Quote from: Ghost Whistler;317852Keaton's Bruce Wayne was socially awkward and uncomfortable, pottering around his wealth and clearly damaged goods.

Which is a clear departure from the character in previous incarnations.  Bruce Wayne has been, for quite some time, a millionaire 'playboy'... not a millionaire 'shut-in'.  Hugh Hefner, not Howard Hughes.

QuoteThe Joker from Dark Knight was just a crook with face paint really. He wasn't the Joker at all. He wasn't bad, it just wasn't the Joker; too removed from the source material ultimately.

Just as Keaton's Wayne was far removed from the source material. I'm not disagreeing with your likes or dislikes, just pointing that in the same volume of material you are holding nearly opposite opinions on what is good and bad. Departure from source material for bruce wayne= good, for Joker= bad.

QuoteBruce Wayne isn't the Joker. Criticising me for being inconsistent, in your opinion, is therefore pretty stupid. Keaton portrayed Wayne better than Bale who I don't care for at all.

Forgive me for reordering your paragraphs but the point is slightly more clear this way.   The inconsistancy is quite there, and you have to merely look at both your praise and critique together to see it. The fact that it is two seperate characters is particularly relevant, because there is no inconsistancy if you look at only half the data.  

Your final statement may cover the REASON for the inconsistancy, but it does not excuse it.  Opinion: you like Keaton better. Valid and fair.  Less fair when you try to make a more objective critque that 'Ledger wasn't even the joker' based on the fact that you prefer and earlier iteration (Keaton and Nicholson).

Quote from: Lawbag;317857Heath Ledger winning the Oscar was akin to Anthony Hopkins winning a Oscar for Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs.

Both were in it for barely a few minutes, and while good, they were just supporting actors for the main hero.

I may be speaking off the cuff here but didn't Ledger get, in fact, a 'Supporting Actor' oscar?  

Less certainly but ditto Hopkins?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;317852............ Keaton portrayed Wayne better than Bale who I don't care for at all.

The Joker from Dark Knight was just a crook with face paint really. He wasn't the Joker at all. He wasn't bad,.......

GW, you're just wrong on both things I bolded.

 While you may hav an opinion - what you miss is that BOTH Heath Ledger and Christian Bale played their characters closer and truer to the source material that they were given to look at.

In the better (best?) BAtman stories of the mid 1970s to the present Bruce Wayne 'played the part' of rich playboy with many assumed one night stands - just the way that Bale has portrayed him in two movies. I find Bale much more convincing as Bruce Wayne than Keaton ever was. (also much more realistic)

As to Joker - Jack Nicholson basically just played it as "Nicholson Persona as Joker". Heath Ledger portrayed the VERY insanhe but intellogent Joker that has been shown in many of the better graphic novels and comic books. Its a much, much, bolder and interesing take on Joker than what Jack Nicholson did.


- Ed C.


Oh and minor thing: Maggie Gyllenhal is 50 times better actress than Katie Holmes - and loooks age appropriate for the character. Really wish she had done BOTH the movies as that character.

I have never seen a version of the Joker that resembled LEdger's at all. It wasn't really interesting; it was just dark.

I don't really like Christian Bale tbh.

Bruce Wayne doesn't really work as a character anyway. The only reason Keaton's was any good was that he made him interesting and because Tim Burton played on the freak show aspect of the comic. Something that Nolan has omitted, and that's unfortunate because you can't really make Batman all that believable. Playing up the grotesequerie is the right choice I think.

And, as has been said, the plot of TDK was confused.

Eh. Tim Burton admitted that he did not read comic books, like comic books and had no respect for the material.  Frankly its a fucking miracle we got a coherent, recognizable batman movie out of him, given the attitude he displayed regarding it.

I mean... we could have gotten a Batman who's alter ego was Clark Kent.

Quote from: Spike;317799I, for one, like it when an actor has the balls to junk a previous portrayal of a well known character and blaze new ground.  Certainly, Ledger got a lot of praise because, well, he fukkin' died... which has fuck all to do with his actual talent, but his take on the Joker was mesmerizing none the less.  I'll take 'Mesmerizing' over 'technically perfect but dull' any day.

I liked Bale's Bruce Wayne but I"m less impressed with is Batman, so chalk me up to that camp as well. THat 'batman rasp' is just silly sounding and ruins any attempt at 'acting' the moment the bat opens his mouth.

'blaze new ground'?

What bollocks!

You're just jealous because I'm prettier than you.

Quote from: Spike;318588You're just jealous because I'm prettier than you.

He's jealous because he can't spank his own butt.

-clash

Unfortunately, Ledger owes his praise to his death.

I've seen most of his early, "indie" films, and he was never a great actor.  Competent, definitely, but not great.

A good-looking boy, without doubt, but his Joker performance was a textbook phone-in.

I recommend "Two Hands".  A great Australian crime story with the jaw-dropping Rose Byrne.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Cesar Romero - didn't even shave off his mustache.

 Nicholson phoned it in

Ledger did not .

Heath Ledger actually was an actor when he did the movie. Unlike the previous two.


- Ed C.