Your Hopes For The Next Batman Flick?

[PyroZombie]

StuddedZombie! I'm PyroZombie! Dead-ist...

DURH. *face palm slap* Sorry bro....

It's alright, Nny. Just remember some dead people have feelings.

....You know what i mean...

 

[SpySmasher]

Random though on this topic, Patrick Stewart as The Clock King.

The Clock King was an awesome villain in the animated series. I personally would go see the new movie if this character was in it. Kudos to you.

 

[axia777]

StuddedZombie! I'm PyroZombie! Dead-ist...

DURH. *face palm slap* Sorry bro....

It's alright, Nny. Just remember some dead people have feelings.

....You know what i mean...

>

I agree with you on the "Smart Bane" thing. I want Talia al'Ghul vs Catwoman fighting over Batman/Wayne as both have a history of wanting Wayne. That would be the hotness. Then for action have Talia al'Ghul or maybe some other group get Bane involved some how. Bane kicks ass.

 

[SonicKoala]

I call blasphemy on that statement, Jack Nicholsan's was just that - a joker. Heath Ledger introduced this unbelievably dark and edgy side to the character, making him so much more than just some psycho who wears face paint. He made it so you were eager for the Joker to appear - you wanted to see what Ledger was going to do with that performance next, and he never failed to disappoint. How he could go from a sort of sarcastic indifference in one part to psychotic rage in the next just felt so natural. Also, calling the Dark Knight a "bad remake" is ludacris. Better story, a lot more thematic depth, and FAR superior performances from every actor involved.

I can only support your argument that Dark Knight is a good movie, but I will have to respectfully disagree that it is a good Batman movie. Nolan's Batman films are more akin to the Hannibal Lecter films than Batman, and in that regard I can concede Heath did well as Nolan's Joker. However, the original characters lack this type of depth by design, to leave the reader / viewer room to think about the motivation for these people, and what the represent in a larger vision of the world. Granted, this was done primarily to keep sales up for the comics, but reading between the lines isn't just for Hamlet.

You're right to call Jack Nicholson a joker, because The Joker acts that way. He cracks stupid jokes all the time, and generally is crazy. He functions as a counterpoint to Batman's detective abilities being based in logic and instinct; Joker's plans lack a logic that Batman can understand, but his instinct is no less devious and potent. We don't need to know specifically that he was abused as a child, and it's not important how he got his characteristic permanent smile. Adding those details to the story makes him more Buffalo Bill than Joker. The Joker is a clown pimp that kills people for a laugh, not a slobbering bipolar hobo killing people to make the world more socially-aware because his parent's didn't love him enough.

You're supposed to half-laugh at his madness, then feel bad because he used laughing gas to kill a hundred party goers with a crappy pun like "this party is a gas!" Nolan's Joker sacrificed that well-defined character aspect in favor of a more realistic back story, and I'm not the only one that picked up on this and found it distasteful and annoying.

Well, that's fine if you prefer the old style of Batman, the fact is the new Batman movies are done in a new style, much darker and thematically complex than the comic books, or even the old Batman movies. I happen to prefer that.

As for your analysis of the Joker, did you even WATCH the Dark Knight? Ledger's joker had ALL those characteristics you just described. He is completely and totally batshit insane! There is no logic behind any of the Joker's plans in the Dark Knight - he's doing it simply for the sake of doing it ("Some men just want to watch the world burn" ring any bells??). As for the Joker's "back story" you're talking about, you mean those two situations where the Joker begins to explain the story behind his scars, and CHANGES HIS STORY EACH TIME? First he says his father did it, then he said he did it to himself. Sure, the Joker hints (only twice, very subtly) that he hated his father, but that in NO WAY is the motivation behind his acts.

I have absoloutely no idea what movie YOU watched, but the traits of this "better" Joker that you are going on about is EXACTLY how the Joker was portrayed by Ledger in the Dark Knight. He was maniacal, illogical, and downright evil. Nolan's Joker in NO WAY sacrificed that character aspect. If anything, he augmented it with brilliant script writing, and an absoloutely unforgettable performance from Ledger.

 

[Viva La Bob]

After viewing the batman wikipedia page on villains i have compiled the list need for a gritty re-imagining

1. Chandell & evil twin Harry played by liberace in the 60's series
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WnCJlq_kUA8/RzWpsQ0FYsI/AAAAAAAAGR0/K9lTAk7iCng/s200/Chandell_Fingers_Liberace.jpg

2. KGBeast a KGB super assassin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGBeast

3. The Mad Hatter a villain based on lewis carol characters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Hatter_(comics)

4. Maxie Zeus a mob boss who thinks he is Zeus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxie_Zeus

They would be great if fleshed out with back stories... NOT

Also according to the page hitler was used as a villain for a few 40s comics.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Also according to the page hitler was used as a villain for a few 40s comics.

Because every Super hero had a showdown against the dictator. While it entertained the youth, it also give a little moral to the troops.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

Well, that's fine if you prefer the old style of Batman, the fact is the new Batman movies are done in a new style, much darker and thematically complex than the comic books, or even the old Batman movies. I happen to prefer that.

As for your analysis of the Joker, did you even WATCH the Dark Knight? Ledger's joker had ALL those characteristics you just described. He is completely and totally batshit insane! There is no logic behind any of the Joker's plans in the Dark Knight - he's doing it simply for the sake of doing it ("Some men just want to watch the world burn" ring any bells??). As for the Joker's "back story" you're talking about, you mean those two situations where the Joker begins to explain the story behind his scars, and CHANGES HIS STORY EACH TIME? First he says his father did it, then he said he did it to himself. Sure, the Joker hints (only twice, very subtly) that he hated his father, but that in NO WAY is the motivation behind his acts.

I have absoloutely no idea what movie YOU watched, but the traits of this "better" Joker that you are going on about is EXACTLY how the Joker was portrayed by Ledger in the Dark Knight. He was maniacal, illogical, and downright evil. Nolan's Joker in NO WAY sacrificed that character aspect. If anything, he augmented it with brilliant script writing, and an absoloutely unforgettable performance from Ledger.

It's quite fair to apply the "new style" caveat, and I respect your preference for thematic depth, however, what I saw was a Joker performance not suited to my tastes.

BTW, you have taken my example of a rough childhood completely out of context. I am aware that he changes the story multiple times; the point I was illustrating is that adding back story to the Joker is a one-way street leading away from Funny Town, whether it is meant as a motivator for his actions or not. This is why I brought Buffalo Bill as an example - the only insight to what motivates him to make a suit of woman skin is the detective work of Ms. Starling (helped by Hannibal Lecter). In the case of the Joker, instead of wearing a woman skin suit and dancing around to Q Lazarus with his junk between his legs, it's clown makeup and a flying Christmas tree.

<youtube=Veju4PxhuGc>

He's a comedian that takes a joke too far, rather than a "maniacal, illogical, downright evil" guy with a penchant for screwing with Batman once a fortnight. Joker already has plenty of motivation to do absolutely anything a writer can think of - he's trying to make Batman (and the audience) laugh. That's all he has to do to be a good Joker. Anything more would make him more like Professor Moriarty in a purple suit than the "Clown Prince of Crime."

I'm not here to argue that one Joker is better than another, but rather that the Nolan Joker gained very little by adding thematic depth. In the eyes of old-school Joker fans (including myself), it was as sad and unnecessary as giving Devastator wrecking ball testicles.

 

[Julianking93]

Christopher Nolan has stated when asked about Robin, "He's out in a crib somewhere"

As for what I want, I'd like to see Catwoman or the Riddler. I'd love to see Christopher Nolan's vision of both those characters. And, I would really love to see the Joker again. I know, "No performence could top Heath Ledger" but I think that someone just might be able to. I'm not sure who, but Christopher Nolan is the guy to find out. Plus, if they bring in The Joker again, they would have to at least mention Harley Quinn.

And I know C. Nolan has already said he doesn't want to do the Penguin, but I'd like to see his vision of him. He'd probably end up being an extremely deformed dwarf.

I think attempting to make another batman movie, after the awesome of the dark knight, is a silly idea. Heath ledger's gone, so there's no more awesome joker bits.

They've already started filming. Too bad no info has been leaked out about it.

 

[SonicKoala]

Well, that's fine if you prefer the old style of Batman, the fact is the new Batman movies are done in a new style, much darker and thematically complex than the comic books, or even the old Batman movies. I happen to prefer that.

As for your analysis of the Joker, did you even WATCH the Dark Knight? Ledger's joker had ALL those characteristics you just described. He is completely and totally batshit insane! There is no logic behind any of the Joker's plans in the Dark Knight - he's doing it simply for the sake of doing it ("Some men just want to watch the world burn" ring any bells??). As for the Joker's "back story" you're talking about, you mean those two situations where the Joker begins to explain the story behind his scars, and CHANGES HIS STORY EACH TIME? First he says his father did it, then he said he did it to himself. Sure, the Joker hints (only twice, very subtly) that he hated his father, but that in NO WAY is the motivation behind his acts.

I have absoloutely no idea what movie YOU watched, but the traits of this "better" Joker that you are going on about is EXACTLY how the Joker was portrayed by Ledger in the Dark Knight. He was maniacal, illogical, and downright evil. Nolan's Joker in NO WAY sacrificed that character aspect. If anything, he augmented it with brilliant script writing, and an absoloutely unforgettable performance from Ledger.

It's quite fair to apply the "new style" caveat, and I respect your preference for thematic depth, however, what I saw was a Joker performance not suited to my tastes.

BTW, you have taken my example of a rough childhood completely out of context. I am aware that he changes the story multiple times; the point I was illustrating is that adding back story to the Joker is a one-way street leading away from Funny Town, whether it is meant as a motivator for his actions or not. This is why I brought Buffalo Bill as an example - the only insight to what motivates him to make a suit of woman skin is the detective work of Ms. Starling (helped by Hannibal Lecter). In the case of the Joker, instead of wearing a woman skin suit and dancing around to Q Lazarus with his junk between his legs, it's clown makeup and a flying Christmas tree.

<youtube=Veju4PxhuGc>

He's a comedian that takes a joke too far, rather than a "maniacal, illogical, downright evil" guy with a penchant for screwing with Batman once a fortnight. Joker already has plenty of motivation to do absolutely anything a writer can think of - he's trying to make Batman (and the audience) laugh. That's all he has to do to be a good Joker. Anything more would make him more like Professor Moriarty in a purple suit than the "Clown Prince of Crime."

I'm not here to argue that one Joker is better than another, but rather that the Nolan Joker gained very little by adding thematic depth. In the eyes of old-school Joker fans (including myself), it was as sad and unnecessary as giving Devastator wrecking ball testicles.

If you want an evil cartoon clown, then alright, go read the comic books and watch the old batman cartoons. I prefer my characters to be a little bit more complex. And to just point out something, they DIDN'T add any backstory to the Joker. They made the Joker tell two conflicting stories about his "background", as you call it, yet all these served to do was make the Joker seem even more insane.

The Joker I saw in the Dark Knight had a lot of similarity to the Comedian from Watchmen. Both men saw society as being ethically and morally hypocritical. However, rather than seeing this as a sad and unfortunate characteristic, they saw it as a big joke. The only difference is the Joker devised plans simply for the purpose of exploiting this "joke" that is civilized society. What you seem to be wanting is a Joker that is committing attrocities against humanity for the sake of making them *ironically* laugh. Simply put, a really sinister clown with an incredibly twisted sense of humour. The Dark Knight featured a Joker that was committing these acts for the sole purpose of making HIMSELF laugh, while at the same time making the rest of society feel completely and utterly helpless, as they truly are. They took away the "clown" aspect, and personally, that was just so much more awesome in my opinion.

 

[Ryokugax]

If everyone is going to keep going on about the Joker's incarnations and motivations you might as well look at the wikipedia pages on absurdism, nihilism and then stare at a wall for three hours and force yourselves to see a pattern in the blankness. That's the point of the Joker, sure he's a clown, a genius, a maniac and generally a bit of a knobhead.

He makes up his backstory as he goes along, or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he believes every single story, but only for the day. The theory of the Joker that seems to be held is this idea of rebuilding himself everyday, a kind of Supersanity whereby he IS what he thinks he is, if only for the short time he thinks of it.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

How to make another bat man as good as dark night? Reanimate the corpse of Heath Ledger and then we'll talk...

 

[axia777]

If everyone is going to keep going on about the Joker's incarnations and motivations you might as well look at the wikipedia pages on absurdism, nihilism and then stare at a wall for three hours and force yourselves to see a pattern in the blankness. That's the point of the Joker, sure he's a clown, a genius, a maniac and generally a bit of a knobhead.

He makes up his backstory as he goes along, or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he believes every single story, but only for the day. The theory of the Joker that seems to be held is this idea of rebuilding himself everyday, a kind of Supersanity whereby he IS what he thinks he is, if only for the short time he thinks of it.

That is actually one of the best descriptions of the Joker I have read in a long time.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

If you want an evil cartoon clown, then alright, go read the comic books and watch the old batman cartoons. I prefer my characters to be a little bit more complex. And to just point out something, they DIDN'T add any backstory to the Joker. They made the Joker tell two conflicting stories about his "background", as you call it, yet all these served to do was make the Joker seem even more insane.

The Joker I saw in the Dark Knight had a lot of similarity to the Comedian from Watchmen. Both men saw society as being ethically and morally hypocritical. However, rather than seeing this as a sad and unfortunate characteristic, they saw it as a big joke. The only difference is the Joker devised plans simply for the purpose of exploiting this "joke" that is civilized society. What you seem to be wanting is a Joker that is committing attrocities against humanity for the sake of making them *ironically* laugh. Simply put, a really sinister clown with an incredibly twisted sense of humour. The Dark Knight featured a Joker that was committing these acts for the sole purpose of making HIMSELF laugh, while at the same time making the rest of society feel completely and utterly helpless, as they truly are. They took away the "clown" aspect, and personally, that was just so much more awesome in my opinion.

Fair enough. I can agree with Nolan's Joker being like the Comedian, but that only further serves the requirement of a deeply darkened back story. The Comedian certainly has one to explain everything he does, even if there isn't an implicit "moment of clarity" where he suddenly becomes a jackass. In that regard, Nolan's Joker is just an incomplete Comedian, sacrificing a perfectly good literary device (irony) for a grittier / scarier appearance.

I don't know about you, but I'd be scared shitless if a jack-in-the-box full of laughing gas showed up on my doorstep. Then, I'd laugh uncontrollably until death. I fail to see the need for a gritty Joker, since it doesn't make him any more evil. If the point of Nolan's Joker was to make him seem more evil by making him a more relatable, realistic persona, why make a Batman movie at all? Or even superhero movies in general? We're talking about people that dress up in capes and beat up archetypal villains in equally ridiculous costumes. If I wanted to watch a movie for it's realistic portrayal of characters, Batman in any iteration is somewhere near the bottom of the list.

If everyone is going to keep going on about the Joker's incarnations and motivations you might as well look at the wikipedia pages on absurdism, nihilism and then stare at a wall for three hours and force yourselves to see a pattern in the blankness. That's the point of the Joker, sure he's a clown, a genius, a maniac and generally a bit of a knobhead.

He makes up his backstory as he goes along, or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he believes every single story, but only for the day. The theory of the Joker that seems to be held is this idea of rebuilding himself everyday, a kind of Supersanity whereby he IS what he thinks he is, if only for the short time he thinks of it.

A rather all-encompassing point, don't you think? By your claim, Joker is everything we want him to be, and you want him to be Descartes without math. I'm not saying I disagree with you, just that your statement is vague enough to be accepted by just about anyone. The "because he's the Joker" clause is totally fine, but the addition of details regarding WHY the Joker is the way he is, no matter how impermanent, decries any purpose he serves to the character of Batman.

 

[molester jester]

well the 2ND film seems to have been loosely taking from bits of the long Halloween story line. So I'm thinking in the next one we will see the introduction of the calendar man + the holiday killer as sideline villains like the scarecrow in BB, Catwoman will also be introduced as a new love interest now that Bruce is considered a villain by the public. However I'm still not sure who the main villain/villains will be. Well that's what i believe the plot line will be for the 3rd film anyway.

 

[Ryokugax]

A rather all-encompassing point, don't you think? By your claim, Joker is everything we want him to be, and you want him to be Descartes without math. I'm not saying I disagree with you, just that your statement is vague enough to be accepted by just about anyone. The "because he's the Joker" clause is totally fine, but the addition of details regarding WHY the Joker is the way he is, no matter how impermanent, decries any purpose he serves to the character of Batman.

That's a fair point, I see how the "It's the Joker" sounds like a get out of jail free card, but the point of adding backstory is supposed to highlight the fact that his past is fluid. Look at Killing Joke. That's KIND OF accepted to be the closest we're going to get to the truth of the Joker, but that doesn't make it true.

On an unrelated point, if you want a similar character to Heath's Joker, read the graphic novel Joker. In that you have a sadistic character, who is, indeed, similar to the Comedian from Watchmen in that he does things for his own amusement because everything is a joke.

 

[Firia]

Bane I would assume has some form of apperence in the next movie. Be it a short stint, or a long role. But who would play him, I wonder? Who can do BIG, and also BADass at the same time?

Slyvestor Stalone ? I'd like to see him play a villain

He could definately do BIG. I dunno about WELL.

 

[Firia]

If everyone is going to keep going on about the Joker's incarnations and motivations you might as well look at the wikipedia pages on absurdism, nihilism and then stare at a wall for three hours and force yourselves to see a pattern in the blankness. That's the point of the Joker, sure he's a clown, a genius, a maniac and generally a bit of a knobhead.

He makes up his backstory as he goes along, or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he believes every single story, but only for the day. The theory of the Joker that seems to be held is this idea of rebuilding himself everyday, a kind of Supersanity whereby he IS what he thinks he is, if only for the short time he thinks of it.

That is actually one of the best descriptions of the Joker I have read in a long time.

True THAT. Big applause to that post.

 

[VanityGirl]

i heard the riddler was gonna be johnny depp..

 

[Citrus]

I think the Riddler would be perfect for the next movie.

He's definitely one of the more interesting characters in the series, he already fits into the theme of Nolan's realism, and, really, Batman Begins and the Dark Knight haven't done a whole lot to portray the fact that Batman is supposed to be the world's greatest detective; we get some glimpses of Bruce Wayne doing forensic work at his computer, and that's about it. If this could be explored and fleshed out a bit more, it could add some much-needed depth to Batman's character. The best way I can think to do this is by pitting Wayne's mind against the Riddler's.

But seriously, his detective skills are in dire need of being examined. As is, he just seems to possess ridiculously advanced forensic software that he is inexplicably a master of. When did he learn to program a computer to piece together the fragments of a discharged bullet? It's like Nolan saying, "Oh, by the way, he's also a genius detective. Moving on."

 

[Stalk3rchief]

The rumor going around about them including Megan Fox into the series would be great.
The Dark Knight was only good because of the Joker, and it got boring really fast even with that advantage.
Personally, I WANT the riddler to make a reappearance.
If he was the next villain It would secure my spot in a theater of release day.