Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

The Dark Knight - speculation and news

Page: 1 2(3)4 5 6 7 8... 14

19:28 / 29.05.07

I could go on a bit about the Joker in DKR and just why he was so horrible, but I don't want to be responsible for derailing the thread again.

"I'm going to kill everyone is this room" was extremely nasty.

19:33 / 29.05.07

For all the talk about DKR, it seems The Long Halloween is the one story arc being mined the most for this flick. That shot of clown-masked hoods robbing a bank is all but lifted entirely from those comics. That and the whole "I believe in Harvey Dent" slogan.

It's got one of the dumbest portrayals of The Joker though.

19:36 / 29.05.07

Nolan comment on the Joker's habit of making people uncomfortable via sexual behavior/remarks?

I wanna see him goose Batman. The end. It's petty and pervy of me, but, really, that has the possibility to be the greatest cinematic moment of the year. That's the Joker I want, really; Morrison's Joker.

And, I'd assumed any Joker gf would be before he was Jokerized. I'm trying to remember how the Red Hood thing works out, in Moore's retelling and in the earlier versions, but surely it would in flashback. It's harder to do something like Harley liveaction on the bigscreen, because it's easier for a lot of adults to not think about her and Mistah J's relationship dynamics when its a cartoon or a comic. How many people actually picked up Mad Love anyway?

Of course, if they're going to explore the sexual dynamics of clowns and bats... they could spin it without her appearance being fluff. Turns the movie into sex on sex through a fight filter, some toy adverts, and some leveling celeb appearances. So, the second Burton film, with Gellar standing in for Paul Reubens.

19:54 / 29.05.07

Well the Hollywood, it likes to have the romance/sex angle so you need the sexy Ladies it's just a matter of which ones. Personally I prefer them to be their own characters rather than just arm candy ransom bait. We know we have Maggie Gyllenhaal but that's it.

I can't say discussing which characters are going to show up or how they will be portrayed is really derailing the thread about the movie? Surely all reasonable to the topic speculation is welcome? Or are you complaining about future speculation as this movie is already fully cast?

21:45 / 29.05.07

the movie seems to be far enough into shooting to have a Harley Quinn casting announcement now. plus, she would dillute the Joker's visual and storyline potential - much more than Robin or Batgirl would do to Batman's.

The Joker is too special a character to even have Two-Face steal the show, so I guess we're in to see Harvey's spiral downfall to a hint at Two-Face emerging by the end of it, tops.

although I'm curious to see what Anthony Michael Hall's role will be.

re: inspiration. BEGINS drank from Rha's first appearance in Comics [which was even featured at the movie's website] and I believe THE KILLING JOKE will have as much weight as BATMAN #1 and THE JOKER'S FIVE-WAY REVENGE [from 1973] in the story - as has been hinted by Nolan. I suppose the Batman-On-Film website can weight on that.

anybody got that DC Archive collection or THE GREATEST JOKER STORIES EVER TOLD? time for rereading.

23:13 / 29.05.07

The Joker's only love interest should be The Batman himself. End of.

23:53 / 29.05.07

I wanna see him goose Batman.

No, you don't. You might think that's what you want, but trust me, it really isn't.

In terms of the current reading (Bruce Wayne as a more socially responsible Patrick Bateman, basically!) Batman would have no choice but to put the Joker in hospital, at least, if he tried to get under the cape, in that way.

If the producers are serious about getting this right, Batman and the Joker shouldn't meet at all until the final, bloody secene. Surely one of the points of the Joker is that he's decadent, that he doesn't lift weights, that he's too sarcastic, lazy and dissolute to respond to the traumatic in a positive way? That he wouldn't learn karate, etc, that he'd be much happier with poison gas? That, when the awful thing happened to him, the 'bad day' Alan Moore talks about, he wasn't really 'anyone' and so didn't have the cash to fall back on? Bruce's sojourn in the Chinese prison in 'Begins' being not much more than a glorified 'year off' antic.

I'm guessing the flim won't be the harrowing, grand guignol farce I'd like it to be, but it could stil be pretty good as long as a certain rules are observed.

Cheers, anyway,

Harry Knowles

miss wonderstarr

05:32 / 30.05.07

I wanna see him goose Batman. The end. It's petty and pervy of me, but, really, that has the possibility to be the greatest cinematic moment of the year. That's the Joker I want, really; Morrison's Joker.

That was only one frame from a comic which portrayed the Joker, for the rest of the time, as a psychology case study rather than an interesting character. The lettering was so illegible I can't remember any of his dialogue except the bit about "how's the Boy Wonder? Started shaving yet?" but I seriously doubt there were any other memorable moments, and I wouldn't really be able to sum up that Joker in character terms ~ it was McKean's depiction, rather than Morrison's, that made him striking. In my view.

Also, isn't having Joker as a lipsticked queen in heels*, goosing Batman and being called FILTHY DEGENERATE, neatly shifting any possible gay readings of Batman onto a stereotypical, bad-homo figure? I know such complaints have been made, in print.

~~~~~~~~
* I use the term because this is the dull stereotype of gayness, or "sexual deviance" anyway, that I think Morrison's Joker represents. I don't think lipstick and heels on men are any bad thing, but I think Batman does in Arkham Asylum, and I think we're encouraged to agree with him on that page.

05:56 / 30.05.07

Well, I mean Morrison's Joker, in the whole. So, current Bats, JLA, et cet. The goosing's just part of that. But between that and springloaded baby-coffins... or Hawaiian shirts and complicated drive Gordon nuts funhouse antics and what promised to be the first in a line of Gordon-related women to be shot by the Joker? I'll take the spring-loaded dead kids. For that matter, just riffing on Arkham there's that lovely April Fools joke. Bad taste doesn't even begin... it carries on through where you're begging him to stop.

As to Batman not putting the Joker in the hospital... well, he should, probably, by the end, but there might be some territory to mine in why he doesn't.

But yeah, first time meeting and a Batman as uptight as ever but less inclined to restrain himself, okeh, the goosing might not go so good.

miss wonderstarr

06:14 / 30.05.07

For that matter, just riffing on Arkham there's that lovely April Fools joke. Bad taste doesn't even begin... it carries on through where you're begging him to stop.

I thought that was an incredibly flat attempt to be shocking, and I found it kind of embarrassing to read even as a teenager ~ it seemed like a younger teenager's attempt to be really tasteless. There's no intelligence or wit at all in his non-joke, and surely you'd expect more from the Joker.

I'm not trying to criticise you by extension, but it's interesting how people can clearly feel so differently and strongly about the same moments.

As for "Morrison's Joker", I really wouldn't say there is one; no coherent character. The Joker of JLA is different from the Joker of "Clown at Midnight", is different from the Joker in Morrison's AZTEK, is different from Arkham Asylum. I don't know if he has ever figured out his Joker.

07:59 / 30.05.07

Morrison's vision of the Joker is described pretty roundly in the recent text ish: he suffers from a kind of protean, super insanity, and lacks any core personality, rather he takes on different forms at different times. I think there's probably more to it, as I expect Grunt to explore the character further later in the run, but for now we have something to be going on with.

08:06 / 30.05.07

XK, I'm not worried about discussing the characters, I'm worried that I'll derail the thread if I start going on about DKR.

I completely see why you'd prefer Harley Quinn to some random sexy, sexy lady, but I don't think this* film needs that kind of subplot. I think it would be a bad creative choice because, as far as I can see, this film is going to be busy enough as it is, and the focus needs to be elsewhere.

*Maybe a later one. I don't have anything against Harley Quinn as a character, and I can see how she could fit into the Nolanbatverse

08:33 / 30.05.07

On the other hand Batman Begins set a standard for complex comic movies being possible. It had four villains and a corrupt cop from the comics plus Rutger's boss dude as antagonists. And a love interest. That's rather more than Spidey III and I didn't once feel the strain.

miss wonderstarr

08:46 / 30.05.07

I tend to think superhero films should resist this worrying trend for a minimum two villains. Most Batman comic books, graphic novels or, say, LOTDK short story arcs (Dark Knight Returns is an interesting exception) are, as far as I can remember, about Batman versus a single antagonist.

09:09 / 30.05.07

Most Batman comic books, graphic novels or, say, LOTDK short story arcs (Dark Knight Returns is an interesting exception) are, as far as I can remember, about Batman versus a single antagonist.

This is a suprise to me. I'm not a Batman expert, but the graphic novels I read recently - DKR, Broken City and The Long Halloween - all had Batman confronting several villains throughout the course of the book. I wound assuming that that was pretty much the tradition for Batman titles these days, but obviously not.

I do think Batman Begins successfully pulled off its multi-villain gambit, not least through the ingenious device of having them as players in an already existing criminal empire, operating at different tiers. It saved having those hokey scenes where villains decide to work together etc etc.

09:21 / 30.05.07

I thought that was an incredibly flat attempt to be shocking, and I found it kind of embarrassing to read even as a teenager ~ it seemed like a younger teenager's attempt to be really tasteless. There's no intelligence or wit at all in his non-joke, and surely you'd expect more from the Joker.

Not to presume to speak for Grant Mitchell, again, but isn't the whole point of that gag that it's not 'funny'? That the Joker isn't someone who you'd want, say, doing the Best Man speech at your wedding? That the stag do in various louche areas of what was formerly behind the Iron Curtain would have been quite difficult?

Perhaps, however else the Joker is being witten, he should never be portrayed as the sort of good bloke who gets applause from a late night alt fest/comedy crowd for being 'transgressive'? Wouldn't the Joker especially hate that, above almost above all the other things that hav driven him to plan the execution of everyone in New York/Gotham?

10:44 / 30.05.07

the Joker [from TKJ, which I guess is fairly in-continuity] was originally a frustrated stand-up comedian...

and AA seemed an attempt at taking the piss out of late 80's grim 'n' grittyness, Miller's DKR in particular. wasn't that scene the one originally to have Joker dressed as Madonna?

Hallo, Paper Spaceboy

13:57 / 30.05.07

MW: Also, isn't having Joker as a lipsticked queen in heels*, goosing Batman and being called FILTHY DEGENERATE, neatly shifting any possible gay readings of Batman onto a stereotypical, bad-homo figure? I know such complaints have been made, in print.

Well, on the one hand having Joker as the bad-homo might foreground the gay reading of Batman by paralleling and accentuating it, making Batman into more of a "skeletons in the" closet-case, depending on how their interaction was played (having never read Arkham Asylum), but on the other -- having the Joker of all people pointing out Batman's potential queerness threatens to lose audience credibility and forces us down the road into "He only says Batman's queer because he wants him to be" territory.

miss wonderstarr

15:21 / 30.05.07

Not to presume to speak for Grant Mitchell, again, but isn't the whole point of that gag that it's not 'funny'? That the Joker isn't someone who you'd want, say, doing the Best Man speech at your wedding? That the stag do in various louche areas of what was formerly behind the Iron Curtain would have been quite difficult?

No, it's surely not meant to be funny, but I didn't criticise it for trying to be funny and failing; my problem with that scene is that I think the "joke" is meant to be shocking and distressing, and I found it a failure on those terms, partly because there's just no wit or intelligence behind it. It's on the level of "why did the chicken cross the road? Because I just raped your mum."

Thorn, you're right about Long Hallowe'en of course, and the same could be said of Hush. In mitigation, those are longer stories (though of course it's hard to compare across two media) than any feature film, so they probably feel less cramped.

Hallo, Paper Spaceboy

15:48 / 30.05.07

Is it fair to say that the formula approach to the later films encouraged that trend to occur in the comics, generating more stories with villain team-ups or multiple antagonists?

14:55 / 31.05.07

I never really got the idea of any sexual conatation for the Batman at all. His so emotional removed and unable to be identified as anything like either homo or hetro erotic. I thought that was the reason Warren Ellis created his parody as the Midnighter (living weapon) but added the rest as a poke at fanboys ?

Neither characters works in either sense (Joker having no personailty core but a multitude) and Batman being almost entirly one single mostly inhuman force , they would simply put each over out (proably but Batman losing it entirly and killing the Joker)

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:02 / 31.05.07

Right. Can we discuss Batman's sexuality, Harley Quinn as a character, and anything else that isn't to do with news about the forthcoming motion picture The Dark Knight elsewhere?

19:44 / 31.05.07

cor, isn't he forceful?

02:17 / 01.06.07

I'm not sure the sexuality and teh deviance belongs that much in another thread. I think Nolan had something in his mind behind his casting decisions (yeah, Ledger is a good actor -- IMO -- but would you have in your mind his name popping up first in the list as Joker? Or at all?).

It's like Thomas Jane in Punisher. He's not a bad actor and did a hell of a job (in a film I find crappy) but it's not exactly the first name that pops in your head when you think about the character.

02:32 / 01.06.07

>>>yeah, Ledger is a good actor -- IMO -- but would you have in your mind his name popping up first in the list as Joker? Or at all?).<<<

Nolan said in an interview that this is precisely why he cast Ledger.

03:02 / 01.06.07

Well, that explains it then.

(good thing he didn't cast John Goodman ^__^)

03:52 / 01.06.07

That 'I believe in Harvey, too' thing's been marinating in the back recesses of my skull. Could they be dusting off a bit from the second of the last series (w/no-black-Two-Face Williams/Walken switch) where Dent's crookedly ascending/preserving-a-place in politics? Played less as satire and more as trauma-drama moving towards the eventual scarring and revelation of Two Face I'd dig it. I more or less know I'd dig that in the hands this film's being molded by.

Something I liked in Begins was how un-sardonic and non-satirical things were often played. It wasn't the most complicated or deft film, but that sense of bluntness was refreshing in its own way, which I'd hope to see continued in the new one.

Anyone wishing to continue Jokersex and other batsexual things not having to do with the film, per se, may want to jump over the Comics forum and either start a new thread or post in Scary Sex Stuff which is already running with some material started in this thread.

Hallo, Paper Spaceboy

04:15 / 01.06.07

That 'I believe in Harvey, too' thing's been marinating in the back recesses of my skull. Could they be dusting off a bit from the second of the last series (w/no-black-Two-Face Williams/Walken switch) where Dent's crookedly ascending/preserving-a-place in politics?

Er...Walken wasn't playing Harvey Dent in that one, he was the industrialist Shreck (as opposed to the ogre, obvs), and then Tommy Lee Jones was the second, strangely white Harvey.

Something I liked in Begins was how un-sardonic and non-satirical things were often played. It wasn't the most complicated or deft film, but that sense of bluntness was refreshing in its own way, which I'd hope to see continued in the new one.

I could have used a bit more satire, honestly, especially as the movie progressed and the League's nefarious plot is revealed to be something out of a bad JLA comic -- if anything, the big weapon felt more like an update of an old Sixties Batman TV show prop, only Yvonne Craig wasn't around to save the day and we couldn't tune in next time. But, in general, I'm pretty critical of Begins, particularly the awkwardly misogynistic undercurrents (reinforced, possibly, more due to bad writing and acting rather than a specific agenda), and the bluntness strikes me as a desperate need to pull the big boy pants.

05:04 / 01.06.07

The Shreck role was rewrit from being Dent, hence the electro-scarring death at the end. It was originally carry-over of Billy Dee Williams from the first film. Williams still got paid basically what he would have been paid for doing the film.

07:31 / 01.06.07

I really don't want to see much in the way of satire in a Batman film. That's not to say I don't want a Batman film to be thoughtful or politically conscious, just that I would hope the focus would be primarily on telling a good story.

Hallo, Paper Spaceboy

14:32 / 01.06.07

That's not to say I don't want a Batman film to be thoughtful or politically conscious, just that I would hope the focus would be primarily on telling a good story.

Well, obviously the focus should be telling a good story. I'm not saying it shouldn't be. But I would have liked to have seen some self-awareness in the film, just a little bit. And I'm not referring to cloying fan service off-handed references to other films or the comics.

23:12 / 01.06.07

Like a good ol' wink to the camera?

08:49 / 02.06.07

I don't think that's what's being suggested, no.

09:07 / 02.06.07

The whole point was that it was supposed to be grounded in the real world though, so sadly self awareness of the DCUnes of the character wasn't going to be in there. Did the other films have that? I know that Val Kilmer said something like 'They'll be half way to Metropolis by now' in Forever, and there was normally a bad joke about the women in Bruce's life hanging around in the cave.

I've said it before about comic book films - they can't do the comic book style stor-telling and need to be thought of as very seperate from that universe - the restrictions of story telling structure, three act practice and the need for closure of some sort at the end vs the continuous and growing sense of continuity and serial nature of comics. So I kind of take the films as very stand alone.

17:04 / 02.06.07

See my last post.

Page: 1 2(3)4 5 6 7 8... 14