Your favorite live-action Batman movie:

[The Serge]

I'd like to see them throw some makeup on Mark Hamill. He just has the joker down packed and theres no real reason with all the technology and make up nowdays he couldn't play the character in this day and age.

Although I love Hamill's Joker voice (which, if you've watched the animated series develop over the years, has changed a lot... particularly the laughs), I don't believe he has the build, height, or face of The Joker. He doesn't have a maniacle smile; he's not a particularly tall man; his face is too cherubic...

Really, the only things that Nicholson had that worked well was the face (particularly the smile and eyebrows) and the presence. Otherwise, he was not the best cast...

 

[DonTadow]

Although I love Hamill's Joker voice (which, if you've watched the animated series develop over the years, has changed a lot... particularly the laughs), I don't believe he has the build, height, or face of The Joker. He doesn't have a maniacle smile; he's not a particularly tall man; his face is too cherubic...

Really, the only things that Nicholson had that worked well was the face (particularly the smile and eyebrows) and the presence. Otherwise, he was not the best cast...

Outside of he phsyical appearance he has the demeanor and personality of the joker down packed. I've seen him do some of the voice work for the show and his movements really portray whats on the cartoon. I"m sure there should be some camera trick out there to get ithe short comings (pun) down packed.

 

[Dark Jezter]

There is a dramatic realism because the environment, although fantastic, is treated in a sophisticated, realistic fashion.

It's a far more realistic and sophisticated fantasy than Burton's version.

I'm not saying that it's not a good thing, but there's no depth to it and as a result it's not as sophisticated or as likely to be taken with any degree of seriousness. Now, whether or not the was Burton's intent, I do not know; however, this is a sharp divergence from the better comics out there that, while recognizing that comics are a fantasy, seek to create more sophisticated fantasies a la LotR or SoFaI.

No, sophisticated means that there is a concern for the human condition upon which a variety of themes are concerned. I suspect most fans of the genre know this or else have short attention spans... Possibly both.

I understand what you're saying (and saying in a far more mature and sophisticated way than certain other people) and I can see how this comes across. I don't believe that I am though I don't know if there's any way to prove it.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[The Serge]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

You must be out of steam if that's the best you can come up with.

 

[Dark Jezter]

You must be out of steam if that's the best you can come up with.

It may not be sophisticated, but it gets the point across.

Although you are right in that I'm out of steam: I got bored with the previous debate a while ago when it became apparant that you weren't going to convince me that Burton's Batman fails as an adaptation, and I wasn't going to convince you that it's pointless to criticize out the lack of character building in the movie because it wasn't intended to be a character piece. I was just reading the second page of this thread and saw your last reply to Joshua Dyal and thought "Man, he's really throwing around the word 'sophisticated' a lot. Reminds me of Vizzini always saying 'inconcievable!'"

 

[The Serge]

From my English major background in which literature was often discussed as being simple or sophisticated. Something can be simple and successful and another thing can be sophisticated and unsuccessful (and the reverse is just as often true... As with Burton's Batman beings simple and marginally unsuccessful). When I discuss things I like but appreciate to different degrees, I'm careful to use those two words to describe them.

And you're right, your little picture wasn't sophisticated. I can't believe you took the time to go through my posts. I'm flattered that I was worth the effort.

 

[Dark Jezter]

And you're right, your little picture wasn't sophisticated. I can't believe you took the time to go through my posts. I'm flattered that I was worth the effort.

Always happy to serve, and doubly happy to be unsophisticated!

And Ctrl+F is a wonderful tool for searching for instances of a single word in a thread.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Not a real fan of Nicholson-Joker here too! ::raises hand::

Even if they did go for Nicholson, his smile is devilish enough without the make-up that completely robbed him of his facial expressions (the Joker smiles because he finds averything -- specially carnage -- funny, not because he's deformed). And I disliked the Jack Napier angle (specially tying him to Crime Alley).

BTW, even though I think Keaton wasn't very good as Batman, he'd make a really nice Harvey Dent/Two-Face!

If you have seen Beetlejuice you will realize that Keaton would also make a better Joker than Nicholson.

For that matter, if he were a wee bit younger Nicholson would have made a better Batman than Keaton. (In a Dark Night Returns sort of way...)

The Auld Grump

 

[Kai Lord]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

LOL!