The Joker

[pepokiss]

a pumpkin??

 

[UnforgettableLemon]

 

[XHendrix24]

I cannot wait for this movie.

 

[impy13]

The Joker that was an evil creature in Imaginationland had to be the Heath Ledger version.


And yes, I'm so ridiculously pumped for this movie too.


Oh yeah, anyone check whysoserious.com today? Interesting stuff going on.

 

[Utoo]

Oh yeah, anyone check whysoserious.com today? Interesting stuff going on.

Yeah---pretty odd. I guess it's to imply that there are Joker henchmen in cities all across the country..?

 

[Slapnutz]

Just be sure you have your speakers switched on when you click on the bloodied letter knife on whysoserious.com.

"Tonight you're going to break your one rule."

 

[waynetravis]

Looking good so far

Doesn't even look like Ledger.

 

[WinnieThePoo]

yeah , looks like brandon Lee ( the Crow )
short term memory is a wonderful thing

 

[LemonMelon]

I am officially pumped for this film. It looks incredible. Even my own mother wants to see it (she was a fan of the Jack Nicholson Joker), and a friend of mine wants to see it with me too. It will be ridiculous amounts of awesome.

 

[Justin24]

 

[The Disciple]

Brilliant picture!

 

[waynetravis]

Woah!!!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

 

[LMP]

I'd rather read the Coen's article, but goddamn. I cannot wait until July.

 

[EdgeVox]

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Maybe that's what made Michelle Williams split with him. Not hot.

 

[waynetravis]

Nice

 

[david]

 

[LMP]

New poster:

So glorious.

 

[BVS]

Wow, that batsuit is horrible, plus Joker really isn't the Joker...

Another Batman fanchise ruined? I hope not, but it's not looking good.

 

[Lancemc]

Wow, that batsuit is horrible, plus Joker really isn't the Joker...

Another Batman fanchise ruined? I hope not, but it's not looking good.

1. The batsuit only looks lame because of that ridiculous pose he's in and the horrible lighting. You have to understand it's lit that way because these are promotional pics for marketers to use and do what they wish with, so all the details of the characters have to be visible to provide the greatest number of options for using the images. The suit is never going to be under that much lighting in the film, judging by Batman Begins, place it in those types of environments. It's going to maintain the practical aesthetic Nolan has been striving for and still looks absolutely fantastic in the film.

2. I don't really see how the authenticity of the Joker matters a lick here. First of all, he looks absolutely terrifying (bar the lighting, which I already addressed), and no body really has the base to address the appropriateness of the character until the film has been seen. And I don't really know what you're talking about to begin with, but I'm assuming it has to do with the comics, since I've heard unending complaints about Nolan's Joker since the film was announced. Even still, I maintain that the film really has not obligation to uphold some sort of fanboyish loyalty to the comic franchise anyway. This is Nolan's vision, Nolan's creative endeavor, and Nolan's prerogative to execute it in a way that makes for the best cinematic experience. All he has to do is make a quality film. That's it. It's the same issue I have with complaints about novel adaptations that don't adhere faithfully to the source. It's really irrelevant.

3. I think it's still far too early to even predict the "ruination" of a franchise based on casting choices, a few set pictures and character promos, even if its just early fan reaction. Another franchise ruined? I see no precedent for such a question to even be asked right now. Maybe after we've seen the I Am Legend attached prologue, but not now.

 

[No spoken words]

Wow, that batsuit is horrible, plus Joker really isn't the Joker...

Another Batman fanchise ruined? I hope not, but it's not looking good.

This seems a bit over the top.

 

[Lancemc]

This seems a bit over the top.

^^^Short version of what I said.

 

[No spoken words]

^^^Short version of what I said.

I typically skip over your posts, though.



I do not wholly agree with your 2nd point above, but, I do not wholly disagree either. I feel that there is some modicum of responsibility to preserve certain elements of the source material, but I also do not feel there has to be a slavish devotion.

That's the short version of my thoughts.

 

[david]

from what i read, ledger really got into the role and plans on taking it to a whole new level. supposedly the joker is just supposed to be really insane and scary.

the batsuit looks a lot like armor but i am sure it will look better in darker scenes. in that picture i posted above it's obviously well lit.

 

[BVS]

1. The batsuit only looks lame because of that ridiculous pose he's in and the horrible lighting. You have to understand it's lit that way because these are promotional pics for marketers to use and do what they wish with, so all the details of the characters have to be visible to provide the greatest number of options for using the images. The suit is never going to be under that much lighting in the film, judging by Batman Begins, place it in those types of environments. It's going to maintain the practical aesthetic Nolan has been striving for and still looks absolutely fantastic in the film.

2. I don't really see how the authenticity of the Joker matters a lick here. First of all, he looks absolutely terrifying (bar the lighting, which I already addressed), and no body really has the base to address the appropriateness of the character until the film has been seen. And I don't really know what you're talking about to begin with, but I'm assuming it has to do with the comics, since I've heard unending complaints about Nolan's Joker since the film was announced. Even still, I maintain that the film really has not obligation to uphold some sort of fanboyish loyalty to the comic franchise anyway. This is Nolan's vision, Nolan's creative endeavor, and Nolan's prerogative to execute it in a way that makes for the best cinematic experience. All he has to do is make a quality film. That's it. It's the same issue I have with complaints about novel adaptations that don't adhere faithfully to the source. It's really irrelevant.

3. I think it's still far too early to even predict the "ruination" of a franchise based on casting choices, a few set pictures and character promos, even if its just early fan reaction. Another franchise ruined? I see no precedent for such a question to even be asked right now. Maybe after we've seen the I Am Legend attached prologue, but not now.

Wow, calm down...

All I said, was it's not looking good. Yes I realize the lighting. I wasn't basing it on the lighting, I was basing it on the busyness of the suit, and the "armor" approach to it.

And I do think the approach to the Joker makes a difference. Dr. Octopus wouldn't be Dr. Octopus if he didn't have the mechanical arms. Superman wouldn't be Superman if he was just a dude that wore a cape but didn't come from another planet.

I'm not making any judgements about the film being ruined, I realize it's too early, but from where I stand it's not looking good.

That's it.

 

[Lancemc]

I typically skip over your posts, though.

I think most people do. No worries.

I do not wholly agree with your 2nd point above, but, I do not wholly disagree either. I feel that there is some modicum of responsibility to preserve certain elements of the source material, but I also do not feel there has to be a slavish devotion.

That's the short version of my thoughts.

Oh, well I do agree with that. I mean, you can't rightly call it Batman and put in completely contradictory elements or completely change character personas to a large degree, etc. But altering original storylines, tweaking character designs/ motivations/ backstories etc. to make them better suited for the film? That's the director's prerogative, and it's simply the way of things that when adapting a non-cinematic piece of work, certain methods, alterations are just better suited to the medium. I mean, can you imagine if Blade Runner has been a complete adaptation of the novel? It would have been a meandering mess.

Maybe not the best comparison here, but it's one I usually think of immediately during these discussions.

 

[Lancemc]

Wow, calm down...

All I said, was it's not looking good. Yes I realize the lighting. I wasn't basing it on the lighting, I was basing it on the busyness of the suit, and the "armor" approach to it.

And I do think the approach to the Joker makes a difference. Dr. Octopus wouldn't be Dr. Octopus if he didn't have the mechanical arms. Superman wouldn't be Superman if he was just a dude that wore a cape but didn't come from another planet.

I'm not making any judgements about the film being ruined, I realize it's too early, but from where I stand it's not looking good.

Heh, I knew the first thing you'd type would be "calm down". What a typical forum response to anyone who posts a strongly opposing rebuttal to something.
I'm perfectly calm. Just because I'm passionate about my stance doesn't mean I'm up in arms, or enraged by your slanderous hate message.
That's it.

And if you understand how the lighting if affecting the perception of that photograph, you should also understand the function it's going to play in the film. The suit is still stylistically the same as its always been, just re-imagined in Nolan's aesthetic theme. I guess I don't understand the reaction "the suit is horrible", when it's really one of the most appropriate, thematically and stylistically, the film history of the character has ever produced.

Again with the Joker, maybe I need refreshing on how terribly ruined the character is from the source material (based purely on his visual appearance here of course ) But I'm sure its not akin to changing the entire character or Superman or Doc Ock. He's still the Joker, and from everything I can tell at this point, his character is only being improved here.

 

[Lancemc]

vs.

Nothing to worry about.

 

[No spoken words]

I think most people do. No worries.



Oh, well I do agree with that. I mean, you can't rightly call it Batman and put in completely contradictory elements or completely change character personas to a large degree, etc. But altering original storylines, tweaking character designs/ motivations/ backstories etc. to make them better suited for the film? That's the director's prerogative, and it's simply the way of things that when adapting a non-cinematic piece of work, certain methods, alterations are just better suited to the medium. I mean, can you imagine if Blade Runner has been a complete adaptation of the novel? It would have been a meandering mess.

Maybe not the best comparison here, but it's one I usually think of immediately during these discussions.

I agree, though, I did enjoy the novel Blade Runner was adapted from.

And I got a chuckle from BVS' calm down comment. That's unintentional comedy at its finest.