So, about those Man of Steel reviews...

I suppose that's what makes The Dark Knight so uniquely great. Heath Ledger's Joker is never less than interesting.
He's what made that movie my least favorite of the three. I still enjoyed it, but I quite hated that Joker. I'm obviously in the minority, and I accept that, but there it is. I didn't think his acting was bad, or anything, I just hated the character (just like I hated the Jack Nicholson Joker). But I'm not even a comic book reader, so...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's one of the reasons why Superman Returns didn't work very well. When a decade or more passes between films, you need to re-introduce him unless there's some specific angle that makes creative sense.

The other reason is that Kevin Spacey's Luthor was the only compelling character in the film.

All Superman did in that film was lift heavy things. Over and over again.
 


He's what made that movie my least favorite of the three. I still enjoyed it, but I quite hated that Joker. I'm obviously in the minority, and I accept that, but there it is. I didn't think his acting was bad, or anything, I just hated the character (just like I hated the Jack Nicholson Joker). But I'm not even a comic book reader, so...

Is there any version of the Joker you like or do you just hate the character overall?
 

The funny thing is, the cartoons have done an excellent job of "Here's the iconic character(s), and here he/she/they is/are doing iconic things in interesting ways. Batman and Superman animated series did that, Justice League, JLU, and Young Justice all did that. Maybe they should put Bruce Timm in overall control of DC movies and cartoons, and let him pick the scripts, the directors, the cast, and just back the suits and lawyers out of it entirely.
 

Is there any version of the Joker you like?
I grew up on the Batman: TAS, so that Joker will always feel "right" to me (thematically). Now, I wasn't expecting something as wacky as that Joker in Nolan's trilogy, but I think something based on whimsy rather than a complete dedication to "chaos" would've struck me as much more compelling. The seeming dedication to chaos for the sake of it just didn't fit with the whimsy that I was used to in the Joker. Also, I wanted his relationship to Batman a little more explored; more of the "defined by Batman" thrown in there (though there are nods to that in the movie).

I don't know. I'd be okay with him murdering people, and being dark. I think the dedication to chaos really hurt my ability to like the Joker, since it seemed so thematically off from what I wanted out of the character. I'm okay with him whimsically adhering to chaos (for a while), though. But, again, grew up on TAS, and didn't read the comics, so I can't say that I'm a mainstream fan or anything.

do you just hate the character overall?
He's my favorite Batman villain, and Batman is my favorite superhero. So, yeah, I quite like him conceptually. I just did not find the appeal to chaos to line up with what I wanted from a version of Joker. As always, play what you like :)
 

That's what I was guessing. While the Batman Cartoons have been great they are still kids shows. It is a lot different in the cartoons then the feel of the movies and comics.
 

Now, I wasn't expecting something as wacky as that Joker in Nolan's trilogy, but I think something based on whimsy rather than a complete dedication to "chaos" would've struck me as much more compelling. The seeming dedication to chaos for the sake of it just didn't fit with the whimsy that I was used to in the Joker.
I think the movie was a change in direction from most of what we'd seen before, but then, the other characters and elements were different two; it's a whole-cloth reinvention. I can see where someone with a strong attachment to an existing canon might be thrown off, but personally, I think the movie version was exactly what was needed to convince us that the character was real, in keeping with the naturalistic tone of the rest of the movies (the first two, anyway).

Also, I wanted his relationship to Batman a little more explored; more of the "defined by Batman" thrown in there (though there are nods to that in the movie).
This totally jumped out at me though. There was a lot more than some nods in there! That idea is central to the movie ("I don't want to kill you. What would I do without you? No, you complete me."), it was even stated at the end of the first movie (the great exchange on "escalation"). What more could they have done with this "defined by Batman" idea than what they already did?
 

Yeah, it was a kids show (just like Justice League basically was). I just liked that version a lot more. I thought the character was much more interesting, thematically, then the "chaos" Joker in Nolan's movies. Like I said, I wasn't expecting something wacky, and I was expecting him to kill. I just found him off from what I thought the Joker should be.
I think the movie was a change in direction from most of what we'd seen before, but then, the other characters and elements were different two; it's a whole-cloth reinvention. I can see where someone with a strong attachment to an existing canon might be thrown off, but personally, I think the movie version was exactly what was needed to convince us that the character was real, in keeping with the naturalistic tone of the rest of the movies (the first two, anyway).
Yeah, I do have a fairly strong attachment to the characters (I also didn't like that Bruce Wayne wasn't that smart). And, like I said, I didn't expect a wacky Batman: TAS Joker in Nolan's films; he just wouldn't fit in, and I don't see it working out in a live action medium that well.

However, the utter commitment to chaos just wasn't gripping, to me. Whimsy I understand, and expect. And there was some of that there, but it wasn't the focus. No, the focus was on chaos, and that bored me. The commitment to chaos was unexplained and yet somehow predictable, and I kind of want Joker to be unpredictable. I would've liked seeing people not be able to understand how his head works really at all, save for Batman on some level. I just found the goal of chaos rather one dimensional. Still a pretty good movie, though.
This totally jumped out at me though. There was a lot more than some nods in there! That idea is central to the movie ("I don't want to kill you. What would I do without you? No, you complete me."), it was even stated at the end of the first movie (the great exchange on "escalation"). What more could they have done with this "defined by Batman" idea than what they already did?
Well, Joker says it, but it's not really explored. And, Batman doesn't quite struggle with that fact as much as I think he should. Like I said, there were nods there, but I'd rather see the Joker show us, not tell us.

In one Batman: TAS episode, Joker goes so far as giving up on crime because he thinks Batman is dead, and there's no point if Batman doesn't stop him. Joker actually gets depressed. We don't need to go that far, but at least it's showing us. The commitment to chaos for the sake of chaos plus "you complete me" is basically lip service to that aspect of their relationship, rather than showing the audience that this is the case. In my view, at least. As always, play what you like :)
 

Well, Joker says it, but it's not really explored. And, Batman doesn't quite struggle with that fact as much as I think he should.
I think it's pretty clear thematically, too, when you look at his schemes and his propaganda, as it were, that all of it is reactionary to the Batman phenomenon and is designed to get his attention and provoke confrontation. It's also pretty clear that he let himself be captured so there would be a face-to-face meeting. I also think we see plenty of Bruce agonizing over his responsibility in the chaos that ensues, particularly the impostor Bat-character who gets tortured and killed. It blows by fast, but I don't know how much more one could ask for in a two-hour movie. There's not a lot of depth available in that time. Those lines were also central in the first trailer, such that I think a lot of people went into the movie with that idea in mind.

Now, if they had been able to continue the story in the third one, then it would have been interesting to see what they would have done.

I just found the goal of chaos rather one dimensional.
I do too, I just found it more effective. Since I went in expecting nuance and pretense and there was none, it made the movie more impactful. The sheer purity of the character is what shocked and disturbed so many people.

Now don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the Frank Miller joker, or the Arkham Asylum joker from the video games, and those are very different (and still quite dark). Reinvention is part of the comic book world.
 

Remove ads

Top