f13.net

It's been rumored for a while but was announced today. I can't really picture him playing the Joker and not a fan of his either. I hope they don't fuck this up. They could always dub his voice over with Mark Hamill.

Linky (http://www.superherohype.com/news/batmannews.php?id=4601)

Lame.

Actually, I think he has the perfect mouth for it.

(http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/DB/issues/97/01.09/ae.turbulence/ae.turbulence2.p.JPG)

This guy has the perfect mouth for it. And all the skills to boot. He would have made a crazy fucking, kick ass Joker. I don't care how old he is now.

Seriously.....WTF?

(http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/gallery/i/l/ledger/20040122_kri_e66_551.jpg)

Good.  He'll do fine.

This is the Joker, man. Not some bullshit part. "Fine", my ass. Even if does "fine" (which he won't), I don't want "fine". Even Jack Nicholson sucked balls as the Joker. Heath Ledger is a million times worse.

You're not correct.

It'll be ok.  Breathe.


It's not about the actors.  How many actors do we have to see fuck things up before you understand that.  It's NOT about the actors.

Scarecrow, Gordon, Flass, Alfred, Lucius, Batman AND Bruce Wayne were exceptional for the first film.

Stop worrying.  Until proven otherwise, the franchise is in good hands.

Heath will do fine.  Calm.

Wow.. way to be wrong.

I dunno what Joker you're going for, but Jack's was great.

Watch that shit again. Imagine that you're not 10 years old anymore. It's horrid. I mean really, really fucking horrid. Like Vanilla Ice/Ninja Turtles horrid. Worse than Tokyo Drift even.

And Ironwood, as someone obsessed with acting, I disagree. Hell, all of those examples you used from the first film don't make any sense anyways -- Gordon = Oldman, Lucius = Freeman, Alfred = Caine, Ras = Neeson, Falcone = Wilkinson, even Linus Roache was great in the small part of Bruce's father. Those are all fantastic actors. They matter. The only bad thing in the entire movie was due to an actor -- The decision to cast Katie Holmes.

I agree with Stray.  Nicholson was horrible.  Fucking, fucking horrible.

However, my point was not that those characters were perfect because of the actors.  (Indeed, I didn't mention Ras.  I thought it was fairly meh the performance turned in by Neeson.  However, it didn't actually matter.  He was just a moustache twirling bag guy.  It wasn't that important, really.)

My point was that even the best of actors can royally fuck up when they are given no direction or, worse, the wrong direction.  I would say that Katie Holmes, though a woman who should be shot in the head and left in a ditch, turned in no better or worse performance than Neeson or 'Falcone'.  The reason she seemed odd and out of place is because YET AGAIN they tried to shoe-horn in a love interest which, let's be honest, DOES NOT FIT in Batman's world.  Women just have little or no place there.

Sure, the people I mentioned are good actors, but what was more important was the direction and story of the film.

Heath will do fine.  What's important is what the DO with the Joker and what the direction and story is.

Don't get hung up.

Please.

Actually I watched it recently and thought "Damn, Jack was perfect for this role."  Dude I don't know why you're putting the role of the Joker on a pedestal, it's weird. Especially since if you didn't like Jack, what kind of standard do you have in your head as the "gold standard" for a Joker? 

He didn't play the Joker.  He played Jack Nicholson.

AGAIN.

That's the problem.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.  I daresay that you're in a very tiny minority on that one though.

Hmm, that must make me wrong then.


Look, when I watched Batman, I didn't for one second believe that the Joker was psychotic.  He was just a prancing, over the top, angry Jack Nicholson.  That's NOT the Joker.

The Joker should be geniunely creepy and disturbing.  Look at Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow.  He epitomised that role because he was really, really fucking creepy.  "Would you like to see my mask ?"

I don't want to see another 'over the top' Joker.  If I wanted that, I'd watch the Adam West show.  I want the Dark Knight Returns Joker.  The one that poisons kids at the county fair.  The one that breaks his own neck out of sheer spite.  The one that dresses women up as Wonder Woman and then beats them.  I want the one from the Killing Joke that shoots the girl through the spine and takes pictures just to prove a point.  I want the one that shakes hands on a deal just to watch you die with a smile on your face.

I'm fairly sure I might get what I want.  Stray isn't.

Ok, I'll agree with that much. Still not liking it though. Really fucking hating it. I will get hung up on it.

We at least agree what we want out of the Joker though.

...

Lol to duse. Go watch Top Gun or something.

Can I also just say that your Avatar looks more like Ribisi as The Joker.

Which disturbs me a little.

SorryI'm not a comic book guy and I like mainstream cinema.  I MUST BE AN IDIOT.

If anything, the first four Batman films suffered for the 'let's cast a star and let them do their take on it' syndrome.  That's not good enough if you want a comic book film taken seriously.  I honestly can't think of ANYONE who starred in the first four Batman films, with the possible exception of Keaton himself, who actually acted at any point.  They were all unconvincing cardboard cutouts and parodies.

With Nipples.


Which was why Batman Begins almost brought me to tears.  Sure, it was a comic book movie.  Sure, it was based on total fantasy.  But at no stage in the production did it ever lose my willing suspension of disbelief.  I even bought the Microwave Emitter.  I still have no problem with the Microwave Emitter.

This has nothing to do with knocking "mainstream" cinema. For crissakes, we're talking about BATMAN, not Billy Jack. Batman Begins was mainstream in the same way that Burton's film was -- The difference between the two was that Burton made a kid's film. Batman Begins paid homage to the comic, and was still mainstream.
 
As for the comics.....Batman comics are more akin to James Bond. That shit you've been watching is more akin to, not Austin Powers, but worse...An unfunny Austin Powers impression. It's not Batman.

I could go into a short history of comics from the 60's onwards, but needless to say, characters like Batman were fairly serious originally (don't mind the batsuit -- it's just a story of revenge and vigilantism). After that TV show, it was no different than Archie and Jughead.

It wasn't until the 80's that the original spirit of the character was captured again, and all comic readers want to see now is a film that pays homage in the same way (which happened with Batman Begins). The goofy, campy stuff has it's legacy with a TV show made for kids. Not the actual literature.

The Joker needs to be serial killer creepy. I'm talking Kevin Spacey in Seven creepy. If Heath Ledger can pull that off it's all good. I think he has the acting chops for it possibly, but I've never seen him go that far in a role so I'm a little cautious at this point. I think that new movie with him as the magician may give us a good idea if he will work as the Joker.

I think the most important thing Nolan needs to do is sit down Ledger and say "ok, this is serious. We're doing the Joker as a real person. He's a sociopath, he's evil. He's not a clown despite his costume. He's the killer clown from IT. (the book not the miniseries.)"

If Nolan does that we're probably going to be ok.

Ok point taken, but I liked both films.  I actually liked the latest Batman movie more.  I understand what you're saying about how a true comic book fan would appreciate one over the other.  But from the perspective of a guy who never read Batman comics, I really liked Jack as the Joker, and I think the vast majority of people like myself, who never read Batman comics, would agree. 

Also, I liked Top Gun, it's the quintessential 80s action movie.  Especially enjoyable with a sweet home theatre setup.

That is a quite untrue statement. It was actually the late '60's. Neal Adams and Denny O'Neil's Batman was exactly the type of thing you talk about, and it bled over into all the Batman books. There were a ton of great/good runs in the '70's as well that did Batman right, including the late Jim Aparo's work, the Marshall Rogers issues, etc. The depiction of Batman you are talking about was over by 1968, other than in the SuperFriends TV shows.

As for Jack Nicholson, he did a fantastic job. Yes, he was Jack, but he made that movie. Michael Keaton did not, as evidenced by Batman Returns. The problem with the Batman movies that Tim Burton did was that they weren't kids movies, they were Tim Burton movies with Batman in them. Fuck, Johnny Depp could have been Batman and it still would have been a Tim Burton movie. Nicholson played the Beetlejuice character.

Ledger will do just fine as the Joker. I agree with Ironwood, it isn't the actor, but what the director can get out of the actor. And Nolan's already proven he can do magic. Ledger is a decent actor, and I think he'll actually be a more sympathetic Joker than others might, because he's got a likeable face. That is if they show the Red Hood part of the Joker's story.

Nolan made the goddamn joke of a villain the Scarecrow into a creepy motherfucker. He could turn Heath Ledger into the Joker easy enough.

Yeah, but made it what.  That's the argument.  As far as I'm concerned, the closest he came to my Joker was shooting Bob and asking for time alone.  Even then, it was just played for laughs.  We shouldn't be laughing along with the Joker.  That's not the point.

Anyways, it hardly matters.  I've already got the Batman movie I wanted.  Anything else is a bonus.


Let's not get tooo Comic Book Guy.

These two statements are hard for me to understand together. That you liked Jack's depiction makes me wonder how critical you were of the comics. That you at least allowed for some cheesiness.

As for the TV show being responsible for the direction things took, OK, I'm not entirely right here (though I was only trying to convey that it was largely responsible. Not totally). Technically though, one could say that the campy, lighthearted take on Batman goes back much further than that even -- Back to the 40's when Robin was created. That period still isn't quite as bad as what would come later, but it was probably the first step.

I personally don't see anything "cheesy" about Jack's performance in Batman.  Like I said, I can understand if you're into comics having a different perspective.  But Haemish seems pretty into comics and he liked Nicholson too.  I don't know, I think this is just one of those times that proves seriously arguing about acting is usually pretty dumb. 

Oh c'mon. Watch that scene where he goes to meet Vicki at the museum. The one where he and his thugs are jamming out to Prince (not even a good Prince song, mind you). That's kind of shit that the word "cheesy" was invented for.

And why the fuckeration is he after Vicki Vale anyway ?  Eh ?

The only two scenes where Jack 'got it' were the Vale Sketchbook scene and, in a way, the 'Bob, Gun' scene.  And even then it was played too much for laughs.

Stop making me agree with Stray on this.  It's making me sound like I care.

On a sidenote: Bob may have been the straight man to Jack's Joker, but funnily enough, he was partially responsible for fucking up the Conan films. Barbarian is possibly the greatest fantasy flick ever, and Destroyer is one of the cheesiest. And it's because of Bob.

He was pretty great in Repo Man though.

Jack's Joker was batshit insane, homicidal, looked the part and fit in with the rest of the movie. Was it Frank Miller's Joker? Not exactly, but there were elements of it. Jack's Joker was pretty spot on, if not letter perfect. The fact that it was Jack being Jack just added to it, IMO, instead of taking from it. No, the villain performance you should be pissed off about is Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face, who was really nothing more than Jack's Joker with a different fucked up face. Or all of Batman & Robin.

The original movie Joker WAS NOT the comics Joker, and neither was its Batman. Keaton did a good performance for what he got, but really, they only got the spirit of the comics right in a movie setting. Batman Begins was so much better because it got the spirit, most of the letter, and the essence. But for its time, the original Batman movie hit the nail on the head as well as it was going to, based on the previous depictions of Batman in media other than the comics. But really, it was a Tim Burton film that happened to have Batman and the Joker in it. Jack's Joker was more akin to Keaton's Beetlejuice than he was the comics' Joker, and I'm ok with that because it was an entertaining performance.

You'll probably be surprised to note that my favorite Batman movie after Batman Begins was Batman Forever... yes, even with the bat nipples. I thought Kilmer's Batman was the best of the 3 before Bale, I liked the action, and I like O'Donnell's Robin. Despite its depictions of Two-Face and Riddler as just more Joker ripoffs, despite it's gayass color palette, I liked the movie.


The campy take on Batman really didn't start until the 50's, when no one was buying superhero comics. Even the introduction of Robin was not a bit of camp, seeing as how Robin's family was brutally murdered in front of him. The 60's TV show was responsible for the campiness of the character in media other than the comics, but it did have its roots in the comics of the 50's and early 60's. But even before the Neal Adams stuff, right around the beginning of the DC Silver Age, the campiness in Batman comics was on its way out.

Ledger should do well.  He does have a smile that could be just creepy enough to do it.  I am satisfied.

I think since they are probably going the ultra-violent psychotic route, minus the camp, Ledger has a chance of pulling it off with some decent success.

After a few days of letting it sink in, I guess I've opened my mind up enough to give him a chance.

Still though, that doesn't mean there isn't at least 20 actors who could do it better. Because there is. That's why I'm pissed -- Because of all the things that could have been.

Ledger is competent enough to listen to Nolan and not be totally sucky -- But competence isn't an advantage. That should be a given. What else does he bring to the table? The whole reason why I think that the "actor matters" is because the Joker is the type of part that needs brilliance and creativity on both sides of the fence. Unless you want something totally 'meh', it can't be all up to the director to support this kind of role. Contrary to popular opinion, actors are not models. They're actors. An actor needs to act -- Not just pose, follow directions, or find his inspiration from the script. Villain roles, out of all things, require someone to dig a lot deeper than that -- Because they're so easy to operate on the level of cliche. A great actor will take the road less traveled, and surprise the fuck out of people every time --- And I just don't see Heath Ledger that way.

We're not really arguing that he's going to be great.  But he'll be decent enough that the movie should still be quite good.  It's really nothing to flip out over.  I mean, I'm not jumping out of my chair screaming "WMG HEATH LEDGER BEST JOKER EVER" but it's not like they cast 50 Cent or anything.

50 Cent as the Joker.

That would work.

I said to the wife five minutes after I left the theatre for Batman Begins "It's a fucking shame Cillian was in that."  She looked at me strange and said "I thought he was brilliant and creepy."

"He was.  He'd have made a stunning Joker."

Let's not recast just yet is all I'm saying.  We'll give Heath a shot.  All I really want is for the sequel to contain the same sense of realism that the first film had.  If that means dulling some of the Jokers 'over the top' edges, I'm all for it.

If you think Neeson did a good job in Begins you can't really call yourself a competent judge, "obsessed with acting" though you might be. Though his performance was fitting of the yawnfest that was his character...

Just give Ledger a go, who knows what it might bring. I think it's safe to assume that the director that you think did so well the first time has a better idea of how to get it right the second too.

You're a bit late to the party.

The only problem with Neeson is that he's cast in too much stuff. He's everywhere. That's why he's boring to some people.

But then again, there's a reason why he's cast so much.

Also, just because Nolan did well the first time around doesn't mean he has a better idea than me about Batman. He just happens to be the first director who paid closer attention to the source material. That doesn't mean he's a better authority than me or anyone else though. I can still talk about the shit. I can still have an opinion.

Hmm, I can think of 3 roles, tho, thats seen Neeson play the exact same character.  That's not really because he's cast too much, but more to do with his typecasting and performance issues.

Aslan, Jinn and Ras are all pretty much the same phoned in, mentoring, 'mind your surroundings' bullshit.  Hell, even in GoNY he had the same kinda scene.

Don't get me wrong, the boy can act - but I wish that he would get cast in more passionate roles.  He's better at that.

That I'll agree on. Quite a few mentor roles.....But I like him either way.

He did do Kinsey recently as well though, which is fantastic.

I liked him in Rob Roy.

Are you any relation to Agaton Sax and did you ever defeat the League of Silent Exploders ?

Wow. I had never heard of Agaton Sax, but now I wish I had. A guy who smokes a meerschaum and knows underwater jujitsu could totally kick aquaman's ass.

First pic of Heath Ledger as The Joker:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=20534

Oh God, Trippy, Why ?



Just to add more clarity :  They're going to have to build a really good film around THAT to interest me.  I'm not saying they can't.  But....

For a second there when I saw that pic, I thought maybe Boy George was starring in the next Crow movie.

Clownshoes.

I think you people are jumping the gun here. Everyone is hoping for a dark, realistic, and insane Joker. That doesn't go hand in hand with a slick Pompador and a pruple suit. I see some real possibilities in that picture.

I agree with Bunk.

It looks like they're playing up the disfiguring accident aspect of the Joker's origin, what with the apparent scarring and everything.  Really, just based on look, I'm not discouraged at all.  The discouraging thing for me is that I just don't think Heath Ledger can pull it off.  ESPECIALLY if they're going to have someone somehow disfigured and then painted over, they could have gotten someone with better acting ability.  Between the paint and scars, Heath can't use his looks, and from anything I've seen him in, that's pretty much all he has. 

Heath Ledger is more than a mimbo. I think he can pull it off. As for the picture, I think it's perfectly in keeping with Nolan's style for Batman. He made the fucking Scarecrow actually scary, do not discount what he can do with the Joker, a character who IS in fact scary.

Cillian Murphy mostly made the Scarecrow scary, in fairness.  The guy is really outright creepy.

You know who would be a great joker... That guy from American Psycho.

Well-played, nerd.

I just wanted to add.

Batman begins is the only HD-DVD I have purchased. At somewhere around the 4th viewing Katie Holmes actually becomes ok.

I find myself agreeing with Ironwood on his observations.

I said pretty much the exact same thing to my wife. He was creepy, and his cheekbones/smile were PERFECT for the Joker. I kept expecting them to turn him into the Joker, in fact- canon be damned.

I like the pic of Ledger as the Joker. That is not some campy, Prince-dancing mockery. It is a picture of a deeply disturbed psychopath. It gives me even more hope for this flick.

Heath Ledger will be fine, he's actually been pretty good in most of the stuff I've seen him in. If he could do the job he did in Brokeback Mountain he can handle The Joker.

Also, Jack Nicholson is horrible in anything he's ever done. He's played the same character for 40, regardless of wether it's the right character or not. He's one of the world's worst actors, and when people say anything positive about him it's a giant red flag do disregard anything else they have to say about movies. People who think he's good are either lying because they feel they have to or have the taste and class of a high school wrestler.

And I realize it's a year too late, but all of you stop arguing about movies with a guy who thinks Tom Cruise is the world's best actor and that Top Gun was one of the best movies ever made. It might rub off on you.

Best joker ever.

That's serious shit.

I'm on my tiptoes trying to wrap my mind around who Anthony Michael Hall will be playing in the movie.  Farmer Ted as David Cain, or maybe Clayface?

Who's farmer Ted's daughter is the important question.

HIGHWAY TO THE DANGERZONE!

Hee hee.  Afraid he's got other plans.

Ledger can act.

Oh, right... I don't post in here.

Why not ?

When your writer/producer/director credits run: 'Memento', 'Insomnia', 'Batman Begins', 'The Prestige'; you get to cast whomever the fuck you want without criticism from me.

Fixed.

"Justice League" did it right when Diana was trying to talk Batman into date and he replies with something like, "You're an immortal warrior and I'm a rich kid with issues, lots of issues."

Damn, I wish Timm and company would get put in charge of a live action movie.  Maybe Green lantern?  That would be badass.

Katie Holmes is awful. What was that movie, "Telephone" or "Telephone Booth" or whatever with Colin Ferrel? God she was cringe-inducing in that one.

Phone Booth (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183649/)

She's cringe inducing in everything she's in. She's like Anna Faris' ugly, younger, somehow less-talented sister.

Aww I like Anna Faris.. I think she's pretty cute and at least decent in comedies... mind you she's been in a lot of bad ones.  However she was in Waiting.  :)

She was in that movie for about 60 seconds. But then, I found the entire movie to be completely ordinary.

Nolan has shown the ability to get actors to work well together and put out a good performance, so I'm not worried about Ledger as the Joker. If it was Ledger straight out of "A Knight's Tale", yes, that'd suck, but he's shown improvement since then.

For your viewing pleasure: more "Dark Knight" pics, apparently leaked. (http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/08/16/holy-frickin-dark-knight-tons-of-new-batman-and-joker-photos/)

For those not wanting to click the link, here's one:

(http://media.firstshowing.net/img/tdk-still-06.jpg)

Also: the Joker kicks for the crotch:

(http://media.firstshowing.net/img/tdk-still-02.jpg)

I do hope they fix that wire in post production.
(http://media.firstshowing.net/img/tdk-still-03.jpg)
I say this because the Matrix has a wire visible when Neo does a backflip to avoid the train.
Illusion breaking for me.  Unless it's part of the scene, then I'll go to the dumbass corner.

Um.

Really?  I liked the movie, but come on.  Batman is a detective who knows martial arts, not a non-detective ninja.

Extreme Apologies for the Necro.

I Got What I Wanted.

I take it that this no longer holds true then.

Actually, it still does hold true.

But they DID.

 :why_so_serious: