Heath Ledger Says To Expect A Very Different Joker

Entertainmentwise ^ | today | James Luxford

[pcottraux]

First of all, instead of bumping this old thread, why don't you come newer one to join the discussion.

Original comic book depiction of Joker:

Those are different select images, but you can find different aesthetics from other interpretations that fit closer to the Ledger Joker.

Administrator: First of all, I want to point out to you that that last picture you posted should be taken down immediately. It was not legally leaked onto the net and posting it is a copyright infringement (JR could also get into legal trouble.

Sorry, no dice. Nicholson's joker as a grinning psychotic with clown makeup is about 10X closer to the comic book source material than Heath Ledger's smug metrosexual weirdo, who looks like a reject fan constume for The Crow comic convention.

Wow, that's a lot of spin and hyperbole you're using there. The fact that you also use illegally leaked pictures and bad Photoshop jobs (that poster is FAKE!!!!!) does not bode well for your argument.

For over five decades, the Joker's past has consistantly been a pretty criminal who commits theft and is transformed into a sadist unhinged murderer seeking venegance after he is dropped into a vat of chemical waste by Batman and emerges with chemical burns and a bizarre grin permantely etteched into face. This was told in Detective Comics in 1951, and retold in 1988's The Killing Joke, which was strongly used as source material for the 1989 Batman film.

FALSE. The Joker has been represented in many different ways throughout the years. In his original inseption (upon which The Dark Knight is based), he was given no origin and was more of a macabre, vampire-like serial killer than a cackling supervillain. You mentioned the 1951 Detective Comic, but that was TEN YEARS LATER, and then sort forgotten. And throughout 99% of the comic books over the decades, the different versions of the Joker were never given origin stories. And even when he WAS given an origin, it never definitive. Even "The Killing Joke" at least left it ambiguous. In that comic book, we aren't seeing what actually happened, but what the Joker REMEMBERS...and even that the comic mentions is "rife with contradictions."

My point is, the Joker works best without the cheap "fell in a vat of chemicals trick," and you can make a Joker without any origin that is true to the comics. In fact, it will be MORE true to most of the comic book tales. But the Joker works best WITHOUT an origin, because giving him a definitive backstory takes away the mystery of the character. The comic book writers throughout the years understood this, and it looks like Chris Nolan also understands this: Tim Burton DID NOT.

It was bad enough that they gave the Joker a backstory in Batman 89...but they gave him a CONVOLUTED one. The total mystery of the character was left out.

ANd by the way...Tim Burton's origin for the Joker was NOTHING like "The Killing Joke," with the exception of the fact that he fell into a vat of chemicals. Give me a break.

Count me as one person who is NOT interested in the new Batman movie at all.

Then why are you b******g so much about it!!??? Just don't go see it, or at least reserve judgement until it comes out!!! Personally, for me, all signs point to this being the greatest Bat-film of all time.Creatively is dead in Hollywood. They should have realized nobody could top Nicholson's iconic portrayal of The Joker

Which is almost TWENTY YEARS OLD!!!! The distance of time between B89 and TDK is almost the same as B89 and the Adam West version.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a new version of the Joker some 20 years afterwards. Especially one that seems closer to the dark, grittier portrayals of the early comics and further removed from Nicholson's goofy supervillain.

[pcottraux]

Ditto here. I was also a youngin' when the original 1989 movie came out and Nicholason's portrayal of the Joker scared the crap outta me.

Was it the scene was dancing to "Prince?"

I'm not impressed by your ability to post pictures, btw.

You don't have to look far to find the inspirations for Ledger's grittier, darker, and more raw Joker.

I see the resemblance, personally. Everything Ledger has said about the character in interviews is also very encouraging. I doubt you'd know anything about that, though.

This is Malcolm McDowell from "A Clockwork Orange." THIS, along with Batman No. 1, are two big pillars of influence for Ledger's Joker.

I dunno, when I look at these two images, it just scream JOKER to me.

[pcottraux]

It follows the Batman "source material" as closely as this one:

Let me ask you something, with all due respect. Do you actually KNOW anything about "The Dark Knight?" And I don't mean some crappy fake PhotoShop you found on Google. I have been following every tiny detail of production from the very beginning about 2 years ago. Everything I know suggests that this is going to be the biggest, most epic, and truest to the source material Batman movie...maybe even comic book movie...ever made.

For just a tiny taste, I refer you to post number 108.

[new cruelty]

I liked Edward Scissor Hands, Nightmare before Christmas, and other Tim Burton movies, but I prefer Nolan’s take on Batman, which seems more along the lines of Frank Miller’s work.

BTW, do you know if there is anything underway to produce a Sandman movie? That is another character driven movie that I could see either Tim Burton or Christopher Nolan write/direct.

[pcottraux]

Currently, not that I’m aware, though I certainly see your point.

I am aware of a Justice League movie (which isn’t shaping up well), and movies for the Green Hornet, Flash, and the Watchmen.

[ShadowDancer]

Johnny Dangerously

Love that movie.

[kromike]

You’re joking right???!!!

No, I'm not. It's only my opinion, but the original Tim-Burton debacle looked so promising, but for me it was so flat. Burton has always had a talent for visuals but as a director, he simply can't direct a script. But it was partly my fault; I had just finished reading Frank Miller's brilliant "BatMan - The Dark Knight Returns" and was expecting something at that visceral level.

Burton's treatment of Batman was a joke, his silly remake of Planet of the Apes should have been titled "Marky-Mark and the Monkey Bunch", and like Jacko he just couldn't resist the temptation and went off on Wonka's Willie...err Willy Wonka.

I've never personally understood the adoration Burton has received. Yes, he's a commercial success and I can't argue with profit, but I simply can't stand his movies. For me & me alone, his movies always suck. If other people like his junk, more power to 'em. Just don't give me any of his movies as Christmas gifts...

;)

[Hammerhead]

sorry man, I thought Batman 1 was pure genious and Jack nicholson got ripped off by the Academy - for an Oscar.

[weegee]

They ruined the Batman franchise when they cast George Looney Tune Clooney in the title roll and gave the uniform nipples.

They did a reboot and are tredding awfully close to camping it up again for the lavender mafia.

[weegee]

THIS is the inspiration for the Joker. And those pictures look nothing like him:

[pcottraux]

Actually, I can see a little bit of a resemblance.

[grey_whiskers]

“Brokeback Batman”

You got it. A middle-aged wealthy man, who 'adopts' as his ward a teenage boy, who likes to dress in a mask, tights, and a cape, and slides down a pole to meet with the boy in a secret cave. And his name's "Bruce".

Something is rotten in the state of Gotham...

Cheers!