The Dark Knight

[Rellik San]

GilAskan

Weird. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone call "The Dark Knight" a remake of Burton's "Batman". Even in the concentrated ignorance of Gaia's Entertainment Forum, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.

Hell, I just googled "The Dark Knight is a remake" and got no results (on the first page) of anyone trying to make the argument that it was.

Oh I've seen it crop up a few times.  

[GilAskan]

Thinking about it, it doesn't surprise me that some people would think so. Despite the fact that the films have completely different plots, direction, tone, artistic intent, aesthetic, and so on.  

[Rellik San]

Well you know this is what I say to them, surely the clue would be the fact that The Dark Knight doesn't have the Bat Dance in it.  

[Henneth Annun]

GilAskan

Thinking about it, it doesn't surprise me that some people would think so. Despite the fact that the films have completely different plots, direction, tone, artistic intent, aesthetic, and so on.

I'd still like to know exactly why she called it a remake.

*in sarcastic tone*Oh wait, I'm sorry. This is why!

Rellik San

Jesus, why is it that a film about Batman... which happens to have... GOD FORBID the Joker in it, you know given the Joker is Batmans arch-nemesis, considered a remake? Even though its totally different in tone, feel, and oh yeah.... PLOT to the ******** Tim "Anyone who knows me, knows I'd never read a comic" Burton film?

GilAskan

Thinking about it, it doesn't surprise me that some people would think so. Despite the fact that the films have completely different plots, direction, tone, artistic intent, aesthetic, and so on.

If the Dark Knight was a re-make, then so is every single James Bond film ever made. -_-  

[Rellik San]

XWraith_LordX

GilAskan

Thinking about it, it doesn't surprise me that some people would think so. Despite the fact that the films have completely different plots, direction, tone, artistic intent, aesthetic, and so on.

I'd still like to know exactly why she called it a remake.

*in sarcastic tone*Oh wait, I'm sorry. This is why!

Rellik San

Jesus, why is it that a film about Batman... which happens to have... GOD FORBID the Joker in it, you know given the Joker is Batmans arch-nemesis, considered a remake? Even though its totally different in tone, feel, and oh yeah.... PLOT to the ******** Tim "Anyone who knows me, knows I'd never read a comic" Burton film?

GilAskan

Thinking about it, it doesn't surprise me that some people would think so. Despite the fact that the films have completely different plots, direction, tone, artistic intent, aesthetic, and so on.

If the Dark Knight was a re-make, then so is every single James Bond film ever made. -_-

Exactly.  

[Fallentowards]

Rellik San

Heath is the SECOND best Joker.

Mark Hamill is the best.

Anyway, Dark Knight, its good, but its not spectacular.

By the way, who really would associate an anarchic sociopath with goth culture? Isn't it more indicative of the desires of punks?

I have to disagree with you Rellik, Mark Hamill is indeed brilliant as the voice actor...the only person who should play the animated jokers voice BUT! Mark Hamill could never give the physical performance that Heath performed.  

[Rellik San]

Fallentowards

Rellik San

Heath is the SECOND best Joker.

Mark Hamill is the best.

Anyway, Dark Knight, its good, but its not spectacular.

By the way, who really would associate an anarchic sociopath with goth culture? Isn't it more indicative of the desires of punks?

I have to disagree with you Rellik, Mark Hamill is indeed brilliant as the voice actor...the only person who should play the animated jokers voice BUT! Mark Hamill could never give the physical performance that Heath performed.

But thats the thing, what heath played wasn't the joker, its as close as anyones come, but it wasn't the joker.  

[Twisted Maggot]

I think Heath was the best Joker. It's a shame he had to die so soon, he could've been insanely famous... Well, he is insanely famous for that part, but... Oh, I think you know what I mean! xd  

[Simim]

Rellik San

xX x0mbie Xx

meh too over hyped, too long, etc...
i liked it..it was OK good for a remake..and thats all it'll ever be to me a re make. i liked a couple of jokers scenes but thats IT other than that.... it didn't do it for me.

For the last time...


ITS NOT A REMAKE!

Jesus, why is it that a film about Batman... which happens to have... GOD FORBID the Joker in it, you know given the Joker is Batmans arch-nemesis, considered a remake? Even though its totally different in tone, feel, and oh yeah.... PLOT to the ******** Tim "Anyone who knows me, knows I'd never read a comic" Burton film?

Exactly. It IS NOT A REMAKE.

Just as there are numerous comics with the Joker in them, so too can there be numerous movies with the Joker in them.

Jack Nicholson's Joker and Heath Ledger's Joker really can't be compared; both did outstanding preformances for the style of movie they were in.

While Burton's Batman was more campy and, well, 80's, Nolan's was more dark and sinister. You get a campy Joker for the 80s and a dark and sinister Joker for the dark and sinister Dark Knight.

They played their roles perfectly for the style of film they were cast.

And that's why they're both awesome. <3  

[trampyre]

I realise what I am about to say may not be popular with most people (again) but here goes. I am very opinionated about this movie, and I want to reply to what Rellik San said because he made some interesting points in response to what I said before.

I apologise about any typos; my keyboard is acting up a lot these days.

Rellik San

And what do you base this on? Eckhart was a good Dent and a solid performance as two face, if anything he was better then Heath as a villain. As for too long, I'll agree 3 hours is a bit extreme, as for confusing, it wasn't at all confusing, if you actually realise the Joker has no specific goal or aim and just wants to cause as much chaos as possible. If anything the story was way too simplistic for a character of such complexity.

First off, I'm not saying Eckhart did an awful job. What I really mean is that I don't think he was able to do as good a job of two face as I think he could have done. Perhaps the cgi had something to do with it, but I could be wrong. In general I am very picky about cgi and I think it is widely overused in films today. However I don't think that was the main problem.

I agree he made a better villain than Heath as the Joker. That is an excellent point, and I think it's probably the central difficulty with the film. If I had made the film, I would have cut it off where Harvey first transforms into Two Face and made that a separate film. That would solve two problems: a) the unbearable 3-hour length would now be less, and b) the plot arc would come to a more logical conclusion. In addition, Eckhart would have then had an entire film to get into his second character. I haven't read the comics, so I don't know if this is 'faithful' and meets the approval of Batman fans; I just think it's the most logical solution plot and character wise. Eckhart would have had a chance to show more of the transition into the new character, and I think he would have done a much better job.

Rellik San

"His performance was immature"... HE WAS PLAYING A CHARACTER CALLED THE JOKER! what did you expect from a character traditionally associated with a purple and green tuxedo?

By 'immature' I meant, immature as an actor. I did not mean that the Joker's character was immature. Again, since I have not read the comics, I am no Batman expert. However I think I am a pretty good judge of good acting since I study it. I like Heath Ledger and I follow his career with interest. He stretches himself too far in this role though. I am very sensitive to inauthenticity or lack of integrity in acting and I have to say I do not feel that Heath really 'is' the Joker at any point in the movie. My vain hope that at some point he would 'get it' was why I was so compelled to finish watching the film really, as opposed to getting up and walking out of the theatre.

Many people think Heath Ledger was a great Joker. I disagree. What I saw was not the Joker. What I saw was Heath Ledger trying very hard to be something that he wasn't, which means he was not doing the Joker justice.

Instead of comparing him to other Jokers (Jack Nicholson, mainly), I'd rather just try to explain why I do not think he comes close to portraying the essence of the Joker.

Indeed, the Joker wears makeup (at least in this film), wears strange outfits, and does other things that do not make sense. The Joker is criminally insane, whimsical, brilliant, sadistic, masochistic, narcissistic, sociopathic. The Joker, as a madman, or the characature of a madman, is many things. But In order for me to suspend disbelief that he exists as a real villain within the context of the film, to suspend disbelief to the same I extent I do for say, Alfred, or Batman even (who is less believable in the 'real world' outside of a film), I need to sense some kernel of truth behind the makeup, the costume, the maniacal laugh, and the affected speech.

I do not feel that kernel of truth. Perhaps this is because I have met many people who are truly insane, some even criminally so. I know the Joker isn't real. And maybe the point is that he isn't based on any real concept of insanity, but I highly doubt that. It feels to me as though Heath does not understand a mentally ill person well enough in order to portray one.

Having met many mentally ill people (not to mention, being one myself), he seemed to only resemble a hyperbolic sketch of what most sane people imagine (severely) mentally ill people to be like (the movie 'Girl, Interrupted' is full of misrepresentations as well). Sure, he is playing a character from a comic book. He must be over the top. Essentially he is not real. But there has to be *some* degree of realism there, for me to get past Heath Ledger the Actor with a scary clown face, forget that, and then just see the Joker, and subsequently be horrified/chilled/whatever by what he is doing in a scene.

I didn't have a chill down my spine as I should have. He was simply not evoking the emotions he should have, in order for me to feel that he truly was insane, let alone The Joker. It was obvious to me, that for some reason he was not able to get into the part as he should have. At the very least he did not look comfortable with it. Why that is, I don't know. But as I said before my theory is that it was a premature role for him, and possibly lack of skill on Nolan's part.

Flame away, Heath fans, flame away... *dons flame suit*

In another post above, you mentioned that he wasn't the Joker, but as close as anyone's come. I'm curious to know why you say that, and what your ideal version of the joker would be. (Any specific actors come to mind? for example)

Rellik San

Except Hugo only played V for half the film and just VO'd the rest. It hardly counts. Secondly what do you expect from editing that was designed to favour Heath's character in every aspect of the film?

I agree with you. The editing was all wrong. I disagree though about the mask. Perhaps V was a bad example, but Christian Bale seemed very limited in terms of movement style when acting through the mask.

Rellik San

I agree that those 3 weren't used nearly enough in the film. But I wouldn't say they held it together.

Fair enough. However in my mind they are all such excellent actors they really deserved better leads to work with. Huge kudos to them for being so excellent and not stealing the show from Bale and Ledger, as they could so easily have done.

Rellik San

IMDB ratings are based on what other people say, infact any ratings score expressed is the opinion of the individual reviewer, not a be all and end all. Which is why I trust Jonathan Ross's reviews, because in the past it has shown we have a similar taste in film.

True. I just commented on that because I like to examine the demographics. I like Rotten Tomatoes better. And you make a good point here, to find a reviewer you trust (especially one who doesn't have some sort of agenda), in order to choose which movies you spend money on.