View Single Post
Old January 16 2009, 05:24 AM   #51
Sci's Avatar
Location: Montgomery County, State of Maryland
Re: The Joker - What would you do now?

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Yes, he's such a radically unstable character who tells different stories of his scars for intimidation that he... completely changes his apperance...
Different physical appearance? Oh, big frickin' deal. Maggie Gyllenhal doesn't look like Katie Holmes, but everyone just accepted that they were playing the same character.
She's a secondary character in both movies.
She was an essential, main character in both movies.

Recasting her makes no difference and Holmes didn't "own" the role as much as Ledger did his.
I already addressed this: Ledger did not "own" the role because no one can own the role. It's one that has been interpreted many different ways by many different actors. Ledger's interpretation was perfect for The Dark Knight; another actor's might be perfect for Nolan's third film. Why would you want to inhibit creativity by limiting the role to only one actor if that actor is no longer around to play the part? Even Gary Oldman has said he thinks Ledger would have wanted the role re-cast so they could continue to advance that character.

I guess we differ there. I took it that he just told different stories about it and not that he had some fucked up version of Korsakov's syndrome.
That's a perfectly valid interpretation. Mine is based on the line from The Killing Joke by Alan Moore where the Joker notes that he remembers his history differently from day today. "If I have to have a past, I'd rather it be multiple choice!"

As we disagree on the "we could do this forever" line. I think it was just a wink and nod at Batman and The Joker being legendary foes in the "universe" they are in they WILL do it forever, but it'll be beyond the scope of these films as Batman has other villains to deal with in the interim.

This movie has no further use for the Joker. He's been used. Time to move on to other villains.
Completely disagree. The Joker isn't used at all -- he's completely unresolved.
What possible reolution could there be? He's captured and in Arkham, Batman doesn't kill and The Joker isn't going to turn over a new leaf.
That's exactly the issue, though. The Joker is a completely static character throughout The Dark Knight. He shows up with his agenda and enacts almost all of it, and, in the process, becomes fixated on the Batman. Well, that fixation is a dangling plot thread -- it practically SCREAMS that it needs to go somewhere. So I'm hoping that the Nolans and Goyer get together again and pound out a script that brings the Joker on an emotional journey next time -- instead of the seemingly almost-omnipotent and omniscient force of chaos, he instead maybe becomes consumed by his obsession with Batman and lets it get the better of him until it leads to his inevitable self-destruction. Then I would consider the character resolved.

Why do people complain about Superman using and reusing Luthor over and over in his movies instead of using his other villains but here people are clamoring for more Joker?
Because they can't do Lex Luthor properly, but they can the Joker.

There's no way he can be used in any signifigant manner in the next Nolan film and for it to be half as good as Ledger's potrayal.
I think that's completely unfair. There were folks who said the exact same thing about Ledger's interpretation as compared to Jack Nicholson's before Ledger's performance was finally seen. Ledger didn't have a monopoly on brilliant acting.

Besides, for my money, neither one quite compares with Mark Hamil's Joker from Batman: The Animated Series.

It'll just come across as cheap, desperate and as pissing on Ledger's grave.
That'd be absurd. Why would that be seen as "pissing on his grave?" It's continuing a story that Ledger himself wanted to continue.
Democratic socialism is the hope of human freedom.
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote