The Batman

bwayne64

Sr Member
Oh I see. A joke. Hilarious. Can I get tickets to your next stand up show?
Not if you're gonna slap me ; ) Dude I already said In my original comment, that I was talking about the video you posted, not you. What do want a flower arrangement, chocolates, an emotional support pony ?
 

Gimpdiggity

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Not if you're gonna slap me ; ) Dude I already said In my original comment, that I was talking about the video you posted, not you. What do want a flower arrangement, chocolates, an emotional support pony ?

I know you weren’t talking about me. Your comment began a discussion. That’s how the internet works.
 

bwayne64

Sr Member
I know you weren’t talking about me. Your comment began a discussion. That’s how the internet works.
Is it now, Thanks. Only been online since it started, right after arpanet. Been a human even longer. Don't get butthurt because I don't like what you like, and then insult my comedy chops. You know what sucky sucky longtime means. So you don't think it's funny , fine. We can agree to disagree. Have a good one : )
 

Gimpdiggity

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Is it now, Thanks. Only been online since it started, right after arpanet. Been a human even longer. Don't get butthurt because I don't like what you like, and then insult my comedy chops. You know what sucky sucky longtime means. So you don't think it's funny , fine. We can agree to disagree. Have a good one : )
Like I said, you’re hilarious and I’d like to hear more of your material. I bet you’re a real hit on Wednesdays at the old folks home.
 

The Goon

Well-Known Member
...Jack Nicholson? He was a stellar traditional Joker but that's his limit. I could not see him doing the sympathetic vulnerable version.
I honestly don't know how or why so many people think Jack Nicholson was so good as The Joker. I like Nicholson as an actor, but I thought that was one of his worst performances. Also, The Joker is supposed to be a psychotic criminal mastermind, but Nicholson played him like a mentally challenged buffoon. Mind you, I place a lot of blame on Tim Burton because, in the end, it's his movie and he's responsible for the finished product, but having seen the movie I tend to believe Kevin Smith's comments that Tim Burton had his own ideas about who the characters in the Batman comics are, because he's never read any of them.

Anyway, there it is, I said it. I'm sure my opinion won't be particularly popular in this crowd, but Jack Nicholson should go on record as having been the worst Joker in any Batman production.
 

batguy

Sr Member
I think the studio absolutely had 'The Shining' in mind when they cast Nicholson for the Joker. Unfortunately he had put on weight by the later 1980s.

The extra pounds were not good for his Joker appearance IMO. Imagine Health Ledger or Joachim Phoenix trying to do "The Dark Knight" at that size - it just doesn't come across the same way. An overweight body makes the character seem less scary & more campy.
 

Cephus

Sr Member
I think the studio absolutely had 'The Shining' in mind when they cast Nicholson for the Joker. Unfortunately he had put on weight by the later 1980s.

The extra pounds were not good for his Joker appearance IMO. Imagine Health Ledger or Joachim Phoenix trying to do "The Dark Knight" at that size - it just doesn't come across the same way. An overweight body makes the character seem less scary & more campy.
Yet Nicholson was the definitive Joker for a generation. When I think of movie Joker, I don't think of Ledger or Phoenix, I think of Nicholson. The kinds of movies that were done later on, I'm not really a fan of. YMMV, of course.
 

The Goon

Well-Known Member
Yet Nicholson was the definitive Joker for a generation. When I think of movie Joker, I don't think of Ledger or Phoenix, I think of Nicholson. The kinds of movies that were done later on, I'm not really a fan of. YMMV, of course.
And I'm the opposite--I think of Heath Ledger as the ultimate Joker; Nicholson and Phoenix don't even come to mind unless someone reminds me of them.
 

Ron

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Gotta remember too that prior to Nicholson, Romero was the only other live-action Joker and by comparison, Nicholson's was far more serious.

I wouldn't try to convince anyone who played Joker the best anymore than I would try to convince anyone who played Batman the best. Only speaking for myself obviously, the Burton movies and its performances had something to them that I felt were missing from later movies. The best way I can say it is they had a theatricality that movies today seem to have less of. For example, the "I'm Batman" and "suit up" scenes in '89 or the "bat signal" scene at the beginning of "Returns" or when Joker is dancing with Vicki on the rooftop while his thugs are fighting Batman. You'd never see that in a newer Batman movie which some might say is for the better but I'd disagree. Jack's performance is very much in line with that "theatricality". Ledger's Joker is formidable, sadistic, and certainly the best written Joker thus far but I missed the showmanship of Nicholson's Joker. His Joker might not have been as layered as Ledger's but I feel like the persona was better with Nicholson. Ledger felt like a great villain in Joker makeup while Nicholson felt like THE Joker if that makes any sense. But, it's certainly a matter of taste. Maybe it's nostalgia talking.

I'll say this...as much as I liked the first two Nolan movies, I can say the Burton movies did more for me as a kid than the Nolan movies did for me as an adult.
 

PoopaPapaPalps

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I'll say this...as much as I liked the first two Nolan movies, I can say the Burton movies did more for me as a kid than the Nolan movies did for me as an adult.

I'm with you all the way on this, Ron. I don't mind the fantasy of the super-hero genre. In fact, I prefer it! The theatricality, the drama of the Burton films, perfectly match the tone of the material that was being presented. They're not perfect films and there's a huge tonal shift halfway through the film that can be marked precisely at Vicki's apartment after the museum sequence. It is what it is, and while Nicholson was much older and fatter than when the producers initially wanted to make Batman in the early 80's, I still think he's come closest to the purest vision of the Joker in any live-action adaptation. And that's with him having an unnecessary backstory and being killed at the end!

I like the Nolan movies but they too are far from perfect. Immediately after Begins, the films became less and less designed until it was just Batman in New York. I don't mind the tinge of realism in fiction as something to ground the story in, but super-hero fiction is pulp fiction; it can never be "real" nor should it strive to be. It completely saps the fun out of the source material. The Nolan films are the curse of the modern day super-hero film by either making them too arbitrarily long or too serious and grim.

I've not seen The Batman and I really don't think I ever will intentionally. It looks too much like other things I've seen and that's the result of sapping the "super" out of "super-hero." I was sold Joker on the trailer but when I went to see the movie, it was just a more shallow and inept version of Taxi Driver. Joaquin's performance elevated sub-par material but other than that, it was just a guy in make-up that could've been anything else if it hadn't been called "Joker" and had ham-fisted tie-ins to the Batman universe.

The best superhero film to date is still Donner's Superman, in my book, because it took the source material seriously and had fun at the same time. That kind of film-making now seems to be an either/or situation now and I don't think it's for the better.
 

Gimpdiggity

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I like the Nolan movies but they too are far from perfect. Immediately after Begins, the films became less and less designed until it was just Batman in New York. I don't mind the tinge of realism in fiction as something to ground the story in, but super-hero fiction is pulp fiction; it can never be "real" nor should it strive to be. It completely saps the fun out of the source material. The Nolan films are the curse of the modern day super-hero film by either making them too arbitrarily long or too serious and grim.

I've not seen The Batman and I really don't think I ever will intentionally. It looks too much like other things I've seen and that's the result of sapping the "super" out of "super-hero." I was sold Joker on the trailer but when I went to see the movie, it was just a more shallow and inept version of Taxi Driver. Joaquin's performance elevated sub-par material but other than that, it was just a guy in make-up that could've been anything else if it hadn't been called "Joker" and had ham-fisted tie-ins to the Batman universe.

The best superhero film to date is still Donner's Superman, in my book, because it took the source material seriously and had fun at the same time. That kind of film-making now seems to be an either/or situation now and I don't think it's for the better.
I'm with you all the way on this, Ron. I don't mind the fantasy of the super-hero genre. In fact, I prefer it! The theatricality, the drama of the Burton films, perfectly match the tone of the material that was being presented. They're not perfect films and there's a huge tonal shift halfway through the film that can be marked precisely at Vicki's apartment after the museum sequence. It is what it is, and while Nicholson was much older and fatter than when the producers initially wanted to make Batman in the early 80's, I still think he's come closest to the purest vision of the Joker in any live-action adaptation. And that's with him having an unnecessary backstory and being killed at the end!

I like the Nolan movies but they too are far from perfect. Immediately after Begins, the films became less and less designed until it was just Batman in New York. I don't mind the tinge of realism in fiction as something to ground the story in, but super-hero fiction is pulp fiction; it can never be "real" nor should it strive to be. It completely saps the fun out of the source material. The Nolan films are the curse of the modern day super-hero film by either making them too arbitrarily long or too serious and grim.

I've not seen The Batman and I really don't think I ever will intentionally. It looks too much like other things I've seen and that's the result of sapping the "super" out of "super-hero." I was sold Joker on the trailer but when I went to see the movie, it was just a more shallow and inept version of Taxi Driver. Joaquin's performance elevated sub-par material but other than that, it was just a guy in make-up that could've been anything else if it hadn't been called "Joker" and had ham-fisted tie-ins to the Batman universe.

The best superhero film to date is still Donner's Superman, in my book, because it took the source material seriously and had fun at the same time. That kind of film-making now seems to be an either/or situation now and I don't think it's for the better.

This is a perfect example of different strokes for different folks. I much prefer Nolan’s films over Burton’s BECAUSE they’re more serious. I like Burton’s films...the other pre-Nolan Batman films not so much...but they’re Burton films through and through. They’re weird and cheesy, which there’s nothing wrong with, but I prefer the realistic take on these characters a lot more.

I guess the way I look at it is this...if superheroes and supervillains really existed, the villains would be downright terrifying. They certainly wouldn’t be putting dance numbers together while pulling a pistol out with an 8 foot long barrel. They’d be doing things like blowing up hospitals.

One of the things that I like about modern superhero films is that so many of them are just genre films that happen to have a superhero in them. The Dark Knight is a great film about the good guys trying to stop a terrorist. That terrorist just happens to be Joker, and the good guys are Batman, Gordon, etc.

I can understand how this aspect of them could be a turn off...particularly if the fantasy of comic books is what you look forward to seeing. However, in my opinion the films are all that much better for it.
 

batguy

Sr Member
Burton's first movie looked darker than it felt when you watched it. That's how Burton's movies are in general.

Same with Schumacher's Batman movies. IMO they felt more like updated versions of the 1960s Batman TV show than the comic source material.

Nolan's Batman had a lot of strengths but it got so real that it lost the theatrical fun element. The 'bat' aspect of the character was little more than a formality by the 3rd movie. He was basically the Punisher with a no-kill policy and a bigger budget. When Nolan presented Catwoman and Robin, he was barely even admitting that's who they were.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top