Joker

[veristic]

Bias. If Heath Ledger didn't have the talent, he wouldn't have been hired to be in the movie.

 

Bias? Opinion.

 

Heath Ledger doesn't have a range. He wasn't the studio's or the director's first choice either.

And Nicholson does? The man is famous for being himself on screen, like many other A-list mega-super-hollywood stars.

 

Ledger has range. He can be a submissive younger brother to Matt Damon of all people, a soft-spoken homosexual cowboy, and now a psychotic maniac. If anything The Dark Knight will prove he has range.

[BlackKnight]

And Nicholson does? The man is famous for being himself on screen, like many other A-list mega-super-hollywood stars.

 

Ledger has range. He can be a submissive younger brother to Matt Damon of all people, a soft-spoken homosexual cowboy, and now a psychotic maniac. If anything The Dark Knight will prove he has range.

 

Maybe you're only familiar with his more recent work. Jack wasn't always famous enough to afford your accused arrogance. He is widely considered one of the finest character actors of modern cinema, not because of the similar nature of his characters but because of the varied nuance he brings to the roles. Ledger is the opposite- mild mannered and stiff in every one of his performances, the fact that he is now The Joker is not a testament to his varied talents so much as his willingness to attempt to break away from these roles. That much is admirable.

 

Will he be successful? Who knows. My money would be on his insane streak seeming forced and unconvincing. He doesn't have the natural energy of a raving psychopath and whatever he conjures up for the screen will be anything but authentic for that reason. I don't think we can argue that Nicholson had that aspect nailed either. Again who knows but I think he will be the unfortunate weak link in The Dark Knight.

 

I'd also be glad to be wrong in this case- I just don't see it happening.

[veristic]

Widely considered one of the finest character actors? From what credible source are you using that line? Or are you labeling him one based on your own opinions? If you were referring to someone like Johnny Depp than it would make sense but Nicholson is nothing like Depp. I've seen Nicholson in his earlier films and the man broke-out to mainstream because of his personality. He acted well as the Joker in the original Batman but that movie itself wasn't great, nor the direction of its characters including his. Of course Ledger may seem the risk when referring to his role as the Joker because of the character itself. Joker's only been done once in mainstream cinema and by a nutjob (I mean that in a good way) the first time who wasn't doubted for his ability to seem loony. But its pretty obvious already that Joker in TDK is NOT the same Joker as the original Batman film. Expect something different. Something less comical but more visceral.

[BlackKnight]

I have studied drama at university level. My credible source is my lecturer, a published writer and theatre director.

 

Johnny Depp is a pop fad, of course this Joker is a different interpretation and do you even know what visceral means?

 

He acted well as the Joker in the original Batman but that movie itself wasn't great, nor the direction of its characters including his.

An opinion I think you'll find is shared only by the most closed-minded avid comic junkies.

[L.S.D]

Wow, first time I heard someone saying Batman 1 is not great.

I always think Batman 1 & 2 are the best Batman movies of all.

 

About rumour on Jack Nicholson as Joker get shelved, I'm glad! He is too old and too fat to be Joker now

[veristic]

I have studied drama at university level. My credible source is my lecturer, a published writer and theatre director.

 

Johnny Depp is a pop fad, of course this Joker is a different interpretation and do you even know what visceral means?

 

He acted well as the Joker in the original Batman but that movie itself wasn't great, nor the direction of its characters including his.

An opinion I think you'll find is shared only by the most closed-minded avid comic junkies.

So you're basing your opinion off of another person? And Nicholson isn't a "pop fad" on some level? Pop fad or not Depp is a good character actor. A movie can be judged on different levels. Was Batman 1 a good movie in general? Yes. Was Batman 1 a good comicbook-to-movie adaptation? Ehhhh. Was Batman 1 the best Batman movie? Probably not. I am not an avid comic junkie myself and I don't think Batman 1 or Nicholson was the best in their respective senses. I don't need to have studied drama to find Nicholson's Joker less-than-spectacular given the fictional character's character as a whole. I just think its a bit bias to say Ledger has nothing on Nicholson's Joker. Especially when the movie isn't even out yet. But that's just me.

Edited December 20, 2007 by veristic

[BlackKnight]

So you're basing your opinion off of another person? And Nicholson isn't a "pop fad" on some level? Pop fad or not Depp is a good character actor. A movie can be judged on different levels. Was Batman 1 a good movie in general? Yes. Was Batman 1 a good comicbook-to-movie adaptation? Ehhhh. Was Batman 1 the best Batman movie? Probably not. I am not an avid comic junkie myself and I don't think Batman 1 or Nicholson was the best in their respective senses. I don't need to have studied drama to find Nicholson's Joker less-than-spectacular given the fictional character's character as a whole. I just think its a bit bias to say Ledger has nothing on Nicholson's Joker. Especially when the movie isn't even out yet. But that's just me.

I agree with you on most of those points- it was a poor adaption of the comics. However it was a great movie in its own right, and Nicholson was great in it- both of which you disagreed with before. Films that adapt other media rarely are faithful simply due to the unsuitability of the original text for film. Batman stands on its own well and if you judge it in its own light, and not considering the comics, I don't see what you can fault about it.

 

Obviously the new film is not out and I've admitted that much. Based on their previous work I judge Jack Nicholson to be in a different league to Heath Ledger and thus better able to portray as intense a character as The Joker.

 

Widely considered one of the finest character actors? From what credible source are you using that line? Or are you labeling him one based on your own opinions?

I only brought up my lecturer because you suggested before that my own opinion wasn't valid for whatever reason. I don't think you can find a more 'credible source' than a professional in the field.

[Inky]

if you want an insane joker I'd go with David Patrick Kelly (T-Bird-the Crow, Luther-The Warriors) he can do unhinged characters better then anyone. sure he's old as hell but I'd still buy it.

[Coolguy]

I too think that joker's face could have been a little more better

[Gryph]

I wonder if they are going to cover the origin of the Joker at all in the movie. I want to know where he got that scar from.

[Salorskin]

From what I've read they're not going to explain him at all. He doesn't have any real history anyway, he's said himself that his memories could just be made up. I know they did a run on his origins recently, but I heard it wasn't that great at all.

Anyways, there's another villain that's going to be in the film besides the Scarecrow's confirmed tiny role. Surprised no one has mentioned him.

 

And BK - I hope you're wrong. In the previews it doesn't look like or remind me of Heath Ledger the mainstream actor in any way, so there's a small relief... guess we'll find out when the movie comes out.