It's called: Let's write a non-contentious entry for today, hmm?

[trinityvixen]

It's been made official: Heath Ledger really will be the Joker in the sequel to Batman Begins that will be titled The Dark Knight.

I love the title. I could lose the Ledger. I'd love the title more if they just bought out Frank Miller and made it officially The Dark Knight Returns as that's both accurate and appropriate; Begins was pretty much Batman: Year One with a little more realism tossed in. I guess anything linking this Bat-franchise to the old one just won't fly, so no "Returns" in the title.

The Joker, though. I swear to the great noodly moster in the sky that I will REMOVE HEATH LEDGER'S TESTICLES AND FEED THEM TO HIM WHILE I RIP OPEN HIS STOMACH AND FEED THEM TO HIM AGAIN if he messes this up. It flies in the face of the smart casting Nolan and co. pulled off last time. The one character they could have cast better was Rachel Dawes, but she's not a famous character (she's not even canon period). This is the motherf'ing Joker. The #1 Villain of All Time, For All Time. The Clown Prince of Crime. The villain you bring in to scare anyone else shitless.

And Mr. Heath "He Will Rock You" Ledger is going to play him.

This.
Guy.
Will.
Play.
The Joker.

Note: I didn't say he was going to be the Joker. He'll play the Joker. As in "he'll play at being the Joker," kind of like that kid with the broom handle played at being a Jedi. I just hope Nolan has better special effects to fix it up after..

Comments

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

While I too am in the anti-Ledger camp, this is an interesting picture.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

ACCCK! It'S RaPiNG My eYYEs!!!

Seriously, that is disturbing, and not in the good way I'd want for the Joker.

Know what my friend said to me last night? "You know who would be an awesome Joker? Christian Bale."

My reply: "Uhh, well, he's Batman... ::thinks:: fuuuuuck yesssssss!!!!"

Dude, enough prosthetics and makeup? You wouldn't even be able to tell. Would be exhausting for Bale, but daaaaaaamn.

[sols-light.livejournal.com]

All I can say is they should make him read Arkham Asylum before they start shooting.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I didn't really care for the Joker as sage insane dude in that so much. I liked "Killing Joke" Joker a lot, though.

[sols-light.livejournal.com]

I was thinking more of the "overloaded by stimulus bombardment and unable to process the world in a comprehensible manner" Joker, but it's almost impossible to get that conveyed.

I did enjoy Jack Nicholson's Joker, but Jack has a natural sense of creepy menace, so it worked.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Nicholson did a better job at being crazy and menacing in other roles, but his Joker at least got the narcissism and laughter right.

[saikogrrl.livejournal.com]

It does seem like a weird role for him...

Didn't Jim Carrey play the Joker in a previous film? What did you think of him?

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

He played The Riddler. Jack Nicholson was The Joker.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

It's been commented, but I can comment again. I did actually like Carrey as the Riddler. This was right around the time he was making his first bids as a dramatic rather than comedic actor (The Truman Show came out after Batman Forever, I think), so he was working in elements of that switch into his Edward Nygma. When he says, "You were supposed to understand!" to himself after Bruce shuts him down, his blind-sided shock is incredible. But I got chills when he settles into the crazy with "I'll make you understand."

Something else I liked about his characterization was his obsession with Bruce Wayne. It's pretty bold of Schumacher to throw in a man who's obsessed with/stalking another man (as if the Bat-nipples and ass-shots weren't faggy enough marketing)--that kind of thing could have misfired big time. But Carrey played it very well. When he's the Riddler, he's out-jokey-ing the Joker instead of actually using puzzles to commit crimes (which makes me groan), but he was amusing enough.

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

I didn't like that Carrey was kind of unhinged as both Edward Nygma and as The Riddler. I thought that it was probably something that was supported by Warner Bros., since he was still mostly the zany comedian at that point, but I felt he should have reigned it in more as his regular personality to make more of a contrast.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Unhinged as both is perfectly fine for me--Batman's villains are notable because not only are they his mirror, but they are his Oracle. Should he stray too far over the edge, he could lose it and become just like them.

And I didn't think Nygma's obsession with Bruce was the same kind of insane as the Riddler's. The Riddler, like the Batman, is the way to blow off the extreme frustration Nygma has as not being able to attain Bruce's respect. That could have been done better, like by actually making the Riddler do puzzle crimes....

channeling my inner batman fanatic

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

I'd love the title more if they just bought out Frank Miller and made it officially The Dark Knight Returns as that's both accurate and appropriate

You cannot have The Dark Knight Returns without and old batman beating the crap out of Superman (or having that same batman breaking the Joker's neck). You just simply can't. It would be a crime against all that is holy (and unholy). I mean come on, this picture says it all.


For those unfamiliar with what I'm talking about.

Re: channeling my inner batman fanatic

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Ugh, don't encourage the fan-brats, dude. That stupid kid who played Supes in Superman Returns was all into that crossover shit. And I know that's bad news for anyone who thought both movies were great so long as they were separate. Let's not go dragging Superman into this.

Re: channeling my inner batman fanatic

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

But it's Superman's destiny to have his butt kicked by Batman. It's the whole "Give a man a fish" vs. "Teach a man to fish" argument but with caped heroes. Besides, they could simplify the dialog such that the kid playing Supes only has to say "I have to bring you in!" and the rest devolves into the fight. Even that kid can't mess that up. What's important is that the two heroes representing to diametrically opposed ideas on what the world needs face off. Besides, we all know superman needs to be put in his place ^_^

Re: channeling my inner batman fanatic

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Acutally, with the way they've turned out onscreen, they're not so opposite any more. Superman comes back from a long absense to find that he has to prove that he's needed. Batman comes back from a long absense and knows he's needed and then proves it.

God, I even had an idea of how they would interact, but I won't even write it because that would be fan-bratting. I know a perfect little vignette to introduce the cinematic versions (most recent ones) to each other, even keeping in the tone of both films, somehow (or so I flatter myself), but I won't do it. No! Je refuse!

Re: channeling my inner batman fanatic

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

Acutally, with the way they've turned out onscreen, they're not so opposite any more.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Just taking the most recent films for those two the differences are apparent. Superman's desire to fight crime stems from not wanting to witness human suffering. Batman's desire comes from an hyperactive sense of justice (at least justice in his eyes). Superman limits himself to what is allowable in human law, while Batman does not let the law stop him from making sure justice is served. The boiled down version of it all is that Batman is always busy fighting his inner demons while Superman is always trying the repay the world for being good to him (though the idea of Superman taking care of the planet like a beloved pet also holds some weight).

Re: channeling my inner batman fanatic

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

The working within and without of the law is a difference I don't think you could ever get rid of and still have these characters be who they are, I grant you that.

Still? I'd argue they both are opposed to human suffering--seeing it as an unecessary evil unchecked by human forces. They both have a sense of entitlement whereby they assume they are the ones needed to lead and bring the rest of humanity with them (Superman says he is needed by the planet, Batman that Gotham needs a dramatic example--that's almost verbatim).

On their sense of justice, meh, I don't think Supes' is as well defined in the movie as Batman's is. Batman doesn't technically break the law so much as work outside it. Superman cooperates more with authorities, but that's because he works in the light and they stand back to let him do stuff. Superman isn't obsessed with righting wrongs et al, but he's just as hell-bent on making himself the go-to guy for every major or minor disaster. In obsession and self-importance, I don't think they differ overly much.

That said, Batman is still the awesomer.