Batman VS. Batman Begins

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
good point, it will interesting to see if Heath can shed his BBM stereotype.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf? Are people this dense and think that Heath only does gay cowboy movies or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you know for a fact that by the second act he and the joker are gonna be eating pudding.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
JuntMonkey,

If you're into that stuff.... not that there's anything wrong with that... you likely dont want to read newer comics.

There is a huge difference in comics in general in the past 20-30 years in terms of depth and darkness. I can not even begin to make sense of some of the [censored] produced in the 50's etc; but I also dont want to. I dont have the link handy but there's a website devoted to stupid DC covers and panels of an odd or suggestive nature. Though it is a pretty funny website I'm glad no content has been newer than like 1980.

[/ QUOTE ]

No no...my point was that I think Joker should be a complete lunatic with pedophilic tendencies who will do things such as grab Batman's ass to get under his skin - not some [censored] old guy in a purple suit playing Prince and ruining paintings.

The Batman ass grab and Boy Wonder comment were in "Arkham Asylum" which came out in the last 18 years. I'm not talking about the unintentional humor of the 1950's stuff.

[Rearden]

"No no...my point was that I think Joker should be a complete lunatic with pedophilic tendencies who will do things such as grab Batman's ass to get under his skin - not some [censored] old guy in a purple suit playing Prince and ruining paintings."

QFT

The Joker in 89's Batman was "Jack's take on the Joker (which regardless was pretty good)" not "Joker" as in general comic book cannon, etc. For the best evil look at him done outside of print so far.... Mark Hamil in all of the DC animated stuff.

Wasn't sure if you were talking about the 50's stuff or not. The Joker in any depiction does some [censored] up stuff sometimes to fairly major characters (Jason Todd- the second Robin- abused and murdered in the "Death in the Family" storyline). The Joker is/should be sadistic with a certain flair for evil above and beyond simple purse snatching or murder.

Snowball: If there's enough general interest I would happily do an "Ask about DC" thread or just heavily comment to a comic book question thread in general. I'm sure plenty of other people on the forum would also like to chime in with their favorite storylines, characters, etc. And in the fictional world comic books are always a fun talk and I think a lot of people here appreciate that.

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The first Batman was the one that single-handedly turned around everyone's ideas of how good a superhero movie could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that was Superman.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the franchise that was long since dead by then and whose ever worse sequels helped to make the genre, virtually unsellable before the success of the first Superman, anathema to serious money and the public alike after?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I mean the first Superman movie was very good. Hence, it "single-handedly turned around everyone's ideas of how good a superhero movie could be."

[Max Raker]

I think Batman 89 would have been much better if had been made like 5 years later. There was too much cheesy 80s crap in it. I thought Batman Returns was a better film style wise

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, you know for a fact that by the second act he and the joker are gonna be eating pudding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Heath was the Joker?

[Bicycles_Biatch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on, you know for a fact that by the second act he and the joker are gonna be eating pudding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Heath was the Joker?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just mean that Heth hasn't had a dramatic "breakout" role other than being a gay cowboy.

I don't know if he has the repatoire to pull of one of the most iconic roles in comic/ cartoon/ movie world.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
I just mean that Heth hasn't had a dramatic "breakout" role other than being a gay cowboy.

I don't know if he has the repatoire to pull of one of the most iconic roles in comic/ cartoon/ movie world.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't want this to break into a BBM thread, OOT has exhausted that topic. But let's be clear, he didn't breakout b/c he was a "gay cowboy," he was damn good in that movie and showed that he could be a leading man in a demanding role. Anyone has the right to dislike the gayness or whatever but he proved he had some ability from that role alone and it wasn't just "other than being a gay cowboy." (I expect dynamite FYP's from that paragraph)

2. His repertoire has been hit and miss as far as leading roles go but he has been excellent as a supporting actor and his acting chops are wide ranged. Can he be Jack? Well, who knows? Who knows if anyone could fill those shoes. Now he will be a different Joker just b/c of what the role is demanding, but as far as casting goes, there is nothing wrong with going with Ledger.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The first Batman was the one that single-handedly turned around everyone's ideas of how good a superhero movie could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that was Superman.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the franchise that was long since dead by then and whose ever worse sequels helped to make the genre, virtually unsellable before the success of the first Superman, anathema to serious money and the public alike after?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I mean the first Superman movie was very good. Hence, it "single-handedly turned around everyone's ideas of how good a superhero movie could be."

[/ QUOTE ]

We have different interpretations of success then.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Batman 89 would have been much better if had been made like 5 years later. There was too much cheesy 80s crap in it. I thought Batman Returns was a better film style wise

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wow. The first one was all about style. The second one had its virtues, but was stylistically far less interesting.