The Dark Knight [SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!]

ztoical

Right I am aware that the dark knight doesn't open in ireland till next week but its 5am here I just got back from seeing it [1am screening] and I need to write something down now or I'll just burst. I'm going to wait to go into story details and what not but will stick everything behind a spoiler just in case.....so you've been warned in the title, at the start and with the spoiler

All the hype about the film and about Ledgers Joker - spot bloody on. He is nothing short of genius in the role to the point were I wanted batman to feck off so we could focus on the joker more. The fact that he is just there and nuts is done very well, no messy backstory [thou he keeps making different ones up for himself], no motivation other then being totally nuts. The big "o my gosh" moment goes to the two face makeup - do not spoil it for yourself by looking for pics online - the moment its first really shown is really great. It will all come back to Ledger thou, he just steals the whole film. Really want to write so much but I'm still hyper from cinema candy, can't wait to see it again.

Fysh

Finally saw this last night and was really glad that we went to the IMAX to see it. Obviously not everything is shot specifically for it but the panoramic city shots were breathtaking.

The film itself was great, Ledger's Joker was fantastic pretty much from his introduction

with the disappearing pencil trick

. The scripting for this film was something else entirely, Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was unparalleled but the Nolans deserve a lot of credit for creating a story which made the whole Joker/Batman conflict so compelling.

I particularly liked the way the crappy gimmick from the end of Batman Forever was redone properly this time - "I'm going to make you choose, and you can only save one of them - oh, and I might have told you the locations the wrong way around". Two-Face was fantastic as well, I didn't realise he was going to be in this film, I figured he would be set up as a future bad guy - the first showing of his face was shocking, really gruesome. Someone in the film board claimed it should've been done with make-up but I don't think make-up would ever have had as realistic and grim-looking an effect as we saw with the Dark Knight.

There are so many great scenes in this film, but the favourite has to be

Joker in a nurse outfit walking out of the hospital, then doing the whole Chaplin bit with the remote for the bomb and running away

.

Will definitely be going to see this again in a while in the cinema, and am almost sure I'll be picking up the DVD.

AngryBadger

Brilliant, brilliant film. Can't say enough good things about it. Loved the way they set the whole thing up so realistically, Batman dropping guys from heights, Jokers complete and utter insanity. Loved every single bit of it, and Eckharts portrayal of Two-face was awesome!

Saruwatari

As much as I wanted to come out of this and say it was overhyped and stuff, it was fecking brilliant! Ledger was spot on, what else is there to say. The action was blood-well-done. For the last half of the film I was sitting on the edge of my seat.
Two-face was well-portrayed in it as well, especially the destroyed side of his face (I admit not being able to concentrate on anything else when he was on).
Shame we won't ever have Ledger as Joker again though.

IamBeowulf

Wow what a film! From the very beginning with the shocking bank raid, through to Batman becoming his own worst enemy to save the city he loves...

I couldn't get over Ledger's ability to hypnotise whenever he was onscreen. Here was the fella who starred in mostly chickflicks. I thought Brokeback was merely a once-off triumph but sweet Jeebus, he made the Joker---and the film---his own.

Therein lies the problem actually. Like the first Batman, the Joker steals the show, but this time for good reason: the cast are all excellent but Ledger brings it up a notch. I actually thought Batman was a bit lost in the film. And that voice, his I'm-so-angry voice, I don't like it...

I dug Aaron Eckhart even though he was a little too dashing at the start. Did the events turn him? Or did he always have that dark streak? He really might've shot that impostor in the lane...

The truck sequence was superb, very well done. I just keep thinking of Joker grunting to himself, "Come on hit me, I want you to do it, I want you to do it..." He mighta seemed crazy but really he was egging Batman on in order to turn him into his own worst enemy...a status he ironically attained by the end of the film, but by choice. Seeing Batman lose it on the bike---roar in fury as he knows he wants to kill Joker, and hates that---was awesome.

Wanna see it on IMAX. Damned Parnell IMAX shoulda stayed open a while longer:(

Anyways, any ideas what the next film will be called? Crusader?

Silverfish

Seeing as this is in the comics forum.....


Where does it go from here... but backwards?

I really think Ledger raised the bar, and caught the actual Joker, the one that was originally supposed to be put across.

In his initial dozen or so appearances, starting with Batman #1 (1940), the Joker was a straightforward mass murderer, with a bizarre appearance modeled after the symbol of the Joker known from playing cards.

After that...

In the 1950s and 1960s, following the imposition of the Comics Code Authority censorship board, the Joker shifted toward becoming a harmless, cackling nuisance. He disappeared from Batman stories almost entirely when Julius Schwartz took over editorship of the Batman comics in 1964.

This was the Joker we got from Jack Nicholson, which was a pretty poor representation, and having seen maybe an hour of that film, I never watched any of the others.

However, Nolan just brought the Joker back to where he was meant to be, and what he was meant to be, and Ledger was absolutely mind-blowing. Everything was perfect. I never thought much of Ledger as an actor, he was just one of those hollywood generic pretty boys. However, when he was announced as the Joker, for some reason I was convinced and was sure he could pull it off but I was really, really not prepared for what it was.
I've seen the movie twice now, first time to actually see the movie.... the second time to see the Joker.

Its a bit upsetting that that's it for the Joker, and while it was clear from TDK that he was meant to be hanging around (ho ho ho) for any future movies, that's now not possible. (I hope, imagine someone else trying to carry that off). I think if I saw any of the actors people are putting forward for it now actually doing it, I'd puke. Really.

I really think this put a new stamp on it, and this has just epitomised the Joker for me. Even down to the facial scarring, which just really put a more dangerous, mysterious edge to it. (Edge, amirite?)

So now, I go back and read Killing Joke, etc, and just feel that there's just something not quite right, comic Joker had facial scarring resulting in white face/red lips, whereas Nolan's Joker had make up.
I liked the make up idea more. It added a realism and a slightly more unhinged tint to the Joker.

So, what does everyone else think?

I know after the Judge Dredd movie, 2000AD artists started drawing Dredd to look like Stallone, perhaps not even on purpose, but still. So, where should the comics go for the Joker?

Sherifu

It'd be fair to say you like the Joker then?

I thought the film was great. From a comic point of view it wasn't too OTT but i'd have liked to be a bit darker. Only a minor complaint.

Silverfish

Sherifu wrote: »

It'd be fair to say you like the Joker then?

That's a reasonable assumption to make, I suppose. Grossly understated mind you, considering I'm debating spending 299 dollars on a vinyl Joker / TDK poster for the sides of buses. I reckon I could get it across two walls of my room :pac:

Earthhorse

Silverfish wrote: »

This was the Joker we got from Jack Nicholson, which was a pretty poor representation, and having seen maybe an hour of that film, I never watched any of the others.

I disagree. People always say this about the Joker in Burton's Batman and I think it's totally off the mark. In that movie he variously poisons the people of Gotham by contaminating cosmetics and other products, shoots henchmen when he's feeling low, has a little line about dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight which he likes to recite before shooting someone (he just likes the sound of it) and disfigures his girlfriend in an attempt to create 'art'.

He's completely psychopathic and a damn site more than just a nuisance. Many seem to have forgotten just how eye opening this portrayal of the Joker was at the time, particularly to people like me who were only familiar with the completely camp 60's show.

Silverfish wrote: »

However, Nolan just brought the Joker back to where he was meant to be, and what he was meant to be...

I dunno, the Joker isn't meant to be anywhere or anywho. He's a pretty flexible character and I like the fact that different authors can take him in different directions.

Silverfish wrote: »

Its a bit upsetting that that's it for the Joker, and while it was clear from TDK that he was meant to be hanging around (ho ho ho) for any future movies, that's now not possible.

It is a shame we won't get to see more of Ledger in the role. It was a pretty flawless performance and totally captivating.

Silverfish wrote: »

I think if I saw any of the actors people are putting forward for it now actually doing it, I'd puke. Really.

Personally, I think that's going too far. I imagine most actors won't be willing to go near it for a few years at least, out of respect for Ledger and also in awe of the performance concerned. But most people felt Nicholson's performance would never be topped; whether you like the way he was portrayed in those films or not, it was quite the tour de force by Jack.

The role of the Joker will inevitably be taken on by someone at some point in the future. Whether it's on Nolan's watch or not is another thing; and who's to say the performance won't be equally brilliant? Should Hamlet never be performed again since Olivier nailed it?

Silverfish wrote: »

So now, I go back and read Killing Joke, etc, and just feel that there's just something not quite right, comic Joker had facial scarring resulting in white face/red lips, whereas Nolan's Joker had make up.
I liked the make up idea more. It added a realism and a slightly more unhinged tint to the Joker.

Uhm, isn't that the way it always was in the comics? The Joker is disfigured and puts on make up to complete the effect?

Silverfish

I understand people will have different opinions, I just thought I'd post mine like people seem to do.

So to actually answer the question..... what way do you think the comics should take it from here on in?

Sherifu

Silverfish wrote: »

That's a reasonable assumption to make, I suppose. Grossly understated mind you, considering I'm debating spending 299 dollars on a vinyl Joker / TDK poster for the sides of buses. I reckon I could get it across two walls of my room :pac:

A noble ambition to be sure.

ztoical

Silverfish wrote: »

So to actually answer the question..... what way do you think the comics should take it from here on in?

I'm not sure if it will have that much effect on the bat books - Batman has been around so long and its not just one comic but a number of comics plus the books of spin offs/secondary characters [Nightwing, Robin, Catwoman etc] Its a big auld universe and I can't see the film making that much of an impact. Legder's Joker is heavily influenced by some book versions of the character already so its not like that Joker doesn't already exists in the DC universe.

It's not like this is the first film from Nolan nor is it the first movie/tv version of the joker. Contrary to popular belief I don't think the film adaptions of well established comics have that big an impact on the books. You'll get comics based on the movie where they do try and make the characters look more like the actors and less like the actors [I have the one for Batman forever somewhere and its just awful] but these usually don't sell to comics fans but to film fans.

I'm more interested in where the films will go from here. Nolan has stated he doesn't want to bring pengiun or robin into the film universe and I'm not sure what other Bat villain is strong enough to stand up on their own against Batman. The film needs a decent female character ASAP - it got away with the main female character turning into a woman in a refrigerator purely cus everyone was distracted by how cool Joker was and I would love to see Catwoman get the same treatment as Bats and Joker but she wouldn't work as main villain as shes never really been good or evil, she's just Catwoman.

Earthhorse

Silverfish wrote: »

I understand people will have different opinions, I just thought I'd post mine like people seem to do.

Yeah, that's all I was doing too, really. Apologies if it felt like I was picking on your post. Also, I think it's important to understand where the comics have already been in order to talk about where they're going. As ztoical points out, Nolan hasn't really done anything new here, just an old thing really well.

Silverfish wrote: »

So to actually answer the question..... what way do you think the comics should take it from here on in?

I didn't answer this first time round because I felt my answer would be a non-answer. In short, I agree with ztoical again, I don't think there should be much impact at all. I'm not familiar with what's happening in the comics at the moment but anything that happens should emerge naturally from that.

Also, these characters have proven robust enough over time to see several tellings and re-tellings. Each author should be given license to explore the character in new ways, if you ask me. I know fans crave continuity but personally I just like a good story and would happily see different takes on the same thing provided they're different enough and told well enough to be worth my while.

Silverfish

Earthhorse wrote: »

I didn't answer this first time round because I felt my answer would be a non-answer. In short, I agree with ztoical again, I don't think there should be much impact at all. I'm not familiar with what's happening in the comics at the moment but anything that happens should emerge naturally from that.

Also, these characters have proven robust enough over time to see several tellings and re-tellings. Each author should be given license to explore the character in new ways, if you ask me. I know fans crave continuity but personally I just like a good story and would happily see different takes on the same thing provided they're different enough and told well enough to be worth my while.

Absolutely.

I don't think I was really clear enough in my original post, tbh.
I had felt in the past that Jack Nicholson's joker was 'Uncle Joker', regardless of what he did/said, he just couldn't be taken seriously. Like, the films themselves. His plans with poisoned cosmetics etc were third-hand murder, distancing himself from the end result.
Ledger's Joker was more of the 'outright murder I'll pull a gun on you myself' type murder. He wasn't afraid to get right in there and do it himself.
I feel personally that that was more what the original Joker way way back at the start was meant to be, before he had to be toned down, and became more of a 'Jack Nicholson' Joker.

I suppose I just personally really, really fell in love with Ledger's Joker, at first sight. He was more real, and completely psychopathic, eh.... a more DC Comics villain, whereas Jack Nicholson was more Marvel...



I personally would like to see perhaps Miller or Morrison run with this 'new/very old' Joker, and see where that takes them, moreso than 'Elaborate plan that's easily foiled but involves ropes and madcap plans' Joker we have been seeing.

The previous movies and the TV series was more of a spoof of the comics than an actual retelling, whereas Nolan's retelling is trying to be more realistic

( Ok, ffs, he's just a man dressed up as a bat, OH NOES SPOILERS :pac:)

and gritty than the actual spoof madcap antics rated PG films we've gotten to date.

ANYWAY (I'm hungry and I need food now) I personally would like a bit more psychopathic first-hand-murder in my comics, including but not exclusive to the exact Pencil-Trick Joker Nolan gave us.

Steven

Silverfish wrote: »

I really think Ledger raised the bar, and caught the actual Joker, the one that was originally supposed to be put across.

Definitely, and, while the original golden-age version of characters isn't always the best (Anyone remember "Quiet or papa spank" batman?) this verson of the joker appeals to me a lot more than the inconsistent and often castrated version we often receive in the batman books thanks to decades of censorship, poor editorial decisions and writers that change the character to suit their whims.

If you want to write a different character, then write a different character instead of butchering the established one. Maybe release an Elseworld book if it has to be the joker.

Earthhorse wrote: »

[Nicholson's Joker] has a little line about dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight which he likes to recite before shooting someone

I hated this. It just seemed like a really ham-fisted way to make him seem crazy.

Earthhorse wrote: »

He's completely psychopathic and a damn site more than just a nuisance. Many seem to have forgotten just how eye opening this portrayal of the Joker was at the time, particularly to people like me who were only familiar with the completely camp 60's show.

I agree with this, but in the end it amounts to little more than "It wasn't as stupid as the old version", which is no reason to like him as a character, only a reason to like him more than Caeser Romero.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I dunno, the Joker isn't meant to be anywhere or anywho. He's a pretty flexible character and I like the fact that different authors can take him in different directions.

That just sounds like a poor excuse for the inconsistent characterisation that comes with decades of legacy and dozens upon dozens of writers. That's the reason I prefer closed series and self-contained graphic novels to the open-ended mess that makes up DC and Marvel "continuity".

Earthhorse wrote: »

Uhm, isn't that the way it always was in the comics? The Joker is disfigured and puts on make up to complete the effect?

No. Batman Confidential

They added in the facial scars late last year in the run-up to the movie's release, but the bleached skin, green hair and red lips are present in all of the joker's incarnations, as far as I know. They also gave him a background as a mobster who was basically crazy anyway, which I thought was a really poor decision.

I think if the joker was created today, he'd be scarred and wearing make-up for the reasons Silverfish stated.

"Where should the comics go from here?". The Nolan version of the joker (make-up aside) could be used from now on and no one would bat an eyelid. He's been so vaguely characterised in the past that anything he can do would be well within the scope of normal behaviour for him, so I'm all for sticking with him as a mass-murdering agent of chaos. It makes him more of a serious threat, which makes for more interesting stories.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Each author should be given license to explore the character in new ways, if you ask me. I know fans crave continuity but personally I just like a good story and would happily see different takes on the same thing provided they're different enough and told well enough to be worth my while.

I'm all for variations on a character in things like elseworld books. That's why they exist; To allow for interesting stories that don't fit inside regular continuity. Regular continuity exists for consistent characterisation, and I think the attitude of "we'll change the way he acts spontaneously because he doesn't fit into the story I want to tell" is disrespectful to the body of work that came before it and to the creator of the character, and inconsiderate to all future writers.

Sadly, it's an all-too-common attitude.

Silverfish wrote: »

I personally would like to see perhaps Miller or Morrison run with this 'new/very old' Joker, and see where that takes them.

Morrison's writing the current batman arc "Batman RIP". That should be interesting.

You don't want Miller near anything, though. He's just a crazy old man with a penchant for prostitutes these days.

Earthhorse

Silverfish wrote: »

I had felt in the past that Jack Nicholson's joker was 'Uncle Joker', regardless of what he did/said, he just couldn't be taken seriously.

Actually, I think that's part of the joy of Nicholson's portrayal. Here's this psychopath, doing completely unforgivable things, yet we're laughing with him. I think that's completely in the spirit of the Joker.

Silverfish wrote: »

The previous movies and the TV series was more of a spoof of the comics than an actual retelling, whereas Nolan's retelling is trying to be more realistic

The first two movies, with Burton at the helm, I wouldn't class as spoofs, though really I only think the first one is worthwhile. The rest in the serious became increasingly audacious and ridiculous and yeah, the TV series was always naff.

Steven wrote: »

I hated this. It just seemed like a really ham-fisted way to make him seem crazy.

I disagree. I thought it fit perfectly with his character. It didn't feel forced at all.

Steven wrote: »

I agree with this, but in the end it amounts to little more than "It wasn't as stupid as the old version", which is no reason to like him as a character, only a reason to like him more than Caeser Romero.

That might be your take on it but I think there's a lot more to like about that movie than it was better than the TV series. Mind you, I did see it recently and it has dated badly. It'll be interesting to see how Nolan's films look in twenty or so years time.

Steven wrote: »

That just sounds like a poor excuse for the inconsistent characterisation that comes with decades of legacy and dozens upon dozens of writers. That's the reason I prefer closed series and self-contained graphic novels to the open-ended mess that makes up DC and Marvel "continuity".

Oh, I prefer contained pieces too. But I think it's unfair on authors to expect decades of legacy and different writers to be anything other than an inconsistent mess. Writers get hamstrung by previous writer's bad decisions, or good decisions that they just disagree with. So they just end up ignoring them.

They're also expected to bring something new to a franchise but play by all the old rules. Batman can't kill, can't get hitched, can't show a soft side. Characters can't grow in an environment like that so authors try their best to work within those confines and sometimes you end up with a warped version of something you loved. So it may very well be an excuse but it's not a poor one.

Steven wrote: »

No. Batman Confidential

They added in the facial scars late last year in the run-up to the movie's release, but the bleached skin, green hair and red lips are present in all of the joker's incarnations, as far as I know.

I guess disfigured was the wrong word to use. I meant more that he had a pretty ugly and face-breaking grin, an odd face, and that he adds make up to complete the effect? Is that not the case traditionally?

Steven wrote: »

I'm all for variations on a character in things like elseworld books. That's why they exist; To allow for interesting stories that don't fit inside regular continuity. Regular continuity exists for consistent characterisation, and I think the attitude of "we'll change the way he acts spontaneously because he doesn't fit into the story I want to tell" is disrespectful to the body of work that came before it and to the creator of the character, and inconsiderate to all future writers.

Elseworld books are where radically different or inconsistent interpretations of the character belong alright. And, like I said, anything that happens in the comics should emerge naturally from what's gone before. Doing an about turn with a character shouldn't be necessary in a skilful author's hands but sometimes (actually, probably pretty often) it happens.

To be honest, I don't think you can realistically expect anything thing else from an open ended series where nothing much can ever change. Batman has to fight the Joker infinitely so neither can really develop into anything different. But that's not interesting. So fans want something new but something old as well. Impossible.

Personally, I think they should re-tell every ongoing series every five to ten years or so. Create a world and make it consistent for that particular run, then finish it off and start again. Fans would probably hate this but it would allow for the best of both worlds without ruining anyone else's work. As it stands, in regular continuity most of these superheros must be well into their hundreds at this stage.

Steven

To me, Nicholson's joker was just a poorly-done cliché psychopath, but, since differing opinions are allowed, I suppose I can't argue with you liking the Nicholson joker.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Mind you, I did see it recently and it has dated badly.

Amen to that. The near-caricature gothic feel and the garish colour scheme look terrible these days.

Earthhorse wrote: »

They're also expected to bring something new to a franchise but play by all the old rules. Batman can't kill, can't get hitched, can't show a soft side. Characters can't grow in an environment like that so authors try their best to work within those confines and sometimes you end up with a warped version of something you loved. So it may very well be an excuse but it's not a poor one.

I'm going to disagree here. My argument wasn't that characters shouldn't change. My argument was against spontaneous change for no reason other than "I want him to do this here to make writing my story easier". Something like the recent Spiderman event "One More Day"

where he makes a deal with the devil (well, mephisto) to erase his entire marriage with Mary Jane so he can return to the carefree, single life he enjoyed in earlier incarnations of the book

.

That was, frankly, ridiculous. The character of spiderman had grown into something else over time. He became well-known in his line of work, got married, settled down. Hell, he even

revealed his identity to the public

(in civil war) because he wanted to do what he felt was the right thing.

That is all consistent character growth that I have no problem with.

Undoing everything I just mentioned and making him an unemployed, single, anonymous superhero again

is the kind of disregard for the previous body of work that I'm talking about. And it raped, not only the continuity of the spider-man book, but also the continuity for half of the marvel universe. I haven't heard anyone but Joe Quesada argue that One More Day was a good idea.

In short, my argument isn't against changing characters. It's against thoughtless butchering of a character for the sake of a plot point or to please a parents watchdog group.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I guess disfigured was the wrong word to use. I meant more that he had a pretty ugly and face-breaking grin, an odd face, and that he adds make up to complete the effect? Is that not the case traditionally?

No, it's always been the skin-bleaching as far as I'm aware.