Messages

I had a thought that occurred to me right now. If Batman '89 was the first live-action adaptation for the main character to speak in two distinctive voices as Bruce Wayne and his alter ego, then how Burton and Keaton never seem to get any credit for it? Granted, Kevin Conroy went one better in BTAS by speaking by acting as charming as Bruce Wayne and brooding as Batman. But still...

Short answer? People just seem to flat-out resent both B'89 & Returns, & therefore talk down (or just completely deny) their redeeming qualities & contributions to onscreen (& offscreen, for that matter) comic lore.

[Short answer cont.] 
I've noticed that, generally, when the films are derided (as they so often are), whether it's a vitriolic youtube comment or a protracted, nitpicky essay on some guy's no-traffic blog, people have little-to-no legitimate criticism for the films (at least for B'89).

They're penned mostly by guys who seem to have this rather deep-rooted dislike for either Burton or Nicholson (each has his own group of dedicated detractors, I've found), or guys who simply resent Keaton's Wayne for being skinny & bushy-haired. They seem to try to mask it by adopting this sort of passive-aggressive demeanor in their 'critiques', & then mostly repeat stuff they read on someone else's blog or youtube comment (seriously, it's like they just cut & paste - "Jack just played Jack Nicholson in makeup", "Batman doesn't kill", "There's no story/the story is too simple", "Joker shouldn't be responsible for the death of Batman's parents", etc.)

In other words, stuff that's either simply untrue, or which they personally dislike, but which made for a stronger story arc, character dynamic or film overall.

Sorry for going off the trail a little bit there.

I'd also like to strongly encourage you to pay special attention to this bit, Silver Nemesis, because it's rather brilliantly articulated:

I don't agree that people hold these movies up to an impossible level of scrutiny at all because for all the seriousness, for all supposed drama, for all the attempts to be more realistic and the attempts to have "thought-provoking" themes, these films all suffer from too many flaws that people would normally rip apart other movies for having. If Burton's Batman, Man of Steel, any Spider-Man movie or any Marvel Studios movie have the same problems like this trilogy has, they would've been condemned and their directors would be held accountable. After all, the same people who never had a problem with Nolan's Batman doing ineffective things like causing collateral damage and being responsible for the deaths of Ra's, Talia and Two-Face, are usually the ones who whined about Superman's recklessness and killing Zod in Man of Steel. Hypocrisy much?

Questionable storytelling choices can hurt any film, but these films had far too many of them. Joker says to Batman "You won't kill me because of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness", but then Batman kills Two-Face five minutes later. It's things like that make it very hard for me, and I'm sure for many people, to have such respect for the films, and especially for Nolan as a storyteller. For whatever liberties and direction Nolan was taking, I could have forgiven all of it if this kind of stupidity didn't appear in his movies so often, and characters didn't continue to do things that didn't match what they supposed to believe in. Put that together with his inconsistent approach to realism, unnecessary expository dialogue from beginning to end, and a general lack of fun (especially in the action department that don't involve car chases and airplanes), it's not very hard to understand why some people don't enjoy these films, and actually found them less entertaining than the ones mentioned above.

[especially if you read Hamm's original script.]

Oh boy, this thread's gotten very one sided . I thought Ledger was excellent as the Joker. It's not a matter of one performance being better than the other, and it doesn't really bother me if the majority of people disagree with my own opinion. I like Nicholson and Ledger in the role. So I'll try and defend Ledger's performance, just as I would if everyone started slagging off Nicholson's.

Well, it did obviously bother you a bit that people disagree with you, otherwise, you would not have taken the time to compose such a comprehensive presentation of your opinion. But that's natural - human instinct - to be bothered by opposition, so don't deny it with an off-the-cuff remark - embrace and acknowledge it as what fueled your self-expression.  and people have been slagging Nicholson's Joker for years, btw.

But even if you look at earlier stories like Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (1989), can you honestly say McKean's Joker doesn't look more like Ledger's Joker than Nicholson's?

McKean's Joker doesn't resemble either of them, & not Ledger's in the slightest. But my, oh my, what brilliant work. My favorite visual interpretation of Joker.

(Ledger's Joker was heavily influenced by Lee Bermejo's interpretation, a close rival with McKean's Joker for my favorite)

* "Madness is like gravity..." A cute line, except the character depicted in The Dark Knight wasn't "mad", or crazy, or anything else that would make for a good quote (or resemble The Joker character.) He was precise, calculating, and filled with nerd-rage... and not at all crazy. Jittery as hell and really, really pissed? Yes. Murderous? You bet. "Mad (as in 'a Mad Tea Party')"? No. Every one of his schemes (and long-winded speeches, for that matter) were, as many of you have pointed out, meticulously planned & executed - the work of a focused, scheming terrorist, not of a chaotic, fun-loving psycho, which you could call 'reinvention'...

You could say the exact same thing about the Nicholson Joker. He was incredibly meticulous in his plans, especially if you read Hamm's original script. He plotted the murders of the mob bosses who opposed him, consolidated all their resources into a single organisation (Nicholson's Joker is actually a businessman amongst other things), unearthed a secret nerve toxin from the CIA, broke it down into a compound poison, contaminated thousands of hygiene and cosmetic products, poisoned almost the entire GCPD, and timed the poison so it would kick in just as he was crashing the unveiling of the bicentennial statue (see Hamm's script for this subplot), repeatedly hijacked the city's TV signals for his own illegal broadcasts, mass produced counterfeit banknotes with which to lure the public to his parade, and staged a massive street party that even the city council couldn't match.

Good point, & one with which I agree. But my point - though I probably didn't make myself clear - is that the essence of Ledger's Joker was that of the "schemers" he so greatly detests/against whom he rants in the hospital room. Where Jack's Joker was precise & scheming, he was also completely spontaneous & playfully random, yet vicious & murderous - you didn't know if he'd kill you or kiss you. Again, having not articulated it well, I guess my point was that TDK Joker all but lacked that colorful dynamic. His violence, scheming and his "chaos" message were the base of the character, & all that there really was to him, and to me, that doesn't constitute a portrayal of madness, no matter how jittery he got.

Insanity doesn't necessarily mean diminished intellect. It would take a genius to pull off what Nicholson and Ledger's Jokers did,

but it would take a madman to actually want to do those things.

subjective. as i see it, it wouldn't necessarily take a madman, just a nasty, driven, resourceful, completely uninhibited person. a businessman, a mobster... a genius? well, let's just say it would take some very smart men - which brings us back to businessmen & mobsters - and ignore the plotholes we've been mentioning, and that much of their terrorism wouldn't even be possible to see through to fruition.

*incidentally, the theory that anarchy & chaos is fair is not particularly outlandish or farfetched. It's basically true, and so even his motivations - though it all sounds good for a crazy person to say - are not mad.

and don't misunderstand me, sir - or misquote me, i never said a thing about diminished intellect, nor did i imply that insanity leads to it. Mental clarity, however, is nearly always compromised in the insane, & Ledger's Joker is totally clear-headed & with a logical motive.

(I'd also like to point out that 3/4 of what you listed there didn't make the final cut of the film, & that naturally, i've never read an early draft of Hamm's script - the plotting of the murders, the unearthing/breaking down of a CIA nerve toxin, timed poisoning of the GCPD & mass production of counterfeit bank notes are all completely ignored in the final cut, and so the impression we're given is either that things just seem to be happening - yup! Burton's films had inconsistencies - or that he [Joker] is making it up as he goes along.)

* TDK Joker's monologues praising "chaos", "anarchy" and "disorder" are ripped pretty much verbatim from The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, a 1933 German film. Again - director & screenwriters at fault here, not Heath; I just thought it was lame of them to do that.

I don't see that as a flaw. Nolan's cited his fondness for Fritz Lang many times. And as a fan of classic cinema, I like it when filmmakers reference their influences. There are plenty of ideas/images/lines of dialogue in Burton's films that are lifted from earlier movies. Connecting those dots adds an extra layer of fun for film buffs looking for intertextual readings.

I think it's wonderful that Nolan was influenced by Fritz Lang, I probably enjoy his films as much as Nolan does. As I clearly stated, however, my issue was not with that. I think you may've done what many people seem to do nowadays, & misinterpreted my criticism of grabbing something so blatant & specific from someone else's work as a complaint against him embracing his influences. Not the case at all, I just didn't appreciate how portions of dialogue that specific, extensive, and which formed the backbone of the film turned out to be recycled almost verbatim from another one.

And yes, before you bring it up, Burton constantly uses second hand ideas from old horror films & german expressionst films - part of why i'm not crazy about his work (how derivative it generally is.) In Batman '89, however, it wasn't particularly blatant or derivative apart from the silly Vertigo stairwell visual, it had more to do with the general tone & design of the film - and it was re-imagined so thoroughly that it had it's own character. With Mabuse it was a case of clipping large amounts of dialogue almost word for word.

And for the record, I appreciate that you took what must've been an eternity to bring together these multiple opposing essays & to dig up all (& paste together some) of these Joker photos (though that may've sounded like sarcasm, it wasn't.) Although... due to a lot of what you've said, the impression I get is that you misinterpreted quite a bit here as people nitpicking & trying to bring Nolan & his films down. Which generally, they weren't. You say that the thread has become one sided - to some degree, you're right, but you have to expect that sort of thing on a discussion forum. How could you not? Much of what has been written here has been legitimate criticism, & when it wasn't, it was simply people expressing their opinions in a pretty diplomatic way, which happen to go against the opinions of the majority (and apparently, you.)

For the first time in years, a group of people are discussing Ledger & the Nolan films in realistic terms instead of mythic ones, & to be honest, I think that might have caught you a bit off guard. Which is natural, because you are among the ones who find the films to be great. But most of the people who posted recently in defense of Jack aren't Burton or Nicholson fanatics - nor do they bear any great resentment for Ledger, Nolan or Bale. a lot of them are people who loved TDK when it came out, & after having removed the hype goggles, realized maybe it wasn't quite what it had been cracked up to be all these years. As you can tell from my post, the unremitting worship of Heath's performance is something i find a little exhausting, so i took advantage of the fact that I'd found somewhere on the web where it was actually safe to say I didn't find his performance to be oscar-worthy, that to me the Dark Knight Trilogy felt like color-washed action/cop dramas that spoke at length of a number of ponderous, philosophical themes without actually exploring them. I probably didn't word my Joker post as gracefully as i should have; some of what i wrote was a little boorish & abrasive, but i did essentially what you did with your post - expressed a well thought out (if somewhat critical) viewpoint which opposed the viewpoints of others.

As i already sort of mentioned, I think you may have the wrong idea in regards to Jack's supporters & Heath's detractors here on the forum - that we're ardent Burton fans. As far as I can tell, none of us really is. I think we're kinda realistic about his movies, all perfectly aware of minor plotholes, inconsistencies and whatever other imperfections lie throughout the first two films. I personally prefer Batman '89 over other Batman films because I find the performances by the two leads to be superior, anchored more by subtlety & nuance (particularly Keaton's offbeat characterization) than Bale's & Ledger's performances. I enjoy the creative visual aspect, & i prefer the sharper, tighter, more consistent, less wordy & plodding script. But I don't consider it perfect at all, as a stand alone film or as a Batman film. I'm not a fan of Burton in general, and i really don't much care for Batman Returns.

Especially with batman 89, you really need to nitpick to find flaws there, they aren't apparent.

We should discuss the flaws in Batman Returns sometime. I've spotted a lot of them the last few times I've watched it. But I'll save that for another thread. Bottom line, every film has flaws. If you want to find them, you will. The question is, are the flaws really so apparent that they outweigh the merits and spoil your enjoyment of the film. In the case of The Dark Knight, my answer to that question would be no.

But alas, he wasn't referring to Batman Returns. As you yourself are keen to point out, we should be cognizant of that to which we're reacting - though Batman '89 is not without it's flaws, as he stated, they (apart from the subjective stuff) aren't particularly obvious (narrative things, etc.); it's a very different film from Batman Returns, which, in my opinion, was rife with them.

I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the fantastical/expressionistic nature of Burton's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Nolan's films up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down.

Ah, I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the realistic setting/relentlessly bleak & serious tone/grandiose nature of Nolan's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Burton's films, the Adam West TV show or anything that wasn't directed by Christopher Nolan up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down.

so, you see? it goes both ways, doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

at any rate, my intention is not to cause some kind of flare-up, i just wanted to clear the air on where i stand & use the forum for what it was intended - to express my personal views on various batman related media, and to maybe get people to consider things in a different light. i see it says you're on the staff, so i'll say thanks for letting me diddle around on the forum. 

Good exercise for the brain, to sort all this stuff out & see it in writing. 

I'd say Luthor is more vital to the franchise than the Joker would be; Superman doesn't have the rogue gallery Batman does and with Zod burned off, Luthor should be vital to the franchise.
Hammil as the Joker would be too perfect especially since he wouldn't need to carry the film.

Precisely. Joker would just be superfluous, distracting & a bit out of place in a movie like this, imo.

Although i really really wanna see Mark in it now. hahahah

[does]

Hopefully they just leave Joker alone for a while. I love him, but enough already. I don't think he'd even really fit the vibe of this movie. Unless they get Mark Hamill, which would make me c** my pants (& they should get him, he really ought to have his chance to do a live action Joker, & now would be the perfect opportunity for an older Joker with the obvious DKR influence in BvS), I'd rather see another shade of the Batman mythos highlighted for once. Enough of this 'shadowy anti-hero vs. grimy, noir-clown' stuff, let's finally see Bats as a hero - one who actually belongs in JLA alongside Clark & the Boys (& girl.) As many people have pointed out, Ben now does heavily resemble BTAS Bruce, so hopefully they're on the right track.

and Christ, if they're going to bother having Luthor in the pic, give him the focus & screentime he deserves. He's just about as legendary as Joker or any other comic villain.

["Madness is like gravity..."]

Unrelated to my screenname (it's more a reference to my birth year; I'm definitely no Burton fanatic), I prefer Jack's Joker. I don't dislike Heath's performance or TDK, but there really wasn't any 'Joker' in his characterization, & honestly,  the inconsistency of the writing really got on my nerves. This is probably just going to end up sounding like me trashing The Dark Knight, but it isn't; as i said before, I don't resent the film. I'm just not a member of the Nolan/Ledger Cult, and here are a few reasons why (major rant about to ensue):

* "Madness is like gravity..." A cute line, except the character depicted in The Dark Knight wasn't "mad", or crazy, or anything else that would make for a good quote (or resemble The Joker character.) He was precise, calculating, and filled with nerd-rage... and not at all crazy. Jittery as hell and really, really pissed? Yes. Murderous? You bet. "Mad (as in 'a Mad Tea Party')"? No. Every one of his schemes (and long-winded speeches, for that matter) were, as many of you have pointed out, meticulously planned & executed - the work of a focused, scheming terrorist, not of a chaotic, fun-loving psycho, which you could call 'reinvention'... but it really isn't. It's just kind of ignoring the essence of the character, except for maybe a purple suit. Hell, the character they wrote for TDK was probably closer to Riddler than anything.

* Intimidation - It was as if TDK Joker's main priority was to try to scare & intimidate people rather than create chaos & disorder, despite his repeated claims. Where classic (comic book/nicholson) Joker's intimidation factor seemed to stem naturally from his grotesque appearance & unpredictability (& the fact that he actually created chaos rather than making speeches about it), TDK Joker went out of his way to be perceived as a monster with intentionally-smeared facepaint & forced cackling & growling.

* The stuff we don't see - The idea of a guy who's "crying inside" & smiles not by choice, but due to grotesque deformity (comic book/nicholson Joker), adds some depth & layering which makes the character far more interesting. Heath played him one-dimensionally: a pissed off, murderous attention whore who gives off the impression he's always been just that; nothing more, nothing less. I don't know if those embarrassing "Wanna know how I got these scars???" bits were supposed to add depth or mystery to the character, but they didn't; they were horribly written & added absolutely nothing to the movie but extra runtime (and obviously that wasn't Heath's fault, that one's on the screenwriters & Chris Nolan.)

* Meth: not even once - TDK Joker: too coke-y. or meth-y. or whatever the hell he was supposed to be on. Ritalin, maybe?

* TDK Joker's monologues praising "chaos", "anarchy" and "disorder" are ripped pretty much verbatim from The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, a 1933 German film. Again - director & screenwriters at fault here, not Heath; I just thought it was lame of them to do that.

* Heath's performance (though likeable) is one we've seen a million times before. People sh*t all over Jack for "playing himself" - & to some degree, they're right; after watching something like The Shining, i don't think Jack's Joker was all that it could have been. But when it comes down to it, the Joker he played was one-of-a-kind, done as only Jack could do him; Heath's Joker is just about everywhere when you go back & look. Alex Delarge, Hannibal Lector, Brad Dourif's character in Exorcist 3... i needn't mention the now-famous Tom Waits interview. Hell, Heath's growling, facial expressions and stringy, greasy hair were straight up Jack Torrance material (I've always found that pretty ironic.)

* "JACKS JOKER WAS TOO CAMPY" - TDK fanatics - People seem unable to distinguish his dark humor from "camp". And that's precisely where Jack excelled & Heath missed - that balance of light & dark. As silly as Jack's Joker sometimes got, my feeling is that Heath's, though nastier, was actually much sillier & less macabre (sort of like DeVito's Penguin, in a way), but it's generally hailed as being much darker & intense than it was, due to the relentlessly violent & sludgy tone of TDK. He was too heavy on the stagey artifice and cartoony affectations - the lip-licking, the growling, the Tom Waits voice - & though i like his acting very much in general & salute his dedication to his 'transformation', his performance was mostly made up of those exaggerated affectations.

i'll admit, watching Batman-related Nolan interviews gets a bit exhausting. i've got nothing against the guy really but he tends to conclude most interviews with praise for himself and his cast...

Well sure. If he didn't and spent his time dissing casts and his own work one might ask just why he became a director in the first place. If he were cynical and jaded about his own creations he might perhaps find himself out of a job elsewhere.

ha i know you were just trying to be a wiseass, but to put what i was saying in layman's terms: there's a big difference between saying 'i think we made some good batman pictures, and i'm proud of em, and i have a talented cast' & calling your series 'revisionist', or acting as if Bale's some kinda visionary for doing an exaggerated version of what had been done years before (the dual Batman/Bruce Wayne voices.) I think the worship the films get just kinda went to his head unfortunately, & i'll leave it at that

i'll admit, watching Batman-related Nolan interviews gets a bit exhausting. i've got nothing against the guy really but he tends to conclude most interviews with praise for himself and his cast...

just some random stuff i've thought of watching the film:
- keep Jack in his classic purple suit rather than the plaid pants (gave Joker a bit too much of a cartoony vibe i always thought)
- i probably would've spent a bit more time perfecting the batsuit, as classic as the 89 one is - just in terms of fit, really; the cowl was a bit loose on Michael & you can tell how much it had improved by Batman Returns a few years later
- (here's an obvious one) rather than having Alfred just bring Vicki into the batcave on a whim, have him inform Bruce that she's arrived, let Bruce deliberate over whether or not he should let her in; when he does let her in, tone down the romantic melodrama stuff
- tone down the cutesy/sentimental vibe when Bruce & Vicki are having a glass of wine with Alfred
- cut the music when Jack starts jumping around shooting Grissom in his office - it struck me recently that without humorous background music, that would stand as one of the most chilling scenes in any Batman flick
- (another obvious one) i probably would've cast a slightly younger, less benign Gordon (no disrespect to Pat Hingle), given him a larger part in the film and developed his and Batman's personal relationship a bit
- again, no disrespect to Billy Dee Williams, but with any number of actors in Hollywood in the late 80s who would've made a classic Harvey Dent, i would've gone with less adventurous casting & given the character a bigger part in the film

beyond those details, i find the film to be pretty much great - certainly the best batman film so far - other than the couple of Vicki/Bruce scenes i mentioned, the script is top-notch (one of the main strengths it maintains over the wordy silliness of the Nolan/Goyer films), the acting is generally strong & nuanced (again, something absent from the Nolan pictures), & Anton's Furst's dream-like sets are (& always will be) the definitive Gotham.