THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) Joker Revealed!

[raikage]

Originally Posted by Lonestar9

Naw, I couldn't disagree more, Robin is a pretty important character IMHO, and batgirl isn't bad either. These are suppose to be characters of fiction, and having a helper/sidekick isn't going to take away from enjoying the story. I think it's a shame they probably won't be around, but oh well, still looking forward to the next one.

Not in this series of movies. It's almost depressingly bleak, and for Batman to suit up Dick Grayson, age twelve, would be fairly unethical.

Can you picture him against Heath Ledger's Joker, or against the League of Assassins? Even if he survives, he'll be cut up and burned and scarred, and that's still kind of wrong to do to a kid.

That said, I could (conceivably) see Grayson as field support from a distance -- lookout for both cops and runaway criminals, and emergency medicine, but even that's kind of dodgy.

[aeriolewinters]

Grayson @ age 12 wouldn't be good, but Nightwing is... and Oracle's not bad either... How about a movie adaptation of "The Dark Knight Returns"

[Ronin Aquila]

Originally Posted by aeriolewinters

Grayson @ age 12 wouldn't be good, but Nightwing is... and Oracle's not bad either... How about a movie adaptation of "The Dark Knight Returns"

Hmm, a 50 year time skip... Poor Christian Bale would have to wear thick latex makeup AND a thick rubber mask over that.

[Ronin Aquila]

On a quick note:

How do you fellas thinks the Joker Gang as we saw in the film fare would against the collective might of The League of Shadows?

My personal money is on The League Of Shadows.

They have more monetary resources, better equipment, more influence, much better training, and a LOT more Warriors than that sick monster clown can ever hope to handle.

The Joker, on the other hand, is just a diseased maniac who has a lot of gasoline and read the Anarchist Cookbook a hundred times. How can an erratic nihilist like him hope to stand against a 5000 Year Old Warrior Order who has a firm faith in making the world a better place?

What do you fellas think?

[wingdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ronin Aquila

On a quick note:

How do you fellas thinks the Joker Gang as we saw in the film fare would against the collective might of The League of Shadows?

My personal money is on The League Of Shadows.

They have more monetary resources, better equipment, more influence, much better training, and a LOT more Warriors than that sick monster clown can ever hope to handle.

The Joker, on the other hand, is just a diseased maniac who has a lot of gasoline and read the Anarchist Cookbook a hundred times. How can an erratic nihilist like him hope to stand against a 5000 Year Old Warrior Order who has a firm faith in making the world a better place?

What do you fellas think?

That's one of the things that had me leaving the theatre a bit unsatisfied...There was no focus on the Joker's gang, his upbringing, or his rise to the top of the underground world (That's the $hit I wanted to see, like the great mini-flashbacks in the first movie)...I just felt like when you put the Joker in a movie you gotta go all out IMO because that's why people love that villain so much...Again I would have rathered a movie that focused solely on the Joker vs. Batman, than an arbitrary subplot that really made him take a backseat to Harvey Dent's inevitable stranglehold on the story's final outcome...

Considering how fleshed out and stoic Raz Al Ghul's squad was it would have been nice to see an equally menacing quality from the Joker's squad (Not that they could do spinkicks as good as throw pies with bombs in them^^...Seriously though I just wanted more focus on Joker and I think the movie marginalized him and his goons too much to me)...When you peel back all the hype, Ledger's death, and the money rankings, the movie was far from perfect concerning joker's character...More intimate scenes with his gang could have helped the audience enter the Joker's world a little more...

[james0246]

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

That's one of the things that had me leaving the theatre a bit unsatisfied...There was no focus on the Joker's gang, his upbringing, or his rise to the top of the underground world (That's the $hit I wanted to see, like the great mini-flashbacks in the first movie)...I just felt like when you put the Joker in a movie you gotta go all out IMO because that's why people love that villain so much...Again I would have rathered a movie that focused solely on the Joker vs. Batman, than an arbitrary subplot that really made him take a backseat to Harvey Dent's inevitable stranglehold on the story's final outcome...

Considering how fleshed out and stoic Raz Al Ghul's squad was it would have been nice to see an equally menacing quality from the Joker's squad (Not that they could do spinkicks as good as throw pies with bombs in them^^...Seriously though I just wanted more focus on Joker and I think the movie marginalized him and his goons too much to me)...When you peel back all the hype, Ledger's death, and the money rankings, the movie was far from perfect concerning joker's character...More intimate scenes with his gang could have helped the audience enter the Joker's world a little more...

The Joker, in Nolan's universe, is not a character, though. He is a force of nature. A sudden storm of chaos and misery that rolls in (due to the pressence of Batman (who represents 'order')) to act as a balance to the sudden calm of Gotham that Batman creates. This Joker, more than any other, is the ultimate reverse mirror-image of Batman. Everything Batman is, the Joker is the opposite of, and vice verse. So, Joker was given enough definition and description, and, ultimately, he is supposed to be a creature that can not be analyzed or decipherd (my favourite Comic Book/Graphic Novel version of Joker is Grant Morrison's from his Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth novel, in which the Joker is shown to have a mental state that is in fact a previously unprecedented form of "super-sanity," and consequently, the Joker has no singular identity, but rather the ability to create and assume any identity/personality based on what the situation calls for).

Consequently, the fall of Harvey Dent takes on a far more important roll than anything concerning Joker's background or other peripheral details dealing with Joker's rise.

[wingdarkness]

Originally Posted by james0246

This Joker, more than any other, is the ultimate reverse mirror-image of Batman. Everything Batman is, the Joker is the opposite of, and vice verse.

Yes, you're so right, so imagine my bewilderment that there's only one really solid scene in the entire movie between the two (Jail scene)...And it's backdropped to Dent's situation....I wanted more of the psychological showdowns worthy of the rivalry...I didn't just want Batman to beat some dawgs then just string the joker up, I wanted mental warfare like in the comics and even in the oldschool Batman the animated series...I wanted Joker to torment him more and for them to have more critical banter...Just wasn't enuff, but I'm wired a little different than most...

So, Joker was given enough definition and description, and, ultimately, he is supposed to be a creature that can not be analyzed or decipherd (my favourite Comic Book/Graphic Novel version of Joker is Grant Morrison's from his Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth novel, in which the Joker is shown to have a mental state that is in fact a previously unprecedented form of "super-sanity," and consequently, the Joker has no singular identity, but rather the ability to create and assume any identity/personality based on what the situation calls for).

Now think about everthing you just said in that passage and imagine the Joker being fleshed out to that end giving us the depth worthy of his character...

Trust me I understood the symbolism with trying to use Dent's dichotomy as the vessel for the movies' ideal...But I still stand by my view that the Joker should have been fleshed out more with simply more scenes...When I was in the theater you could feel the tenseness of the audience everytime the joker was off-screen...Everyone was just waiting and wanting to explode for the joker and it just didn't happen enuff...Now that doesn't take away from the spectacle of this movie which was thrilling, but I honestly left the theater a bit underwhelmed and even a few people who saw it with me agreed...The first thing I heard leaving the theater was "Wasn't enuff Joker man..."

The fact that theoretically he's beyond being analyzed doesn't mean the content you just expressed can't be totally fleshed out...But again I get it, I get Nolan's point how Joker is just the result not the problem...Nevertheless I wanted a more Joker-centric movie...Given the legions of Heath Ledger Oscar hypers I'm sure no one would have minded more Joker...The last 10 minutes or so of the movie after the Joker was dealt with just felt anti-climatic to me...What I can't get away from though is how in-depth the first movie was where this movie wasn't...I know the excuse will be because that was an introduction, but given the fact that this is THE JOKER, I wished it would have followed Batman Begins thematic take a bit more...

[james0246]

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

Yes, you're so right, so imagine my bewilderment that there's only one really solid scene in the entire movie between the two (Jail scene)...And it's backdropped to Dent's situation....I wanted more of the psychological showdowns worthy of the rivalry...I didn't just want Batman to beat some dawgs then just string the joker up, I wanted mental warfare like in the comics and even in the oldschool Batman the animated series...I wanted Joker to torment him more and for them to have more critical banter...Just wasn't enuff, but I'm wired a little different than most...

On this point, I agree with you wholeheartedly. While I do believe that the Joker had enough definition (as a character), the thematic and symbolic connection between Batman and Joker was not as well-founded in the film. But, unlike you, I blame the presentation of Batman, rather than Joker. The Joker, through his various videos and other "advertisements", established a firm connection with Batman and Gotham. Rather, it was Batman's inability to respond in an active fashion that created a slight disconnect between the two and the growing theme of "Battle for Gotham." But, when Batman does directly respond (when the Joker is captured), that the Joker reveals his chaotic plans for Gotham, and their full connection is firmly established (albeit less subtly than I desired). Harvey Dent then merely becomes a foil for their battle...but I am sure you already realize this.

In the end, I scored this film somewhere around 3 stars, or 8.0-8.5. After seeing it a second time (by myself), I rated it far closer to to 8.0 than 8.5. This is a very good film (also, easily one of the best Comic Book films made thus far), but due some direction flaws, script annoyances, and little things scattered throughout, I simply couldn't rate it higher, even if I did have a great time watching the film and eagerly await the chance to buy the DVD and hwear the various commentary tracks and see possible deleted storyboards and scenes.

[wingdarkness]

Originally Posted by james0246

On this point, I agree with you wholeheartedly. While I do believe that the Joker had enough definition (as a character), the thematic and symbolic connection between Batman and Joker was not as well-founded in the film. But, unlike you, I blame the presentation of Batman, rather than Joker. The Joker, through his various videos and other "advertisements", established a firm connection with Batman and Gotham. Rather, it was Batman's inability to respond in an active fashion that created a slight disconnect between the two and the growing theme of "Battle for Gotham." But, when Batman does directly respond (when the Joker is captured), that the Joker reveals his chaotic plans for Gotham, and their full connection is firmly established (albeit less subtly than I desired). Harvey Dent then merely becomes a foil for their battle...but I am sure you already realize this.
.

But you see..., we're not disagreeing much at all...

Originally Posted by wingdarkness 1 page back

First off, other than Batman being in this film, he really wasn’t IN this film…Batman Begins was so rich in its portrayal of both Bruce Wayne and the Batman you really get the full picture, the full psychology behind the character (Which I think Nolan’s point was in rebooting the franchise—Taking a more nuanced look at the psychological make-up of characters in the Batman world), however I felt like in this movie it was too much Batman running around on behalf of Gordon or Harvey Dent or Rachael Dawes than examining how he changed between movies or changed within the movie itself…I felt like given the hero-villain relationship between the two, Batman should have gotten more screentime in his psychological battle with the Joker…

So you see I too am talking about the disconnect Batman had, i'm just emphasizing more Joker regardless...I just think in the end, for a film that's 2hrs and 32 minutes it was just overstuffed with so many elements that didn't primarily focus on Joker vs. Batman...And like you, as much as I enjoyed this film, and will undoubtedly posses it later (I already posses a crap version of it^^), I still thought it could have been better...

To be fair I think they were so impressed with Ledger's take on the character they were probably gonna do something unprecedented and feature him in the 3rd movie..."Joker's Wild" would have been a nice tentative title me thinks...I'm just a little selfish I guess, I just wanted more Joker than they were willing to give me...

In the end, I scored this film somewhere around 3 stars, or 8.0-8.5. After seeing it a second time (by myself), I rated it far closer to to 8.0 than 8.5. This is a very good film (also, easily one of the best Comic Book films made thus far), but due some direction flaws, script annoyances, and little things scattered throughout, I simply couldn't rate it higher, even if I did have a great time watching the film and eagerly await the chance to buy the DVD and hwear the various commentary tracks and see possible deleted storyboards and scenes

I'm curious to know if we had the same script annoyances, and little nuanced things that detracted us?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

But you see..., we're not disagreeing much at all...

LOL, it is true. I said several of the same things in my longer review/post way back on Page 3 of this thread.

I guess this is one of those incidents where we have to agree to disagree. I felt that Joker, more than anything, was a foil for Batman, and consequently, a lack of true origins or definition for the character was acceptable, maybe even demanded, but it was Batman's response to his foil that was lacking. While I certainly cannot (and do not) fault you for wanting more of their "banter" (and overall more, of course, Joker ), I felt there was an appropriate level between the two, or at least the Joker held up to his end of the bargain, but Batman faltered a little. We are arriving at the same end conclusion, but we are using different means to get there .

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

I'm curious to know if we had the same script annoyances, and little nuanced things that detracted us?

Several scenes were bogged down by pointless exposition (which is the trademark of all comic books, so it should be somewhat expected of their movie adaptations), others had some silly hammy dialogue (Commissioner Gordon, I loved you in the first film, so why did you have to lose part of your soul in the second ), and the pacing of some situations was not as strong as it could be (the extremely long Hong Kong scene comes to mind). To give a larger example, the Accountant sub-story (the man who learns of Bruce Wayne's connection to Batman), had a very poor beginning and middle, but a very good end (were everything ties in with the main story quite well...but we are still left hanging as to what actually happens to the Accountant).

Ultimately, though, it was the various editing problems that interrupted the visual story-telling that bugged me the most. Transitions were cumbersome at times for no apparent reason, head-on shots were used in a few places when the director would have done a better job with a mid-range shot, and various other little details like this, scattered throughout, which, while not true distractions or problems, ultimately added up to something partially negative in the end.

That being said, as I have already posted, the film definitely deserved a score somewhere around 8.0 to 8.5 (at the highest).

[Orga777]

Originally Posted by james0246

On this point, I agree with you wholeheartedly. While I do believe that the Joker had enough definition (as a character), the thematic and symbolic connection between Batman and Joker was not as well-founded in the film. But, unlike you, I blame the presentation of Batman, rather than Joker. The Joker, through his various videos and other "advertisements", established a firm connection with Batman and Gotham. Rather, it was Batman's inability to respond in an active fashion that created a slight disconnect between the two and the growing theme of "Battle for Gotham." But, when Batman does directly respond (when the Joker is captured), that the Joker reveals his chaotic plans for Gotham, and their full connection is firmly established (albeit less subtly than I desired). Harvey Dent then merely becomes a foil for their battle...but I am sure you already realize this.

Wait... what? Batman and Joker had a major connection any time they are on screen together. He didn't respond quickly because he never expected someone to be like that. Someone like The Joker defies all known thought processes he learned about criminals. Remember in the previous film? He was taught that criminals are not complicated. That was completely DESTROYED here. He needed to adapt to something he had no way of understanding. Except he does understand. Batman and Joker are too similar after all.

Every time they fought on screen there was a connection except possibly that first meeting in the apartment. Their fight at the end had a lot of connection, the jail meeting, and of course their fight in the street. Batman wouldn't break under the pressure to change his methods to kill him after all.

In the end, I scored this film somewhere around 3 stars, or 8.0-8.5. After seeing it a second time (by myself), I rated it far closer to to 8.0 than 8.5. This is a very good film (also, easily one of the best Comic Book films made thus far), but due some direction flaws, script annoyances, and little things scattered throughout, I simply couldn't rate it higher, even if I did have a great time watching the film and eagerly await the chance to buy the DVD and hwear the various commentary tracks and see possible deleted storyboards and scenes.

Really? Well, that is your opinion. I thought the movie was Best Picture worthy myself. And I just don't say that about any film either (since I am VERY critical of film.)

[Rurik]

Ermmm, I still haven’t watch the movie, Because the premiere is today (don’t ask in what Hole I lived in), James, I’ll let you know about your comments on the film, because I think people are been overly critic with Batman presence, but after watching like what…150 times Batman Beggins, 124 Batman, 60 Batman Return, 23 Batman Forever, and ¾ Batman and Robin, I have to compare this Batman with the others, and taking account the most important aspect, is that this is the Heath Ledger goodbye movie.

[wingdarkness]

Really? Well, that is your opinion. I thought the movie was Best Picture worthy myself. And I just don't say that about any film either (since I am VERY critical of film.)

It WAS a great movie experience, and a damn good movie, but it just wasn't without it's flaws...I thought Batman Begins was better in-terms of how the characters are introduced and the heightened sense of unpredictability...In that movie you felt like Batman was close to getting his a$$ kicked...Even Scarecrow put up a good challenge while Raz Al Ghul put up the challenge of challenges...In this movie I never really got the sense Batman was out of his comfort level, that he was singularily connected or focused on the Joker...I thought Ackhart played a great Harvey Dent, but it felt like he shoe-horned the movie out of Joker's control to me...Harvey Dent would have been great to setup for the next movie IMO, but in this movie, with the connection between Batman and Joker somewhat sweeping, you knew that Dent couldn't put up a challenge inwhich Batman's life or pride would be at stake...

As for getting an Oscar, it was good, and if Juno and Dreamgirls could get Oscar consideration I'm sure Batman could too (Especially Batman Begins), but I think in-terms of a comicbook movie having deep thespian qualities I'd say Ironman beats it just a bit (Not the movie as a whole, just what Oscar committee's might be looking for)...I mean Morton Downey Jr. made me love a comicbook character I never liked growing up, and that movie was unexpectedly crafted really well...To play devil's advocate though DK has more great serious actors (not that their screentime will merit the same considerations--Unlike james I thought Gary Oldman [who almost always plays off-beat villains] was great as a hero-type]...I just don't know how else to describe my feelings...Clearly I enjoyed the movie, but I just didn't feel satisfied like I did after Batman Begins...I just think the Joker shouldn't take a backseat to anybody in a Batman movie...

[Orga777]

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

It WAS a great movie experience, and a damn good movie, but it just wasn't without it's flaws...I thought Batman Begins was better in-terms of how the characters are introduced and the heightened sense of unpredictability...In that movie you felt like Batman was close to getting his a$$ kicked...Even Scarecrow put up a good challenge while Raz Al Ghul put up the challenge of challenges...In this movie I never really got the sense Batman was out of his comfort level, that he was singularily connected or focused on the Joker...I thought Ackhart played a great Harvey Dent, but it felt like he shoe-horned the movie out of Joker's control to me...Harvey Dent would have been great to setup for the next movie IMO, but in this movie, with the connection between Batman and Joker somewhat sweeping, you knew that Dent couldn't put up a challenge inwhich Batman's life or pride would be at stake...

Eh? Not out of his element? The Joker is the epitome of unpredictability and challenged everything Batman stood for. Even Ra's Al Ghul failed to do what The Joker was able to accomplish, as he put it, with "a couple of bullets."

Also, you underestimate the Harvey Dent factor for this movie. He was the whole POINT of the movie. To show the greatest men can be corrupted with "one bad day." Batman in Begins knew how to get through his problems. Here, he didn't and his morality was challenged. This movie was a philosophical debate really. And it was awesome because of it. I love Batman Begins, but The Dark Knight is vastly superior to it.

As for movies without flaws, only ONE movie I can think of has no flaws at all and that is "Citizen Kane." Every movie has a flaw, but the flaws in The Dark Knight are few and far between and for a comic book movie, that is impressive.

but I think in-terms of a comicbook movie having deep thespian qualities I'd say Ironman beats it just a bit (Not the movie as a whole, just what Oscar committee's might be looking for)...I mean Morton Downey Jr. made me love a comicbook character I never liked growing up, and that movie was unexpectedly crafted really well...

What? I loved Iron-Man and thought Robert Downey Jr. was fantastic, but that movie doesn't have the same... grit or themes that The Dark Knight has. Iron-Man was a great comic book moive. The Dark Knight is a great film. There is a difference.

To play devil's advocate though DK has more great serious actors (not that their screentime will merit the same considerations--Unlike james I thought Gary Oldman [who almost always plays off-beat villains] was great as a hero-type]...I just don't know how else to describe my feelings...Clearly I enjoyed the movie, but I just didn't feel satisfied like I did after Batman Begins...I just think the Joker shouldn't take a backseat to anybody in a Batman movie...

The Joker DIDN'T take a back seat. The whole film was crafted around him and he manipulated every single event in the movie to prove his point. How is that taking a back seat? He was driving the car!

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Orga777

Wait... what? Batman and Joker had a major connection any time they are on screen together. He didn't respond quickly because he never expected someone to be like that. Someone like The Joker defies all known thought processes he learned about criminals. Remember in the previous film? He was taught that criminals are not complicated. That was completely DESTROYED here. He needed to adapt to something he had no way of understanding. Except he does understand. Batman and Joker are too similar after all.

Every time they fought on screen there was a connection except possibly that first meeting in the apartment. Their fight at the end had a lot of connection, the jail meeting, and of course their fight in the street. Batman wouldn't break under the pressure to change his methods to kill him after all.

I agree that this connection is evident in the film, but it is not introduced clearly or conscicly enough to counter balance the extreme connection that is evident in the interrogation scene and laer. To put it another way, their connection goes from 0 to 60 in literally a few minutes, when it would have served the film better to slowly build their connection, and the symbolic fight for Gotham's soul, from the very begining. And, again, I point to the presentation of Batman as the factor that failed in this respect.

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

--Unlike james I thought Gary Oldman [who almost always plays off-beat villains] was great as a hero-type]...

Hey, I didn't say that . I like Gary Oldman as Gordan, in fact I like him quite abit. Rather, I felt his presentation was a lacking some of the soul he had from the first film.

[Orga777]

Originally Posted by james0246

I agree that this connection is evident in the film, but it is not introduced clearly or conscicly enough to counter balance the extreme connection that is evident in the interrogation scene and laer. To put it another way, their connection goes from 0 to 60 in literally a few minutes, when it would have served the film better to slowly build their connection, and the symbolic fight for Gotham's soul, from the very begining. And, again, I point to the presentation of Batman as the factor that failed in this respect.

I have to disagree on all count here though. I thought it was done really well.
And the presentation of Batman? He was brooding over The Joker for almost the entire film trying to understand him. So I don't get that either.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Orga777

I have to disagree on all count here though. I thought it was done really well.
And the presentation of Batman? He was brooding over The Joker for almost the entire film trying to understand him. So I don't get that either.

That is fine . I am not trying to convince you or sway you from your point of view. Rather, I was simply explaining my views.

Batman does not fully concern himself with the Joker until the Joker challenges Batman to reveal himself. And, even then, it is not until the interrogation scene (an hour and some into the film), that their full symbolic connection fully comes to focus. I consider this to be a little late, not really disruptive or bad, but not good either.

[Orga777]

Originally Posted by james0246

Batman does not fully concern himself with the Joker until the Joker challenges Batman to reveal himself. And, even then, it is not until the interrogation scene (an hour and some into the film), that their full symbolic connection fully comes to focus. I consider this to be a little late, not really disruptive or bad, but not good either.

Batman really didn't know about The Joker's appearance till that moment though. Early on he just thought he was some unimportant criminal. Not until he started to target Batman did he start to wonder. That isn't a problem IMO.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Orga777

Batman really didn't know about The Joker's appearance till that moment though. Early on he just thought he was some unimportant criminal. Not until he started to target Batman did he start to wonder. That isn't a problem IMO.

In the real world you would be correct. But, this is a fictional universe in which nearly everything acts as a foil for the development and creation of Batman as a character. In that respect, the lack of a firm connection between Batman and Joker, especially in regards to the symbolic battle for Gotham's soul, is a problem.

[Orga777]

Originally Posted by james0246

In the real world you would be correct. But, this is a fictional universe in which nearly everything acts as a foil for the development and creation of Batman as a character. In that respect, the lack of a firm connection between Batman and Joker, especially in regards to the symbolic battle for Gotham's soul, is a problem.

No it isn't. Nolan wanted to make his films as realistic as possible. So it DOES work. Remember, The Joker was beating on the Mob too and Batman saw the mob as a bigger threat. Not until the Mob hired him did Batman fully realize the threat The Joker posed. So I don't see what you are really trying to get at.