11 replies on “Meet the Joker”

  1. pdavis says:

    Ugg!
    I could deal with the last movie being somewhat of a retelling of the Batman origin. But bringing back a villain that we have already seen on the big screen! Can’t Hollywood come up with any new ideas? Are they going to reintroduce him as well? How original is that? Are we going to get the same movie remade for us every 15 years now?

    • Tekzel says:

      Re: Ugg!

      I could deal with the last movie being somewhat of a retelling of the Batman origin. But bringing back a villain that we have already seen on the big screen! Can’t Hollywood come up with any new ideas? Are they going to reintroduce him as well? How original is that? Are we going to get the same movie remade for us every 15 years now?

      Well, the problem is no movie had done it right until Batman Begins. Every one of the other movies prior were pieces of crap that should never have been made. So, yes, let the people who made Batman Begins reboot the entire thing and do it right, so far they are on the right track.

      • Timeshredder says:

        Re: Ugg!

        I’m not crazy about the make-up, but if they’re going to do Batman, they’re going to have to include the Joker at some point.

        Here’s hoping that this series won’t bury every film in multiple, mishandled villains.

      • chad says:

        Re: Ugg!

        Well, the problem is no movie had done it right until Batman Begins.

        I consider the 1989 Batman movie to have been "done right". Jack Nicholson was a great Joker, showing the insanity and the ingeniousness that make up the character. Michael Keaton gave Batman the intensity and social awkwardness that would be expected of someone who’s obsessed with fighting crime. In fact, I liked this one better than Batman Begins.

        I agree, though, that the subsequent movies left a lot to be desired.

        ____________________
        Check out Chad’s News

        • Abednigo says:

          Re: Ugg!

          Well, the problem is no movie had done it right until Batman Begins.

          I consider the 1989 Batman movie to have been "done right". Jack Nicholson was a great Joker, showing the insanity and the ingeniousness that make up the character. Michael Keaton gave Batman the intensity and social awkwardness that would be expected of someone who’s obsessed with fighting crime. In fact, I liked this one better than Batman Begins.

          I agree, though, that the subsequent movies left a lot to be desired.

          I watched the original Batman over the weekend and while Jack nailed the Joker, the movie itself does not hold up that well after nearly 20 years (it came out in 89). I love the Nolan retelling of the story because we get to see how obsessed Bruce is and, like the quote from the "thank God she’s not coming back" Katie Holmes at the end, Bruce Wayne is his mask. He’s playing a part when he’s the rich billionaire. It’s not who he really is anymore. I love that. Michael Keaton’s Bruce Wayne just seemed too comfortable in his rich guy role whereas Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne just uses it as a means to fight crime, but otherwise doesn’t care about the money.

          I’m looking forward to how they bring the Joker into this. Since it’s supposed to be a direct sequel and pick up where the last one left off (The Joker being one of the escaped convicts from Arkham), and since Batman Begins was so brilliant, I expect great things from The Dark Knight.

          • is says:

            Re: Ugg!
            I absolutely agree.
            The first Batman movie was pretty good, especially for it’s time. They got worse fast and I didn’t even bother watching the last one.

            Nolan did such a great job with "Batman Begins" that he deserves a shot at making more Batman movies. If he keeps the grittiness and avoids cartoonish cheese it may just work.

        • Tekzel says:

          Re: Ugg!

          Well, the problem is no movie had done it right until Batman Begins.

          I consider the 1989 Batman movie to have been "done right". Jack Nicholson was a great Joker, showing the insanity and the ingeniousness that make up the character. Michael Keaton gave Batman the intensity and social awkwardness that would be expected of someone who’s obsessed with fighting crime. In fact, I liked this one better than Batman Begins.

          I agree, though, that the subsequent movies left a lot to be desired.

          Going to have to agree to disagree then, while better than the following rubbish, the first one in ’89 wasn’t good for me either. In fact, I look at it like it was the movie version of the Adam West Batman television show. Goofy. Batman Begins was the movie version of the comic book Dark Knight. He really brought out the dark in the Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne is always a side character, and how they handled him is of much less importance how they handled Batman.

          Oh, and I dig the new Joker’s look. THAT is how an insane mass murdering clown should look! :)

    • y42 says:

      Re: Ugg!

      I could deal with the last movie being somewhat of a retelling of the Batman origin. But bringing back a villain that we have already seen on the big screen! Can’t Hollywood come up with any new ideas? Are they going to reintroduce him as well? How original is that? Are we going to get the same movie remade for us every 15 years now?

      First of all, you’re an idiot. Gordon gives Batman a joker card at the end of the last movie, and you’re upset NOW? Sheesh!

      Secondly, you’re an idiot. You expect them to make a Batman story without the joker? You been huffin’ paint fumes much?

      And finally, you’re an idiot.

      • Timeshredder says:

        Re: Ugg!

        First of all, you’re an idiot.

        This board has been remarkably free of trolls and flamers. Perhaps we can disagree on Batman-related matters without calling each other idiots?

        • chad says:

          Re: Ugg!

          First of all, you’re an idiot.

          This board has been remarkably free of trolls and flamers. Perhaps we can disagree on Batman-related matters without calling each other idiots?

          Second that.

        • y42 says:

          Re: Ugg!

          First of all, you’re an idiot.

          This board has been remarkably free of trolls and flamers. Perhaps we can disagree on Batman-related matters without calling each other idiots?

          Sorry, I’m blunt.
          Gordon tells Bats that the Joker is the villain of the next movie, it’s idiotic to complain about it once the pictures of the joker are published long after that.

          They can’t re-tell the Batman story without the joker, and there is absolutely nothing at all up to now that could lead anyone to think that he’ll be handled in the same way, or even a similar way, as the way he was handled in the Burton interpretation.

          As a courtesy to you, I’ll make an effort to be sarcastic and passive-aggressive the next time someone says something stupid like that, instead of coming right out and saying it bluntly, ’cause you’re cool.

          But GAH, that wasn’t the most brilliant analysis I’d seen that day, not by a long shot.

Comments are closed.