Messages

Not bad as a first post.  Good job.

I never said I wasn't impressed by TDK, I simply have issues with some of the characterizations.  On balance, I find the Burton films highly superior in every way that matters.  That doesn't mean I can't enjoy MOTP, TDK and other things as well.  Batman's a rich, dynamic character and there's room for individual taste.

Yeesh, you are getting WAY too worked about this.  Until you simmer down a little, I'm out of this.  Seriously man, smoke a cigarette or something and cool off.

I?m not surprised. I wouldn?t expect anything less from you.

Easy now.  This ain't BOF, no reason to get personal.

The Dark Knight qualifies as the first official comic book adaptation that really succeeds in being a great artistic achievement in its own right.

Have you not seen very many comics adaptations??

Nolan has gone above and beyond the call of duty, and it's obvious there was a great deal of thought and effort put into this film. It's a shame you are blinded by nostalgia of the Burton films to see it.

As it happens, I wasn't a huge fan of the Burton films until about 2004 or 2005.  Up to then, I thought a happy medium between BF and B89 was the way to go.  Nostalgia has little or nothing to do with this.

I think the way Burton conceptualized using him was a mechanic in a red filling station type of shirt with green pants with the name "Robin" (ie, his first name) stitched to the front.  Batman was going to take the Batmobile to him, have fix it, etc.  Basically a wink for fans but nothing more and the reason Burton cast Wayans was because he wanted to make it clear this character would never be an actual sidekick.  He certainly would not wear the actual costume

Could be wrong though.

But if I'm right, geeze, what a stupid idea...

All that article does in underscore how right I am. 

thecolorsblend, you don't get it or you don't want to. TDK takes commonly known Batman concepts and turns them on their ear.

"Turning them on the ear" is one thing.  Throwing them out, creating new characters and slapping existing names on them is quite another.

The origin of his appearance doesn't matter one thing, the trademarks of the character are still there but done differently.

The origin of his appearance is of mixed input, you are somewhat correct.  The nature of his appearance means basically everything to the character.  Again, he's deformed.  HE CANNOT EVER TAKE IT OFF.  It's who he is.

You say "The Joker *IS* the Joker", well you are correct.

I said a lot more than that but you're ignoring it.

His characteristics and behaviour remain the same.

No they don't.  The Ledgeker never belittled anybody for "not getting the joke".  He didn't adapt cheap clown tricks into deadly weapons.  Granted, an exploding whoopee cushion probably wouldn't play in Nolan's world but to throw out essentially everything the character has been in the comics for decades isn't "inventive", it's revisionism.

You are merely looking at the origin of Ledger's appearance and ruling everything associated with the character out.

No I'm not.  I can't think of a single notable thing the Joker ever did with a knife in the comics.  On the other hand, he used a gun to cripple Barbara Gordon, a gun to whack Sarah Essen, a crowbar to beat Jason Todd absolutely senseless and a lot of explosives to blow him up.

And that's just his weapon of choice in TDK.  Don't even get me started on his lack of a sick sense of humor.

This new version IS fresh and adds a new spin, while being absolutely faithful to the character.

He's the Joker in name only.  And understand, I wouldn't mind if Nolan had selected a different character with a lot less development and personality to him and then re-envisioned said character from the ground up.  But the Joker already has a persona ready to be adapted from the comics.  That character is not in the movie.  The Joker in the comics is not a knife-toting, make up-wearing serial killer.

I didn't think they were particularly funny or inventive.  They simply make plays-on-words, as you say, from clich?s.

"Whatever doesn't kill you really freaking hurts".

You can't be serious.

I can and I am.

In one scene, Joker made three men kill each other with a broken pool stick; the one who lived got to join his "gang." This is just Joker wanting to see these people kill each other, for his own enjoyment. Who's to say the survivor even got to join, or live for that matter?

The Joker in the comics wouldn't do that, unless he was planning to watch and laugh at them.

Indeed, DocLathropBrown, "He was very much the Joker. The Joker of today and there were elements of past Jokers as well."

The Joker of today?!  At BEST you could say he was an adaptation of the early Kane/Finger Joker (but even that's arguable).  I can't recall a recent comic of any great note where the Joker acted the way he did in TDK.

The essential trademarks of The Joker is that he has a white face, red lips, green hair, and purple clothing. It doesn't matter how he receives these things, what matters is that they are there.

The make up angle is COMPLETELY foreign to his history.  100%.  The Joker *IS* the Joker.  That's how his skin looks.  He can't change it, he can't "take it off", he can't stop, he can't be anything other than what he is.  THAT is the character from the comics.

This new version is fresh and adds a new spin, while being absolutely faithful to the character.

Hardly.

omg, biased much?!  I don't recall people laughing at Nicholson when he conversed with a fried corpse, revealed Alicia's scorched face, etc.

If anything, the dark comedy aspects of the character in the comics is sadly lacking in TDK.