RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media Batman: The Dark Knight casting, news and rumors

Which was why he was perfect for the role.
He fit the 89 film just as well as Caesar fit the 66 version.

Pariah its a movie interpretation of a comic book, which means it does not have to fit 100% into any comic book criteria.
Hell, there have been so many different interpretations of Batman and the bat villains etc in the comic books themselves, so why should the movies be any different?

Simple fact is, unlike many super hero movies, Begins actually managed to appeal to both comic nerds and non-comic reading movie goers.

Also, as PJP said, this is an early version of Batman, long before he himself becomes so ingrained in the Batman persona that Bruce then becomes the mask rather than the Bat.

90 second teaser trailers are rarely known for their depth and/or thought provocation. it is, by nature, a teaser of the movie's explosive elements; an attempt at generating hype some one-hundred and eighty days before the movie is even available to the public.



how is that wrong, though? its similar to the comics, its an interesting spin on the mythos... whats bad with this?



the "imma let you die in the train" part?

that, i didn't really like. could absolutely live with in a mostly perfect movie representation of batman, but i didn't like it so much.



as others have said, there really is no "real batman" yet. at least that is how i interpret this series thus far. its a miller year one, not a miller dark knight.



the joker's "definitive" origin in comicdom, "the killing joke", saw him as a regular guy until falling into acid, and thus he "ran along with it." i think thats a crap definitive origin, but whatever -- at the very worst, its the movie taking from the source material.

whats more, i dont think we really know what the persona of the joker is pre-scarring. or even how he got the scar. maybe he did it himself? maybe he was just a fucked up guy in his early life? maybe he microwaved cats? maybe, like two-face, and/or theoretically like the "TKJ" joker, he was crazy all along but hid it, until his outter shell matched his insides, and his craziness spilled to the forefront.

nicholson's joker was great. perfect fit for the burton movie, where everything was sorta over the top, and honestly just amazing casting on its own. whether on-screen jack is the same as off is another question, but he's clearly nailed that particular role, and played that out in the 89 film.

....who's the "real" Batman? What is the "definitive" Joker?

Bend over and I'll show you.

They may not give us an official origin for the Joker, but in other variations (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, Burton's Batman) they've shown him to be a mobster before his transformation. I wouldn't be surprised to see that hinted at, as they have the Joker robbing mob run banks at the beginning of Dark Knight...

Last months's Wizard gave some reasons for the scarring......he was sliced up during a knife fight as a troubled youth. I can't remember if they said they would do any backstory in the movie....they should put it in as a DVD extra. I'll read the article again and let you guys know.

Huh. I was thinking that maybe a mobster did it to him - I'm stuck on the mobster angle.

I think they are going to leave it open to interpretation as to the who and why. I'll let you know. I can't remember now.....it's been 2 weeks since I read it and about an eternity's events have happened to me since.

An eternity? See, that's what happens when you are a god amongst insects.

I'm an insect amongst gods. My time flies...

Truly real and definitive, I'm sure...

hiM prOOmefeos dOeS waNT buMM sEX WIth aM PeTErJp

Like anyone doesn't!

stOp aM SeXSing Up rEX tO aM MaKE PEEterJP JeLLous

Epic Take!

Yeah?

Owner of a lonely arsehole.

Points...

FIVE!

THOUSAND!

Hmmm...the virgin-ness might rub off on me...

I bet you would like that.
Snarf rubbing off on you.

The real Batman is a guy who fights a retarded battle against an enemy that never dies. He knows this battle is retarded but he refuses to stop fighting it because he's compelled to.

The definitive Joker is a guy who's not Scarface.

I'm not saying what they are. I'm simply saying what they're not.

Pariah.
I hate to break it to ya, but Batman, he aint real buddy.

I hope the therapy helps you over this lil man!

Fine. But what I'm trying to say is that, even with all the change people apply to their individual takes on Batman, there's still consistency that I would personally like to see and that I feel would add to the overall value of the characters.

For example: Of all the writers of Batman and all their different styles, I don't think anyone was willing to touch his origin like Nolan did. Mike Barr's Joe Chill story was at least set years after the incident.



Uuuhh.....It sucked.

Philosophy and Morality itself isn't a bad thing of course, but people don't go see Batman movie's for metaphysical nuance. The whole absorption of philosophy through extraneous elements thing was the worst part about the original movie and made it way too abstract. Subtle development of his own persona through his own observations would have been preferable to everyone else sticking their oar into Bruce Wayne's character (see also: Falcone, Racheal, Ra's, and Alfred giving lectures). In the origin story, defining himself is what Batman did without so many foreign opinions; it just would have fit better.

Although, like I said, I acknowledge that Nolan rearranged the origin so there'd just be Bruce Wayne with a suit, so it wouldn't work the same way it did with Batman. But at the same time, that doesn't make it a very involving or gripping story to me.



That was my point: Nolan hasn't made a real Batman. However you choose to interpret Batman's MO, it's not the same as recognizing whether or not he exists as a persona.

This isn't me being facetious or petty, Nolan really did make a point of selling this movie based on Batman being a "person." i.e. He wanted to write about a Bruce Wayne and not a Batman. This isn't just Year One; it's Year One with a Bruce Wayne who knows Joe Chill was the killer. That just morphs everything.



Actually, the entire point of the book was to say that's what could have happened since its fit Joker's caveat of a "bad day" scenario.

But in any event: Whether or not any of us think he went crazy post- or pre-dip, the point is that he was never defined as a dude who smiled because his mouth was screwed up that way. His personality has always been about the dude who was smiling 'cuz he wanted to.

Ledger's Joker, on the other hand, is rather superficial. All attitude, very little apparent substance.



To point: Nolan's crafting Joker's image based on the wound. If they hadn't thought of the sliced up face idea, they probably wouldn't have bothered even if the character they were thinking of was crazy.

It just seems to me that they're making extreme efforts to break away from the psychological and emphasize shock tactics more than anything else. And that confuses me; what's wrong with having basically normal looking people who are crazy as opposed to visually disgusting and scary figures? It makes me feel like I'm watching "The Batman" series where all of the enemies are made as monstrous and physically abnormal as possible for the sake of contextualizing the archetypes for the kiddies who watch the show.

....Don't be a cunt Nowhereman!

Fuck off!

TL;DR

That was uncalled for.

No it wasnt!

I've never been so certain of a movies awesomeness as I am right now.

You said that about Gigli.

You said that about Ghost Rider...

Hold on now, Ghost Rider was a hell of alot better then Gigli!

The pubic hair that collects in the shower drain is a hell of alot better than Gigli! What's your point? Ghost Rider was a nauseating abomination of a movie. It ranks up there with Elektra, Batman&Robin, Superman IV, and Catwoman...

Err no, Ghost Rider was a fun, if dumb movie!
It certainly was not in the company of those other shit pile super hero movies!