Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - thecolorsblend

#4741
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 22 Jul  2008, 04:49thecolorsblend, 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteYou say "The Joker *IS* the Joker", well you are correct.
I said a lot more than that but you're ignoring it.

QuoteHis 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.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteThis 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.
#4742
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".
#4743
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 22 Jul  2008, 02:38You can't be serious.
I can and I am.

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteIndeed, 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteThis new version is fresh and adds a new spin, while being absolutely faithful to the character.
Hardly.
#4744
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.
#4745
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 20 Jul  2008, 16:45
Thanks, raleagh.

I take it that you could edit that feature if we found more (i.e. the Batman #1 panel that Joker81 is digging up)?
I also sent the link to Evil Twin for his evaluation.  I'll let you know if he has any suggestions or further contributions.
Holy crap, does Evil Twin120 post here too?  Wowzers, aside from all the Nolan Nazis from BOF, I'd say the gang's all here!
#4746
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 21 Jul  2008, 10:15
It doesn't matter what subject you are talking about. You have yet to see the film, that encompasses everything to do with TDK.
I've seen TDK twice.  I'll praise Ledger's performance on many grounds but I won't say the Joker is the character he's playing in that film.

In that sense, Nicholson wins by default.
#4747
I went into TDK with pretty minimal expectations.  I'm pro-Burton, I hate realism in superhero films and Bale's Batman voice is a travesty.  All those things notwithstanding, I dug TDK.

I don't think the fanbase will become polarized.  Quite the opposite, I think over time the weaknesses of Nolan's films will be viewed with greater objectivity.  People are already doing it with BB.  It doesn't seem to be as universally loved as it once was.
#4748
You wrote-
QuoteThe greedy studio moved to a lighter film after RETURNS due to the film's inability to meet expectations at the box office and how the film's tone contributed.
You're the one who brought in the box office angle.  If Burton got canned because of the, as you would have it, relatively meager box office performance of BR, why wasn't Schumacher likewise fired after BF?
#4749
Quote from: AV on Sat, 19 Jul  2008, 23:44
The greedy studio moved to a lighter film after RETURNS due to the film's inability to meet expectations at the box office and how the film's tone contributed.
Myth.  With BR and BF's respective budgets in mind, there's little difference in each film's box office profitability.
#4750
Quote from: ZUPERZERO on Sat, 19 Jul  2008, 08:15The Catwoman costume is a clearly a reference to Frankeinstein
Not really.  The costume designer claimed to have seen a magazine ad where a woman was put together from parts of other women and the stitching added a grosteque quality to it.  Obviously the symbolism is that Catwoman is herself stitched together and as the movie progresses, her tattering costume splintering into pieces reflects her psyche slowly becoming torn apart.