But I guess that's what makes movies so great as people can have different opinions and interpetations of them (like how some people feel that what Alfred saw at the end of TDKR was in his mind and not real or whether or not John Blake becomes the next Batman or becomes Robin/Nightwing). When I watched Iron Man the first time I thought it felt a lot like Batman Begins. That's not to take away anything from Iron Man by any means.
Just got back from seeing TDKR a 2nd time, it was even better than the 1st. There was so much I missed during the first viewing especially a lot of hints that Miranda Tate was bad, especially her quoting something Ras said to Bruce in BB. Still don't know which film I like better between this and TDK. Can't wait to get my hands on the DVD/BluRay.
I saw it again on Friday, too. The only thing I didn't like about it the 2nd time around is the first Bane/Batman fight. It felt wayyyyy too long.
I saw it last night, and it was a great film. Best of the year so far. Tom Hardy did an excellent job as Bane and it makes me want to punch Joel Shumacher for doing the character a disservice. Anne Hathaway did a good job as well and I dont think the costume bothered me. Spoiler I didnt like the way Bane was unceremoniously killed I do like how much of the speculation proved to be true from Talia al Ghoul, to JGL being more than just a cop.
Really? I thought that scene was great, especially with how there was no music playing, just the sounds of punches etc. It was the best fight scene out of any Batman film, I think anyway. I know a lot of people had a problem with the fate of Bane and how Batman wasn't the one who ended things. But Batman did beat Bane in their fight, it was only when Talia stabbed Batman that allowed Bane to get back on his feet (also her helping put the mask back together). I assumed, and maybe it was just me, but if Talia didn't fix his mask Bane would have died.
I just thought it cheapened him a bit, here we have an intimidating villian that is every bit Batmans's equal, a man who took everything Batman threw at him in their first fight, and looked as if he was smiling under his mask, and he simply gets gunned down.
Yeah I get and understand that. I guess I just didn't have a problem with it because Batman defeated him in their second battle and like I said if it wasn't for Talia stopping Batman I assume Bane would have died. Much like if it wasn't for Catwoman stopping Bane, Batman would have died. So I guess there's a parallel there between the women and guys. The only two "issues" I had with TDKR was John Blake's explanation of how he knew who Batman who was (I would have liked it better if he turned out to be the little boy from BB and he heard Rachel say "Bruce" after Batman repeated the quote she said to him earlier in that movie and combine that with his reasoning) and a minor issue with Gordon still being Commissioner at the end after it came out he covered up a murder. But those issues weren't big enough to stop me from really enjoying the movie. More of me nitpicking a bit.
The way Blake deducts that Bruce is Batman was done as a way to show that his childhood mirrored Bruce's. If he had found out just by some coincidence it wouldn't go as far to explain why Blake became a cop and then eventually why he wants to take over as Batman. Along with the emotional connection he had with Bruce, it shows his skills of deduction, which as a detective and now Batman, he needs in order to fight crime. I didn't find it hard to buy at all. But if you need more explanation, it could be that Blake is pretty sure who Batman is but wants to confront Bruce in order to make sure. Notice how Bruce doesn't even try to deny what Blake is alleging. Once Bruce asks about Gordon and if he knows who he is Blake has his confirmation. And perhaps Bruce doesn't try to deny he is Batman because he sees the same emotion in Blake that he had. Anyway, saw it for the 4th time a few nights ago. I love it, especially the ending.
I understand how Blake knew. I just think it would have been another nice tie in to BB if it turned out he was that boy. He could have came to the same conclusion as he did in TDKR but perhaps he wanted to be Batman ever since Batman saved him as a boy and since he didn't think it was possible to actually be Batman, he became the next best thing, a cop. I don't know just spitballing. Like I said it was only a nitpick, it didn't do anything to affect my like/dislike of the movie.
I'm pretty sure that was a reference to one of the Robins who deduced that Batman was Bruce Wayne. (Tim Drake I think)
The John Blake character had little parts of each of the Robins in him. I thought it was a pretty clever and creative way to have a "Robin" in a Nolan movie without having a little kid running around as Batman's sidekick.
The best critique I've heard is from people who have a problem with Nolan's directing style, which they claim is a problem across his entire career. And it manifests itself in TDKR in it being so dense with plot and cut with so many scenes that it gives the appearance of being both long and messy. Basically, they think Nolan doesn't let the camera linger enough. In TDKR, they think it was cut together too much and in a way that could be confusing and ineffective in driving home the themes. As I've said, I had no problems following the plot. And I've enjoyed all of Nolan's films, both visually and plot-wise. So as a personal preference I don't really have a problem with Nolan's directing style. I quite enjoy it. But unlike with some people's specific problems with the plot, I can kind of see the merit of this criticism. And I think the issue they are talking about is why I had to watch both TDK and TDKR a second time to form a firm opinion about the film. After seeing TDK, the only thing I knew was that Ledger was incredible. And after seeing TDKR the only thing I knew was that I loved the ending. Perhaps I couldn't form a coherent opinion about the movie as a whole because Nolan's direction isn't the most coherent style, at least upon first viewing. Indeed, I think Nolan would acknowledge this himself, at least with movies like Inception and The Prestige. His Batman films are more straightforward than his other films. But they are still packed with a lot of scenes and a lot of plot. So while this could be a personal preference type thing that may not have a answer, I'd encourage people to watch the movie a second time. I think you'll get a better sense of what Nolan is trying to do.
I will be honest after I saw TDKR I knew I liked it but I wasn't sure just how much, I knew I needed to see it a 2nd time to truly process everything. Like you, I knew I loved the ending but wasn't sure how I felt about the movie as a whole. My first viewing I thought the prison scenes were too long and wish it was cut down but I didn't feel that way a 2nd time. I think the first time watching it I just wanted to see Batman back in action as quickly as possible to get his revenge on Bane. After I saw TDK I knew once it was over right away that I saw something pretty special and that I loved it. Same with Batman Begins, once it ended I knew it was easily the best Batman film made at the time. And was glad Batman was finally given a truly great film. I personally like having to go back and rewatch a film because there's so much going on you miss things. But I agree with you that Nolan likes to quickly cut scenes and move on, he doesn't like to waste time which I get. When a movie is 2 hours and 45 minutes you need to keep the story moving.
A lot of incontinuity or poor judgement with the story like: Spoiler - Batman and Bane's first and second fights being pretty much the same and now Batman can all of a sudden chip away his mask (of course we don't physically ever see it damaged) - Catwoman setting up Batman to die then all of a sudden he loves her - Talia's ending and esp her last speech being awful - Same with Bane - Too much JGL and barely any Batman - All the cops get released after captivity with no guns and charge a few hundred guys with AKs and all of 5 of them are shot (oook). - Wacking Bruce's spine back in shape lol Things like that. All of it really took me out of the film.
I don't understand why you think the cops didn't have guns. Of course they did. They had the guns when they got trapped in the sewer, and had the same guns when they were released.
Either way, sure didn't look like they had guns when they charged an army of mercenaries w/AKs. I was really looking forward to that scene but it ended up being probably the weakest action sequence in the film. Shouldn't pay extras to be actors.
