The Nostalgia Critic compares Batman (1989) against The Dark Knight (2008) to decide which is the superior movie.
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/7184-batmanvsdk (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/7184-batmanvsdk)
SPOILER:
Batman '89 is the winner! ;D
I was actually reluctant to watch it as first, as I tend to disagree with the Nostalgia Critics' often way too harsh opinion (even though I've seen all of his reviews), but I was actually pleasantly surprised by this particular one.
Nice ;D
I'd like to find a pic of the opening cartoon depicticting the two Jokers.
Still disagree Ledger was better than Nicholson.
He resembles nothing of the Joker I know in the comics, tv series, cartoons or previous film. He's a Hollywood creation, and has nothing in common in my mind to the comics of Batman.
Dont want to hear this 'Batman No.1' comic cr4p, Nicholson was more like the Joker in that comic. To me Ledger was just the usual Hollywood psycho with make-up.
I am not knocking his performance it was golden, just the characterization, which I enjoyed. But its not the Joker!
Funny! He had me laughing the most while he was talking about Alfred's speeches in TDK, & the ending as well.
"You don't mess with Mr. Mom!" :D
Quote from: Joker81 on Wed, 20 May 2009, 20:13
Still disagree Ledger was better than Nicholson.
He resembles nothing of the Joker I know in the comics, tv series, cartoons or previous film. He's a Hollywood creation, and has nothing in common in my mind to the comics of Batman.
Dont want to hear this 'Batman No.1' comic cr4p, Nicholson was more like the Joker in that comic. To me Ledger was just the usual Hollywood psycho with make-up.
I am not knocking his performance it was golden, just the characterization, which I enjoyed. But its not the Joker!
I was sort of thinking the same thing while watching that part.
The little phone skit at the end with Bale was pretty funny. This guy has solid opinions, I dig his review.
This surprised me to no end. Great Review.
Great review! I disagree with the points that he claimed went against Batman '89 but overall it was insightful. That phone call at the...brilliant.
P.S. Some hardcore TDk fans must be pissed. ;)
QuoteDont want to hear this 'Batman No.1' comic cr4p, Nicholson was more like the Joker in that comic. To me Ledger was just the usual Hollywood psycho with make-up.
Couldn't agree more, Ledger Joker was his own creation, an the whole hes Batman 1 Joker is just a lie to try an do justice to thier inacurate Hero.
A very interesting review. I prefer
The Dark Knight to
Batman by a slim margin, but I would agree with him on who makes the better Batman and disagree on which film had better action.
QuoteStill disagree Ledger was better than Nicholson.
He resembles nothing of the Joker I know in the comics, tv series, cartoons or previous film. He's a Hollywood creation, and has nothing in common in my mind to the comics of Batman.
Dont want to hear this 'Batman No.1' comic cr4p, Nicholson was more like the Joker in that comic. To me Ledger was just the usual Hollywood psycho with make-up.
I am not knocking his performance it was golden, just the characterization, which I enjoyed. But its not the Joker!
It's funny you put it that way. When I read the script, that's how I felt about the characterisation of the Joker
on the page. As written by the Nolan brothers, the character came off as a sociopathic madman who was fascinating and intriguing but had much more in common than Hannibal Lecter and John Doe than *the Joker.* IMO, Ledger was the one who made the Joker of
The Dark Knight into *the Joker,* and I think the most important thing he added into the character was humour. The Joker in the script had more than enough menace, but was missing the other half of the equation.
Maybe he just relates with people that dress up like giant bats. I can't imagine why (cue: photo from Dracula)
At last! Someone had to say it. ;D
Quote from: Sandman on Fri, 22 May 2009, 23:59
QuoteDont want to hear this 'Batman No.1' comic cr4p, Nicholson was more like the Joker in that comic. To me Ledger was just the usual Hollywood psycho with make-up.
Couldn't agree more, Ledger Joker was his own creation, an the whole hes Batman 1 Joker is just a lie to try an do justice to thier inacurate Hero.
Hmmm. Whether he's the Joker from Batman 1 or not, the performance was great. I wouldn't discount it based just on that.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 23 May 2009, 14:07
Quote from: Sandman on Fri, 22 May 2009, 23:59
QuoteDont want to hear this 'Batman No.1' comic cr4p, Nicholson was more like the Joker in that comic. To me Ledger was just the usual Hollywood psycho with make-up.
Couldn't agree more, Ledger Joker was his own creation, an the whole hes Batman 1 Joker is just a lie to try an do justice to thier inacurate Hero.
Hmmm. Whether he's the Joker from Batman 1 or not, the performance was great. I wouldn't discount it based just on that.
No, but we shouldnt be beat around the head with 'Hes the Joker from Batman no.1' when he's clearly not - why because he's got a knife!? And no origin in Batman no'1. But sure batman had no origin in DC no.27!
I'm sorrry, but the Joker in The Dark Knight is not from anything I have seen before, not even Arkhum Asylum. He was a new creation in TDK, reimagined by Hollywood, and thats why I think people responded so positivley to him, mainly the normal every day cinema going, non batman fan, public!
I understand what you are saying there Joker81, but I can't agree to a certain extent - in general the Batman community, regardless of their problems with TDK, have been positive of Ledger's Joker.
Which is why I am more confused Ral??? Its funny how everyone refers to the character as Ledgers Joker. Thats because they know it is a creation he and Nolan created. Not DC or Bob Kane.
Remember I am not taking away from Ledgers acting, everyone seems to think if you say anything against the Joker in TDK its an attack on Heath Ledger. It is not. I am simply saying even those in the Bat community now agree with a unique vision of the Joker created by Hollywood. This is all a little bizzare to me considering hard core Batman fans should know the character better than anyone, yet they accept this brand new reimagined version by Hollywood.
Oh and just to let you know, I like the Joker in the Dark Knight, he was right for that movie, very entertaining and Ledger done a tremendous job. But he is not the definitive Joker as many have tried to say. He was too serious for me and not flamboyant enough.
Quote from: Joker81 on Sun, 24 May 2009, 12:11
But he is not the definitive Joker as many have tried to say. He was too serious for me and not flamboyant enough.
That I can agree with. As good a Ledger was (and I have said this from the start) there was a "little wink in the eye" missing. I'm not talking about a wink in the eye to the audience - I mean a little bit of glee. Obviously he couldn't (and shouldn't) have given Nicholson's Joker, but a slight absorption of his madness into the performance would have been great.
Quote from: Joker81 on Sun, 24 May 2009, 12:11
He was too serious for me and not flamboyant enough.
Fair enough. Personally, I thought the mix was just right.
Quote from: ral on Sun, 24 May 2009, 13:59
That I can agree with. As good a Ledger was (and I have said this from the start) there was a "little wink in the eye" missing. I'm not talking about a wink in the eye to the audience - I mean a little bit of glee. Obviously he couldn't (and shouldn't) have given Nicholson's Joker, but a slight absorption of his madness into the performance would have been great.
I had the opposite reaction to his performance, actually. Again, when I read the script, I thought the character was missing the glee and humour and the wink in the eye. Comparing the script to the finished film, that's the biggest ingredient that Ledger brought IMO.
As to him not being the Joker from the comics - there's certainly new material there, but the Joker serving as an agent of chaos and trying to drive Gotham mad isn't far from
The Killing Joke.
Quote from: zDBZ on Sun, 24 May 2009, 16:28
Again, when I read the script, I thought the character was missing the glee and humour and the wink in the eye. Comparing the script to the finished film, that's the biggest ingredient that Ledger brought IMO.
I agree completely.
Quote from: zDBZ on Sun, 24 May 2009, 16:28
Quote from: ral on Sun, 24 May 2009, 13:59
That I can agree with. As good a Ledger was (and I have said this from the start) there was a "little wink in the eye" missing. I'm not talking about a wink in the eye to the audience - I mean a little bit of glee. Obviously he couldn't (and shouldn't) have given Nicholson's Joker, but a slight absorption of his madness into the performance would have been great.
I had the opposite reaction to his performance, actually. Again, when I read the script, I thought the character was missing the glee and humour and the wink in the eye. Comparing the script to the finished film, that's the biggest ingredient that Ledger brought IMO.
As to him not being the Joker from the comics - there's certainly new material there, but the Joker serving as an agent of chaos and trying to drive Gotham mad isn't far from The Killing Joke.
I'm not talking about motives. I am talking about the character, in terms of manorisims, looks and even down to smiling. Didnt like the chelsea smile. But I agree that what had been done before could not be repeated. Your right about the humor ral, not enough of it.
Quote from: Joker81 on Mon, 25 May 2009, 15:10
Quote from: zDBZ on Sun, 24 May 2009, 16:28
Quote from: ral on Sun, 24 May 2009, 13:59
That I can agree with. As good a Ledger was (and I have said this from the start) there was a "little wink in the eye" missing. I'm not talking about a wink in the eye to the audience - I mean a little bit of glee. Obviously he couldn't (and shouldn't) have given Nicholson's Joker, but a slight absorption of his madness into the performance would have been great.
I had the opposite reaction to his performance, actually. Again, when I read the script, I thought the character was missing the glee and humour and the wink in the eye. Comparing the script to the finished film, that's the biggest ingredient that Ledger brought IMO.
As to him not being the Joker from the comics - there's certainly new material there, but the Joker serving as an agent of chaos and trying to drive Gotham mad isn't far from The Killing Joke.
I'm not talking about motives. I am talking about the character, in terms of manorisims, looks and even down to smiling. Didnt like the chelsea smile. But I agree that what had been done before could not be repeated. Your right about the humor ral, not enough of it.
Yeah, the Joker's characterization came to me as more Hannibal Lecter than Joker. As for the appearance, I'm not very crazy about it (other than that he looks like he could be the son of Beetlejuice). I prefer the tidy, permawhite, humorous yet insane Joker. It just makes more sense, & with Jack's spontaneity, we got just that.
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Mon, 25 May 2009, 15:40
Quote from: Joker81 on Mon, 25 May 2009, 15:10
Quote from: zDBZ on Sun, 24 May 2009, 16:28
Quote from: ral on Sun, 24 May 2009, 13:59
That I can agree with. As good a Ledger was (and I have said this from the start) there was a "little wink in the eye" missing. I'm not talking about a wink in the eye to the audience - I mean a little bit of glee. Obviously he couldn't (and shouldn't) have given Nicholson's Joker, but a slight absorption of his madness into the performance would have been great.
I had the opposite reaction to his performance, actually. Again, when I read the script, I thought the character was missing the glee and humour and the wink in the eye. Comparing the script to the finished film, that's the biggest ingredient that Ledger brought IMO.
As to him not being the Joker from the comics - there's certainly new material there, but the Joker serving as an agent of chaos and trying to drive Gotham mad isn't far from The Killing Joke.
I'm not talking about motives. I am talking about the character, in terms of manorisims, looks and even down to smiling. Didnt like the chelsea smile. But I agree that what had been done before could not be repeated. Your right about the humor ral, not enough of it.
Yeah, the Joker's characterization came to me as more Hannibal Lecter than Joker. As for the appearance, I'm not very crazy about it (other than that he looks like he could be the son of Beetlejuice). I prefer the tidy, permawhite, humorous yet insane Joker. It just makes more sense, & with Jack's spontaneity, we got just that.
Agreed Dark Knight Detective.
And no one wanted a Jack Nicholson impersonator for TDK. But what really annoys me is the way people say that Ledgers was definative when it couldnt be farther from the truth. I liked and enjoyed the interprtation for TDK. But I cant help but feel that the Joker character has been minipulated into something it shouldnt have been. I feel the character was right for that movie. But for it to then be extended into current comics and other Batman entertainment I am not happy about and am afraid we have lost what the Joker was suposed to be about (the origin story was even omitted from the re-release of 'The Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told' I am raging about that, thats like omitting Batmans origin! All because there is a different and no origin in TDK. This is a sign and alarm bells should have started ringing then! Its like erasing or rewritting a piece of history. Sweeping it under the carpet.), To me the classic Joker should have the green hair, bleached white skin, big smile with perfect white teeth and of course the purple suit with the tails! Now we have a dirty looking Joker with yellow teeth, scars on his face, no smile and he's the characteristics of a hollywood serial killer not unlike freddy krueger. In all I feel the character has been raped!
I wouldn't go as far as to say raped but I agree for the most part. There is a flair, a sophistication about the Joker that should have remained. Even in Nolan's realism, why couldn't he have say an albino (lacking pigmentation in the skin) etc. I said this in a previous post but, Ledger did a great job and I can't help wondering if he had maintained that dark humour, that flamboyancy that is one of the Joker's attributes, how it would have turned out. It would have been great to have some of those attributes to The Joker that we all know and love to hate.
QuoteAnd no one wanted a Jack Nicholson impersonator for TDK. But what really annoys me is the way people say that Ledgers was definative when it couldnt be farther from the truth. I liked and enjoyed the interprtation for TDK. But I cant help but feel that the Joker character has been minipulated into something it shouldnt have been. I feel the character was right for that movie. But for it to then be extended into current comics and other Batman entertainment I am not happy about and am afraid we have lost what the Joker was suposed to be about (the origin story was even omitted from the re-release of 'The Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told' I am raging about that, thats like omitting Batmans origin! All because there is a different and no origin in TDK. This is a sign and alarm bells should have started ringing then! Its like erasing or rewritting a piece of history. Sweeping it under the carpet.), To me the classic Joker should have the green hair, bleached white skin, big smile with perfect white teeth and of course the purple suit with the tails! Now we have a dirty looking Joker with yellow teeth, scars on his face, no smile and he's the characteristics of a hollywood serial killer not unlike freddy krueger. In all I feel the character has been raped!
Well, compared to some of the pre-TDK comics that have come out in recent years, I find Ledger much more funny and sophisticated than the Joker that sometimes appears on the page. The trend of trying to turn him into nothing but a Lecter-esque sociopath didn't start with
The Dark Knight, just as the trend of making him nothing but a harmless clown was going strong well before Adam West's show. The recent
Joker graphic novel is far worse a portrayal of the character, and what I think we might have gotten in
The Dark Knight had another actor played the part. Thankfully, that didn't happen. Heath has a lot of flair and wit in the part IMO, like I would expect from the Joker.
I've gone from being very skeptical of his appearance in
The Dark Knight to liking it quite a bit, but I'd agree that anyone who tries to call it definitive is fooling themselves and that it'd be a mistake to bring that in to the comics just for the sake of having that look. My aesthetic preference would be to have the Alex Ross Joker in the white tie and black tails with a purple overcoat, but I'm certainly fine with what Nolan did. Heath's Joker is more extreme than Keaton as Bruce Wayne, but I think it's a similar principle - in the end, the performance is what counts, and both actors sold themselves as the characters despite physical differences.