Does the somewhat unorthodox interpretation of the joker on display here look totally awesome, or terrible? I'm not in love with it on first blush, but given how much I loved Batman Begins (best comic book movie out there, in my view) and the quality of the talent involved in The Dark Knight I'm optimistic despite my surface skepticism.
« Easy Answers | Main | With Friends Like These »
Question of the Day
17 Dec 2007 01:15 pm
Comments (30)
I'm very much in favor of the Joker's new look, and am otherwise in complete agreement with you about Nolan's work on the Bat-franchise so far. The Joker is a pychopathic kill-crazy nightmare, and the new look manages to look creepy and modern yet keep most of the sigils of the already-established brand. Also, it's worth thinking about the fact that the Joker's look is supposed to be the result of chemical burns, and that in a more "realistic" world like that of the Nolan bat-movies it's probably fair to assume that any clownish burns resulting from a trip to the toxic waste dump would not look exactly like Bozo.
Are you kidding? Awesome. Maybe double awesome.
I saw Tim Burton's Batman on TV not so long ago. I remember liking it quite a bit the first time around, but it has aged terribly. Changing the Joker from just plain ridiculous live-action cartoon character to plausibly ridiculous psychopath looks from the trailer like a stroke of genius.
I was skeptical upon hearing that Heath Ledger had been cast as the Joker, but this trailer among other screen-shots and clips has mollified all fears and replaced them with giddy anticipation. The look is perfect for the real Joker: a leering, menacing, psychopath, Ledger has the voice down pat as well.
It seems like he's created a real character, and not the great but over the top Jack Nicholson impersonation that Jack Nicholson did in Tim Burton's Batman.
I don't understand what's not to like -- is it that he's not, you know, completely in whiteface? That the leer appears to be a scar which the Joker has emphasized with a garish red smear? What?
The only jarring thing to me was the character's apparent association with knives. I thought the Joker was a gun man.
Otherwise, the answer is "awesome" -- bring it on.
The Joker looks bad. And, personally, I find the trailer surprisingly unexciting. No doubt, The Dark Knight will be a cut above most comic book movies, but this looks... dreary and bland.
The look fit's pretty well. Nolan has been quoted as saying he wants the movies to go back to their root, and have a gritty, but real feeling. He said he wants the villains to be human, not over the top comic book characters.
Ledger also was given a copy of "The Killing Joke" from Nolan, and asked to base his interpretation off that reference. That alone should make this film a nice journey into the mind of a psychopathic killer, and batman's greatest foe.
Anyways, I'm looking foward to it!
I love this Joker...in retrospect, the Jack Nicholson version is so over the top whereas this one seems to be very much in tune with the Joker of "The Killing Joke" era.
I've been looking forward to this movie since the credits stopped rolling on Batman Begins, and this only makes me more excited. Chris Nolan (and Christian Bale) has done more for this franchise than I ever thought possible!
Also, the soundtrack kicks ass. Nothing like massive french horn parts with staccato string overlays to get the heart racing...
Aw, that movie makes me homesick for Chicago (we moved away last summer). Good thing we'll be back in a week!
It doesn't look terrible. It might be totally awesome. Mostly it strikes me as a good, innovative take, similar to most of the first movie.
Wow, I'm in the minority here. Do folks here really think a physically and psychologically realistic Joker is an interesting proposition? Has nobody noticed the lack of flash, wit, and color in this trailer? The character can be both larger than life and psychologically interesting. The The Killing Joke was set in a psychedelic carnival!
I vote AWESOME. These are supposed to be chemical burns, after all, not a mask.
But I still like what Jack Nicholson did, too.
I just hope they get over the modern fault of killing the bad guy in every movie.
I realize the practical need to keep the Joker, etc., alive & in custody in the comic books, but it *was* nice to see the good guy putting some effort into locking up the bad guy, not blowing him away.
The quintessential liberal supervillian isn't a chemically-burned criminal mastermind with a blimp full of deadly Joker venom, it is a scarred psychopath with a huge number of interrelated web pages.
I doubt Batman kills Joker in this one. Isn't that why he swerves his BatBike (or whatever the hell it's called) out of the way? I love the look of Joker in this, but I'm not 100% sold on Ledger's interpretation. But I trust Nolan, so I'm confident everything will work in context.
Also: how great is the title of this movie?
When I first saw a photo of Ledger's Joker in an issue of Wizard I was highly skeptical. Seeing it in motion with Ledger's amazing vocal intonation has sold me. "Eeeevening Comissioner." Almost up there with Mark Hamill's voice.
Hopefully though, he wont be completely dark. A few good one-liners are what make the Joker The Joker.
They can put Heath Ledger in drag and make him run for president for all I care, as long as I get some sweet Christian Bale action. I'm there.
I'm curious to see what they do with it. The first movie concentrated on Batman's psychology, but that's been done for now. From the police scenes, it looks like this one will be a commentary on the War on Terror.
I vote awesome.
Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Looks great to me. They needed to distinguish this Joker from Nicholson, and it looks like they did reasonably well.
Also, the movie trailer seems "bland" because the motif is the "Dark Knight". So I expect most everything is going to happen at night. Looks like plenty of action and special effects, though - blowing up whole city blocks and the like.
I found the Joker's emphasis on weapons interesting. He's seen with knives, guns, rocket launchers. It strikes me that this may be intended to align the Joker with the current "terrorist" stereotype rather than the classic comic book supervillain or crime movie mob boss. Nicholson was more of both. The Joker in the comic books is an amalgam of all three, in my opinion. He's a former mob member upgraded to supervillain by his madness and bizarre plots, and he has his own gang. Your classic supervillain tends to be on his own, using his powers or technology, although he may have lackeys as well.
I also found it interesting that Batman himself is not clearly visible in the trailer - but the Joker is. Christian Bale may find himself up-staged by Heath Ledger, much as Michael Keaton was by Jack Nicholson in the original "Batman."
I still love Nicholson's line: "Wait 'til they get a load of ME! Ooop! Ooop! Ooop! Bwahahahahaha!"
My kind of guy.
Batman Returns is the best comic book film out there.
Awesome; not totally.
Batman's the problem. Batman and overrated Bale.
He looks like a cross between The Crow and some Suicide Girl.
The rest looks pretty sweet.
Except when he does that open-mouthed terse-tongued inner-lip circular lick. Ew.
Nicholson's Joker is a different villain for a different time. It's hard to believe, but that was almost twenty years ago. He was a psychotic, homicidal maniac, true. But he was also a flamboyant trickster, a likable rascal. Looking back, I wonder how well Jack's interpretation of the character has aged. Jack Napier was also an elite - a wealthy mobster driven to his insanity by circumstance, not choice. A perfect bad guy for Reagan's America. He might have been born to the streets, but he had risen to the pinnacle of the crime syndicate to become a playboy, a rogue - the personification of cool (not unlike like the actor who played him) before the chemical accident. Even after, his sociopathology was wrapped in a protective layer of theatrical affectation and tailored elegance.
Enter the Joker of post 9/11 America. Ledger is a ragged, unholy mess - all rawboned rage and jagged instability. He looks and acts unhinged in a way that reflects the unclean back alleys, not the exclusive penthouses, of Gotham. The haphazard way he handles the bazooka, the wounded hound satisfaction he has in sticking his head out of the car window, even the grumbled frustration evident in his grunt, "Come on, hit me," suggests a different strain of psychotic, homicidal insanity than that imagined by Nicholson. Yes, his clothes are tailored and, yes, he demonstrates a certain theatrical flair. But Ledger's younger, street-filthy Joker is a neglected non-entity of the urban underclass wreaking havoc on privileged Gothamites just for a laugh.
Can't remember who said it, but the point about good Batman villains is that they're all reflections of Batman. The Joker is a gadget freak who was driven mad by trauma. Two-Face has a split personality - respectable law-abiding citizen/violent psychotic. Mr Freeze is driven by the deaths of his family. And so on...
I guess my problem with the Joker depicted here is that he doesn't do anything funny, or even anything horrible that's funny to him. Or even anything weird. He blows up buildings? Lots of people do that.
If they were gonna go that route, I wonder why they didn't just hire Marilyn Manson for the part.
i think it looks awesome. but the curse of the superhero film is the need for a PG13 rating. we need a superhero film wholly for adults, as dark as 7 or somesuch. 300 proves it could sell.
Comments closed December 31, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think I feel about the same way you do, Matt. I'm not completely sold on the Joker's look, but I am very psyched about this flick after Batman Begins. Chris Nolan is proving himself to be an exceptional filmmaker.
Posted by Captain Noble | December 17, 2007 3:03 PM