THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: TVC15 on December 03, 2007, 09:54:38 PM

Title: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 03, 2007, 09:54:38 PM
(http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/TwoJokersClose.jpg)

Looks like someone's eastern european grandma put on too much makeup and then went for a walk in the rain.  I had no idea that the TRU TO COMIX (not) GRITTY NOLAN UNIVERSE Joker would be so goddamned OLD.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: GilloD on December 03, 2007, 10:27:07 PM
I like it. It's like the drunko scary version.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Ichirou on December 03, 2007, 10:32:51 PM
Heath Ledger's going bald, hahaha.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: thekavorka on December 03, 2007, 10:40:25 PM
here's one from the actual movie

(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4591/195cak2.jpg)
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Fresh Prince on December 03, 2007, 10:43:56 PM
Even if Nolan fucked up his look, Ledger should do a good job of interpreting him. I just hope he is more maniacal than emo (what one gets if you look at the photos).

Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Smooth Groove on December 03, 2007, 10:44:11 PM
I blame Heath Ledger's receding hairline.  Poor guy.  He's only in his mid 20s.  
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: CajoleJuice on December 03, 2007, 10:46:16 PM
I have faith it'll look fine in the movie. It does look better in that magazine cover than in those photos (which were taken for toys, I believe). I did like Ledger's voice and laugh in that very short teaser released a while ago.

Those photos do look pretty bad, though.  :-\
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 03, 2007, 10:55:32 PM
That magazine cover looks as bad as the other pictures.  He looks less like the Joker and more like an old Polish woman that lost her babushka.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: MrAngryFace on December 03, 2007, 10:57:53 PM
"Dark Knight: How Joker got his babuska back"
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: CajoleJuice on December 03, 2007, 10:58:01 PM
I see what I want to see. :'(
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Smooth Groove on December 03, 2007, 10:59:08 PM
(http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/slipknot_fan.jpg)

Catwoman?
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 03, 2007, 11:00:47 PM
(http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/TwoJokersClose.jpg)

Panel 1: "Cajole! Come into Grandmom's kitchen and have some kaszanka!

Panel 2: "What, you do not like my kaszanka?"
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: CajoleJuice on December 03, 2007, 11:01:12 PM
:lol
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Howard Alan Treesong on December 03, 2007, 11:29:44 PM
this looks like ass, I'd be embarassed to be looking forward to this movie
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Joe Molotov on December 03, 2007, 11:38:56 PM
Looks like a Marylin Manson music video, but maybe it'll work.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 03, 2007, 11:39:46 PM
Doesn't look bad to me. The promo pictures are weak, but there's no context to them. The Joker that will be moving around in the film will be perfectly fine.

MOTY
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 03, 2007, 11:42:21 PM
Doesn't look bad to me. The promo pictures are weak, but there's no context to them. The Joker that will be moving around in the film will be perfectly fine.

MOTY

(http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/slipknot_fan.jpg)
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 03, 2007, 11:45:20 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not praising Nolan like he's the next Ron Howard. He's a good director, and I loved The Prestige...

The thing that annoys me most about his fans is that they totally disregard Burton's take on Batman. Burton's Joker is THE Joker as far as I'm concerned. Heath looks good but I doubt he'll surpass Jack's badass-ery

Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 03, 2007, 11:48:52 PM
:bow Jack Nicholson :bow

Greatest actor ever.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: CajoleJuice on December 03, 2007, 11:49:11 PM
Yea, it's not Burton's joker.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 03, 2007, 11:50:34 PM
I need to see Chinatown god dammit. I'm sure it's fuck awesome

But seriously, is there anyone here who honestly thinks The Dark Knight is gonna suck?
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 03, 2007, 11:51:56 PM
I blame Heath Ledger's receding hairline.  Poor guy.  He's only in his mid 20s. 
eh, he turns 30 in a year. Lots of guys start to lose hair in their late 20's.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 03, 2007, 11:53:05 PM
I need to see Chinatown god dammit. I'm sure it's fuck awesome

But seriously, is there anyone here who honestly thinks The Dark Knight is gonna suck?

I don't think it will suck.  Nolan hasn't been involved with a bad movie.  That said, I think Batman Begins is hilariously overrated by internet Manabytes, and I think his "vision" of the Joker is distinguished mentally-challenged.  That makes me wonder if he has any idea what to do with the Joker to begin with.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 03, 2007, 11:54:12 PM
At least with dark knight there is more nolan control than batman begins, his brother is writing not goyer. His brother  wrote Memento and The Prestige.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: bagofeyes on December 04, 2007, 01:20:10 AM
looks awesome
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Ichirou on December 04, 2007, 01:26:16 AM
His brother adapted The Prestige and wrote the short story on which Memento is based.  Not exactly the same thing.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: brawndolicious on December 04, 2007, 02:51:36 AM
I'll copy and paste what I said before on why I don't like the nolan batman(s) and especially the new joker:
Quote
okay, let me explain why I have my opinions.  I love batman, I read the comics and he was my favorite superhero.  I kept on watching the burton batmans over and over as a kid (at least once a week).  The reason I got into the comics was because you never got any random, quite horribly written explanations for his superpowers, which is why I hated the comics that included a superman cameo.  Now imagine being a fan of the comics at that age and then seeing the burton films, they perfectly took the batman story and put it onto film.  Now I can see why you might love that nolan went hardkore and put some grit but for any real batman fan, the way the burton ones did it defined what a batman film looks like but then nolan decided to just spit in the face of the original.

the originals actually feel really damn good in that batman wasn't a simple good guy.  nolan simply does not know batman (or probably any comic book character) that well and shouldn't be trying to adapt him.  and PD, I'll copy and paste what I said before on why I don't like the nolan batman(s) and especially the new joker:
Quote
okay, let me explain why I have my opinions.  I love batman, I read the comics and he was my favorite superhero.  I kept on watching the burton batmans over and over as a kid (at least once a week).  The reason I got into the comics was because you never got any random, quite horribly written explanations for his superpowers, which is why I hated the comics that included a superman cameo.  Now imagine being a fan of the comics at that age and then seeing the burton films, they perfectly took the batman story and put it onto film.  Now I can see why you might love that nolan went hardkore and put some grit but for any real batman fan, the way the burton ones did it defined what a batman film looks like but then nolan decided to just spit in the face of the original.

in the originals, they expected you to read the comics and GET why batman is running around in tights (he's not a nice guy or a good guy like in batman begins).  in the burton ones, batman would be willing to kill a guy (he killed the joker in that since the joker killed his parents).  all the burton ones did was take the comic book and put it on film.  it wasn't like the nolan ones with shitty ass plot twists (he joined a group of vigilantes but couldn't kill the theif :emocry).

believe it or not, when you read AN ACTUAL COMIC, you become attached to the character because you figure out how he became like that.  also there was the fact that the setting of batman was the most interesting to me as a little boy.

PD, you said that the burton batmans don't compare to Begins.  don't talk, man.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: thekavorka on December 04, 2007, 03:00:05 AM
if true, you can't tell me that this sounds so badass

"THE JOKER" PROLOGUE SPOILERS I'M WARNING YOU

spoiler (click to show/hide)
just saw the Joker.

Tonight, at the Loews IMAX theater on the upper west side of Manhattan, director Chris Nolan debuted the first six minutes of the upcoming “The Dark Knight” movie, a sequel to the Christian Bale-starring, multi-million-dollar-earning “Batman Begins,” to a crowd of about 60 people. Set to swing into theaters July 18, 2008, “Dark Knight” has been hyped for its inclusion of not just one, but two new villains—Two-Face (played by Aaron Eckhart) and the already mentioned, much discussed Joker (played controversially by Heath Ledger).

“I don’t want to bore you,” Nolan joked as he introduced the clip, which will play in select IMAX theaters prior to “I AM Legend” next weekend and was lifted directly from the film. Nolan went on to explain that “Dark Knight” marks the first time a major motion picture utilized the IMAX filming technique.

“I wanted to make the Joker’s introduction a mini film,” added the director. “That’s what this footage is. So we shot it in this higher-quality, more intense format to get across that feeling.” Then, the footage began.

Kicking off with a sweeping shot of downtown Gotham, the camera zooms in above a few buildings before focusing in on a single, traditional skyscraper covered in windows. Suddenly, one window in the skyscraper explodes outward, exposing two criminals inside. Donning clown masks and standing with a rifle, the two criminals shoot a grappling hook across a busy street below to the next building—the Gotham National Bank. The two then slide across using a zip line.
On the street below, a man stands, his face unseen as the shot creeps up from behind, a clown mask slung in his grip. A van suddenly screeches up before he climbs inside and the van hauls off again. Inside, there are now three men, all wearing clown masks. They begin negatively discussing their boss and how he’s sitting out the heist. “The guy thinks he can sit out and get a cut?” laughs one man. “Must be why they call him the Joker!”

Back on the bank’s roof, the two men we first saw now shimmy into the bank’s security wiring while also discussing the boss. “Why do you think they call him Joker?” asks one. “I hear it’s cause he wears make-up,” answers the other. “Like war paint.”

Suddenly, below, the three men blast into the bank, demanding money and commanding everybody to the floor. Back on the roof, the two criminals intercept the out-going emergency alarm set off by an employee. After they cancel its signal, one of the men shoots the other and heads inside for the vault.

Back inside, the clown gunmen hand all the hostages live grenades. “We wouldn’t want your hands free would we?” asks one with a laugh.
At the vault, a clown opens the door, and just then a second clown shoots him in the back. They’re taking each other out so that the cut between them grows higher! And it’s all because the boss, the Joker, has told them to.

Back in the lobby, a bank manager surprisingly begins firing on the clown gunmen with a shotgun hidden under his desk. Turns out this bank belongs to an influential mobster and the manager, fearless and crazed, says as much to the clowns as he walks defiantly at them. He takes one out with a point-blank blast.
Two remain and manage to disarm the manager by shooting him in the arm before one clown turns his gun on the other.

“I’m sure the boss told you to take me out first,” says the one holding the gun. “No,” says the other, his hands in the air as he sways back in forth as if he didn’t care a gun was pointed at his chest. “I called a bus.”

“What?” asks the one holding a gun. And then BOOM, a school bus bursts its back end through the wall of the bank, killing the clown holding the gun! The lumpy driver steps out and asks what’s happened to the gang, just as the clown who’s life he saved shoots him without remorse.

The surviving clown begins to board the bus with bags of money when the bank manager, lying on the floor bleeding, tells the clown he has no idea who he’s messing with and asks why the crooks in this city have no beliefs anymore. The lone clown aborts boarding the bus and instead turns to the manager. The manager asks him dead to his face, “What do you believe in?”

As the clown slowly places a concussion grenade in the manager’s mouth, he removes his mask, exposing his scar-ridden face. It’s the Joker! “I believe that whatever doesn’t kill you simply makes you stronger,” he says before smiling a huge, twisted grin.
The grenade has a string attached to its pin and as the Joker boards the bus, the string goes taut. When he pulls away and the pin comes loose, the manager lays sweating on the floor. Surely his head is about to explode! Instead, the bottom of the grenade emits a gray, harmless gas. It was a joke!

On the street, the bus pulls into traffic along with several others. Before long, sirens can be heard, but by then, the bus is lost in the crowd. The Joker gets away.

Then the footage cuts to several quick clips, including the new Batsuit in a cage, the new Batpod, the Batmobile (aka, the Tumbler), a shot of a fire truck on fire in the streets of Gotham, Batman on a roof overlooking his city and, finally, a clip of Lieutenant Gordon (played by Gary Oldman) using an ax to shatter the Batsignal.
When the lights came up, applause greeted Nolan before he invited everybody to join him in the lobby for cocktails.

Look for the footage to appear before select prints of “I Am Legend” in IMAX starting next weekend. “Hopefully they’ll play up until the movie comes out next summer,” added Nolan, who’s built a bigger, better, more intense corner into his Batman universe. Don’t be a Joker yourselves. Go see it!

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/movies.../006550689.cfm
[close]
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: brawndolicious on December 04, 2007, 03:05:25 AM
wtf, that's worse than the random killings in the departed.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Himu on December 04, 2007, 03:09:37 AM
How are the killings in The Departed random.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 03:10:11 AM
That's actually an interesting argument.

Batman Begins is a good movie, albeit overrated. It's definitely an 8/10 type film. I'd give Burton's first Batman a similar score, but yes I think Batman Begins is of higher quality overall. In terms of the acting and script its superior. Burton's benefits from an utterly amazing performance from Jack, and some bumpin' Prince n Elfman music.

Despite your take on Burton's Batman, many would argue the complete opposite: that Burton didn't know anything about Batman, didn't care about the character, and decided to make his version of the comic. This is best displayed in his portrayal of Bruce Wayne as a bumbling fool and Commissioner Gordon as a washed up old cop, for instance. Nolan nails Wayne perfectly, like it or not. Bruce Wayne is Batman in Nolan's film, whereas in Burton's take Wayne seems almost like a rich version of Donner's Clark Kent - who seems to transform into Batman and become something totally different. The ditsy-ness disappears and he gets all serious. Most Batman fans will tell you that Nolan's take is far more consistent with who the character is.

As TVC has said before, it seems like Nolan may take the whole "serious Batman" thing too far with The Joker. Instead of presenting the character as he is in the books, Nolan may be creating his version as if to conscientiously distance it from Burton's. I don't think that's a good idea because whereas Burton's Wayne is dead wrong, he nailed The Joker perfectly. The Joker isn't a serious villain in face paint.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Ichirou on December 04, 2007, 03:11:03 AM
lol, sounds cool, actually.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: CajoleJuice on December 04, 2007, 03:22:59 AM
As a person who just watched the cartoon somewhat regularly when he was a kid and can't even remember most of it, I really don't give a fuck how true these movies are to the original stuff.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: brawndolicious on December 04, 2007, 03:25:42 AM
I think Batman Begins is of higher quality overall. In terms of the acting and script its superior. Burton's benefits from an utterly amazing performance from Jack, and some bumpin' Prince n Elfman music.
the script?  how?  make connections to the way the story was told in the comics please.

Despite your take on Burton's Batman, many would argue the complete opposite: that Burton didn't know anything about Batman, didn't care about the character, and decided to make his version of the comic. This is best displayed in his portrayal of Bruce Wayne as a bumbling fool and Commissioner Gordon as a washed up old cop, for instance. Nolan nails Wayne perfectly, like it or not. Bruce Wayne is Batman in Nolan's film, whereas in Burton's take Wayne seems almost like a rich version of Donner's Clark Kent - who seems to transform into Batman and become something totally different. The ditsy-ness disappears and he gets all serious. Most Batman fans will tell you that Nolan's take is far more consistent with who the character is.
okay, I'll explain it to you in a pretty simple way...Burton skipped the part about batman finding his gadgets and suit and shit.  You don't skip that part if you're going to show your style of a batman movie.

Batman is NOT a bumbling fool in the Burton batmans.  I don't know how you got that.  Commisioner Gordon is old so that's why you can't show him as a real go-getter-thinks-he's-invincible cop and is meant to show the CYNICISM the world has towards a batman (he doesn't really like the guy).

You are totally bullshitting on remembering any part of the movie if you thought the Burton batmans showed him as "too serious" all of a  sudden.  In the Nolan ones, he puts on the suit and Bale is forced to put on a fake "deep" voice.  it was so wrong on so many levels.  Burton ones show batman as unemotional (most of the time) when he's saving people.  The Nolan ones rivaled spiderman in emo-factor.

As TVC has said before, it seems like Nolan may take the whole "serious Batman" thing too far with The Joker. Instead of presenting the character as he is in the books, Nolan may be creating his version as if to conscientiously distance it from Burton's. I don't think that's a good idea because whereas Burton's Wayne is dead wrong, he nailed The Joker perfectly. The Joker isn't a serious villain in face paint. He's
please explain how it makes sense to distance yourself from the Burton batmans and the ones in the comics if Nolan is making a batman that is closer to what the fans like.  I don't get this post.

As a person who just watched the cartoon somewhat regularly when he was a kid and can't even remember most of it, I really don't give a fuck how true these movies are to the original stuff.
I don't care about that (Burton changed Joker and made him the killer of Batman's parents when it was really someone else).

btw, I don't really like Burton films that much other than Batman.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 03:26:06 AM
As a person who just watched the cartoon somewhat regularly when he was a kid and can't even remember most of it, I really don't give a fuck how true these movies are to the original stuff.

Most people don't, but I hate seeing characters butchered. Whether its Dumbledore in the GoF film or Sabertooth in the first X-Men film, that can really turn me off.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: MCD on December 04, 2007, 03:27:43 AM
Batman Begins is no way as emo as Spiderman.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 03:51:38 AM
Quote from: am nintenho
the script?  how?  make connections to the way the story was told in the comics please.

Face it, while Burton's Batman is definitely fun, it's quite cheesy. The dialogue is laughable at times, and not in a good way.

Quote from: am nintenho
Batman is NOT a bumbling fool in the Burton batmans.  I don't know how you got that.  Commisioner Gordon is old so that's why you can't show him as a real go-getter-thinks-he's-invincible cop and is meant to show the CYNICISM the world has towards a batman (he doesn't really like the guy).

Here lies your mistake: I didn't say Batman was a bumbling fool in the film, I said Wayne was. Burton's Wayne is an idiot who can't do anything right, but when he puts on the suit he magically becomes this awesome guy. Like I said, it reminds me of weak sause Clark Kent in Donner's flick, who's so unassuming and shy that you can't possibly believe he's really *gasp* Superman. That's not how Bruce Wayne works.

Quote from: am nintenho
okay, I'll explain it to you in a pretty simple way...Burton skipped the part about batman finding his gadgets and suit and shit.  You don't skip that part if you're going to show your style of a batman movie.

Eh, that's a weak argument. Burton's stamp is all over the film. It's not the comic version of Batman, it's Burton's. That wasn't Bruce Wayne, that's wasn't Gordon. Instead you get Batman killing people. Righttt. Burton is on the record saying he didn't even read comics, which tells you what you need to know about the film.

Quote
please explain how it makes sense to distance yourself from the Burton batmans and the ones in the comics if Nolan is making a batman that is closer to what the fans like.  I don't get this post.

Ask Nolan and Bale, who have expressed this obsession with distancing the films.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Mandark on December 04, 2007, 03:53:12 AM
The one on the left makes him look like Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.  We sure that's not Ted Levine under there?
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 04, 2007, 03:59:54 AM
The one on the left makes him look like Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.  We sure that's not Ted Levine under there?

(http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1945/jokeih6.jpg)

"I'd fuck me"
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 04:02:42 AM
he looks so REALISTIC

 ::)
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: bluemax on December 04, 2007, 04:41:44 AM
Tim Burton's Batman is an abomination and we'd be better off if it didn't exist.

As someone who had a subscription to Batman comics for years I'm digging Nolan's take a lot more than what Burton put out.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: drozmight on December 04, 2007, 04:44:59 AM
Slipknot!

 :kylielaff
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: abrader on December 04, 2007, 04:46:15 AM
hahah im glad to see someone post about this guy looking shyte.

I want this movie to fail just because they made poor old Jack Nicholson cry in his old age.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 04:46:31 AM
Tim Burton's Batman is an abomination and we'd be better off if it didn't exist.

As someone who had a subscription to Batman comics for years I'm digging Nolan's take a lot more than what Burton put out.

Hyperbole withstanding, this seems to be the opinion of most Batman fans. Burton didn't know what Batman was, so he did his own thing
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: brawndolicious on December 04, 2007, 04:58:00 AM
Face it, while Burton's Batman is definitely fun, it's quite cheesy. The dialogue is laughable at times, and not in a good way.
that's the point...
Here lies your mistake: I didn't say Batman was a bumbling fool in the film, I said Wayne was. Burton's Wayne is an idiot who can't do anything right, but when he puts on the suit he magically becomes this awesome guy. Like I said, it reminds me of weak sause Clark Kent in Donner's flick, who's so unassuming and shy that you can't possibly believe he's really *gasp* Superman. That's not how Bruce Wayne works.
what are you talking about?  he gets laid with the reporter in the beginning so it's not like he's nervous around people all the time or something.  the only time he acts at all uneasy is when stuff regarding his wealth/business interests comes up because anybody would act weird if they were an orphan growing up an in a big mansion.  I think even in the comics he was like that but it's been a long time for me to remember that type of detail.
Eh, that's a weak argument. Burton's stamp is all over the film. It's not the comic version of Batman, it's Burton's. That wasn't Bruce Wayne, that's wasn't Gordon. Instead you get Batman killing people. Righttt. Burton is on the record saying he didn't even read comics, which tells you what you need to know about the film.
Let me re-explain what I'm saying.  I liked the comics because I got into the storyline.  Batman isn't the type of comic that HAS to follow a certain set of events though.  There's been a SHITLOAD of different versions of batman (usually from different writers/artists) and I liked them all because of the character.  If you change the story a little, I won't mind but the fact is that Burton made a really good comic book movie that KNEW it was a movie.  Nolan batmans felt really half-baked.
Ask Nolan and Bale, who have expressed this obsession with distancing the films.
why the hell would they say that?

and bluemax, I never read any comics other than batman so that may be why my opinion is different.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 05:00:27 AM
Don't get me wrong, Burton definitely made a comic book movie, and much of the action/dialogue seems like it's straight from a comic. He just got characters wrong in the process, among other flaws
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: brawndolicious on December 04, 2007, 05:03:45 AM
how did he get them WRONG?
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 08:09:28 AM
I really cant wait for the movie but gaf's obsession with Bale & Nolan is just plain annoying and puts me off.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Solo on December 04, 2007, 09:08:18 AM
Looks like shit. And I agree Cheebs, as I have said many times. BB is pretty good, but the incessant fellatio GAF gives it is nauseating. Its a decent action movie, not the second coming.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 10:20:49 AM
They are doing the same thing with Cameron & Avatar I noticed.  :-\
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 04, 2007, 01:02:13 PM
They are doing the same thing with Cameron & Avatar I noticed.  :-\

Oh well.  The bigger the hyping, the bigger the backlash!
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: bud on December 04, 2007, 01:30:52 PM
i'm hyped for avatar. that leaked artwork looked kinda bad, though.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 01:51:38 PM
James Cameron has grown egotistical and just plain full of himself since Titanic.  I have very little faith in him not making a bloated self-serving film that overly relies on CGI.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Joe Molotov on December 04, 2007, 01:52:28 PM
Avatar is so far away, I find it impossible to care one way or the other about at the moment.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 01:54:25 PM
i'm hyped for avatar. that leaked artwork looked kinda bad, though.

Actually the artwork was fake according to Cameron. Personally I'll believe the hype when I see it. Right now all I hear are the dreams of a man who hasn't done much in years. I seriously doubt this will be some epic classic on par with his three good movies
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 01:56:12 PM
Titantic's success + ten years of nonstop praise results in self-absorbed directors. I fully expect him to do what Lucas did with the prequels and Jackson did with King Kong.

Too many yes men, too much obsession with cgi.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 01:59:53 PM
King Kong was actually good though, and well received. Flawed yes, but still good
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: The Fake Shemp on December 04, 2007, 02:01:07 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 02:01:38 PM
King Kong was actually good though, and well received. Flawed yes, but still good
It still was a movie where Jackson went unchecked and used too much cgi, which I expect ten fold of in Cameron.

James Cameron is not the same person after titanic that he was before. It's like Sam Raimi and how he changed after Spider-Man (according to Danny Elfman)
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:02:20 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.

It did well. Yeah it didn't become the NEXT TITANIC like some were suggesting, but it make back its budget while getting positive reviews. Keep dreaming

Jackson needs a new editor though...
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 02:03:47 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.

It did well. Yeah it didn't become the NEXT TITANIC like some were suggesting, but it make back its budget while getting positive reviews. Keep dreaming

Jackson needs a new editor though...
Do you agree that Avatar will suffer the same fate of  King Kong? Somewhat dissapointment boxoffice with a lack of restraint on the director causing it to appear bloated?
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:08:02 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.

It did well. Yeah it didn't become the NEXT TITANIC like some were suggesting, but it make back its budget while getting positive reviews. Keep dreaming

Jackson needs a new editor though...
Do you agree that Avatar will suffer the same fate of  King Kong? Somewhat dissapointment boxoffice with a lack of restraint on the director causing it to appear bloated?

I don't know. History seems to show us that CGI flicks don't do great. Beowulf is slowly making back its budget, but it certainly wasn't the revolution some expected. Avatar has a $200 million budget, if not more right? It'll be hard to make that up without any star power. Many people go to the movies just to see their favorite stars, not their favorite stars in 3D.

King Kong suffered from being bloated and relying on CGI back drops. There are many cases where the jungle surrounding simply looks fake. In terms of the length, I don't have any problems with entire scenes outside of the dino chase, which is also too much CGI.


Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: The Fake Shemp on December 04, 2007, 02:08:08 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.
It did well.

Not really.  It was a disappointment.  Not with blog writers, but with studio executives.  You don't spend a fortune on a production budget and marketing to "make your budget back".  And if you think all of the box office gross goes to a studio, you're grossly misinformed as well.

Also, it got just a 76% RT rating from the press.  That's not that great of a critical reception.  It was hardly a critical darling.

The audience didn't care for it much, either.  It was bloated and unnecessary.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: bud on December 04, 2007, 02:12:32 PM
king kong probably looks like butt in hd. some of that cg--especially during the chase, or whatever that was--looked awful.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:15:01 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.
It did well.

Not really.  It was a disappointment.  Not with blog writers, but with studio executives.  You don't spend a fortune on a production budget and marketing to "make your budget back".  And if you think all of the box office gross goes to a studio, you're grossly misinformed as well.

Also, it got just a 76% RT rating from the press.  That's not that great of a critical reception.  It was hardly a critical darling.

The audience didn't care for it much, either.  It was bloated and unnecessary.

The movie doubled it's production budget at the box office. Its overall RT is 84%; spinning this by not including the entire RT is just stupid. It was generally liked in the press - not a huge top 10 choice for everyone, but still received good reviews overall.

Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 02:15:46 PM
The production budget was over 200 million PD, it barely made it back domestically.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: MCD on December 04, 2007, 02:17:57 PM
king kong probably looks like butt in hd. some of that cg--especially during the chase, or whatever that was--looked awful.

i didn't like the movie but the transfer and the CG scenes are great.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 04, 2007, 02:31:22 PM
king kong probably looks like butt in hd. some of that cg--especially during the chase, or whatever that was--looked awful.

I never put my HD-DVD copy in, but I did see it in the theatre 3 times, and that chase scene was really the only bad CG part.  Unless you count too many closeups on the damned dirty ape as bad CG.

Also, I think Cheebs is a bit off in his assessment of Cameron.  Cameron is a wildcard.  He was full of himself before, during the making of Titanic.  Like every month during its making there was a report about how over budget it was and how it could end up a fiasco.

Also, I don't particularly think that taking more than a decade off from Hollywood is indicative of hubris.  Or anything at all, really.  Yes, Lucas did it, but so did Malick.  I'm not the biggest fan of Cameron, but I see no reason that would indicate he is now doomed to make bad movies.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 02:32:52 PM
He isn't doomed to but filming a movie entirely cgi except for a handful of humans. This no set, no interaction type of cgi filming is a trend I really dont like.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:36:09 PM
He's essentially making a $200 million Stars Wars prequel
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: The Fake Shemp on December 04, 2007, 02:42:13 PM
... spinning this by not including the entire RT is just stupid.

Not really.  Spinning by including online press is stupid and here's why:

Majority of audience members don't read online reviews.
Anything that includes AICN reviews should be automatically negated.
People read the press, Ebert & Roeper, etc. ... NOT CHUD.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 02:43:16 PM
is aicn and chud included on RT? I didnt think they were.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: The Fake Shemp on December 04, 2007, 02:44:29 PM
Yeah, they are... but in the overall ratings.  Not Cream of the Crop, which is respectable and mostly newspaper press.  There are times when I will listen to the online press versus Cream of the Crop, which does tend to lean older on sensibilities when it comes to film.  If I just read Cream of the Crop reviews, I'd likely miss out on a few modern gems simply because they're old and crotchety and don't like these new fangled movies meant for whippersnappers.

That said, when saying if a film was critically well received, you go by that ranking and not overall.  Cream of the Crop is not only the only thing mainstream audiences really read, but they're also the ones that hold sway come Oscar time.  If Kong really was as well received as PD says it was, it would've gotten more Oscar buzz - especially so close to December.  But the fact of the matter shows that amongst the respected and print press, it generated ratings in the 7s and that's nothing to get excited about.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:49:53 PM
Well I'm sorry King Kong wasn't as well respected as TRANSFORMERS
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: The Fake Shemp on December 04, 2007, 02:51:10 PM
Funny enough, the ranking for Transformers was just 6% less than King Kong in Cream of the Crop. :lol
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on December 04, 2007, 02:51:49 PM
He isn't doomed to but filming a movie entirely cgi except for a handful of humans. This no set, no interaction type of cgi filming is a trend I really dont like.

I don't particularly think it's a swell idea in general, but Cameron has always been on the vanguard of special effects, so he clearly knows what looks good and what doesn't, and we all know he isn't afraid to sink budget money in order to redo something over and over until it is right.

If Cameron does one thing superlatively well, in his best and worst movies, it's special effects.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: bluemax on December 04, 2007, 02:56:09 PM
how did he get them WRONG?

How didn't he get them wrong?
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TakingBackSunday on December 04, 2007, 04:04:26 PM
I still like it.  The onesTVC posted are poses for the toy line, but yeah, that's what he looks like.

*shrugs*  I like it.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Bloodwake on December 04, 2007, 04:12:10 PM
Sorry, the new Joker looks awesome.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: CajoleJuice on December 04, 2007, 08:17:48 PM
(http://whysoserious.com/steprightup/imgs/postersmall.jpg)
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TakingBackSunday on December 04, 2007, 09:09:34 PM
good one
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: EvilBoris on December 04, 2007, 11:43:17 PM
 Pretty lurid.. strange I'm not letting my disappointment of  the first one seep into my hype for this one. I'm really expecting a memorable performance to shake things up in the austere Nolan vision.

Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Eduardo24 on January 26, 2008, 09:59:21 PM
Bump of an old thread, I know.

Why some people said '89 Joker is the "true" joker and not the one in TDK?  I am not a comic book fan, but I have reading the wiki on him and it seems to me the Nolan version is much more similar to the one in the comics.  Sociopath, mass murderer and absolutely brutal at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_%28comics%29#Criminal_career (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_%28comics%29#Criminal_career)

Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: AdmiralViscen on January 26, 2008, 10:07:00 PM
lmfao hes dead
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Joe Molotov on January 26, 2008, 10:19:25 PM
Like, OMG!
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Himu on January 26, 2008, 10:24:06 PM
OH GOD HE'S DEAD?! LET'S LIONATE HIM
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on January 26, 2008, 10:34:55 PM
Bump of an old thread, I know.

Why some people said '89 Joker is the "true" joker and not the one in TDK?  I am not a comic book fan, but I have reading the wiki on him and it seems to me the Nolan version is much more similar to the one in the comics.  Sociopath, mass murderer and absolutely brutal at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_%28comics%29#Criminal_career (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_%28comics%29#Criminal_career)



Nolan's Joker visually blows.  At no point in the comics does the Joker look like a Polish grandma hobo.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: brawndolicious on January 26, 2008, 11:28:33 PM
They're both mass-murdering sociopaths.  but one of them doesn't wear stupid make-up that was never in the comics.

It's important to the Joker's character that he looks fucked up.  But on purpose, not because he didn't have a mirror when he was putting on the make-up.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on January 26, 2008, 11:32:42 PM
Yeah, I am all for gritty, but the Joker in TDK is just grittiness without purpose, possibly even contrary to the character it is being applied to.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Eel O'Brian on January 27, 2008, 12:41:20 AM
again, makeup over chemically fucked-up skin is stupid

looks like a rodeo clown who drank himself out of a job

chemically burned and fucked face =

(http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/wp-content/2007/04/ManWhoLaughs.jpg)


smeared stage makeup and greasy unwashed hair =

(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/190560~Shakes-the-Clown-Posters.jpg)
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on January 27, 2008, 12:46:36 AM
The Man Who Laughs. . .is that worth seeing, Eel? 
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Eel O'Brian on January 27, 2008, 12:47:05 AM
eh
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: TVC15 on January 27, 2008, 12:50:56 AM
eh

Wikipedia says the magic words:  GERMAN EXPRESSIONISM.  Which means it is by default better than anything Nolan has done.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Eric P on January 27, 2008, 12:53:26 AM
The Man Who Laughs. . .is that worth seeing, Eel? 

i will disagree with eel and say that it's worth watching.

it's no mad love, but it's visually interesting (think swashbuckling like the count of monte cristo, but with a gloomy expressionistic outlook) and the make up is pretty wow.

the acting / story isn't the greatest, but it's very fun to watch

i enjoyed my time with it
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Eel O'Brian on January 27, 2008, 12:56:14 AM
i found it a little boring, to be honest

period melodrama

without that image and the joker connection, i proabably wouldn't have sought it out

it is visually interesting, yes

you may like it way more than I did considering your film tastes

but any silent film is worth seeing once, imo
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: brawndolicious on January 27, 2008, 03:00:18 AM
again, makeup over chemically fucked-up skin is stupid

looks like a rodeo clown who drank himself out of a job
Do you mean the concept of a Joker is stupid or the way they did it in Begins is stupid?  I figure the reason for it in the comics is that the criminal is supposed to be very vain and then he gets his face fucked up so he looks for a way to use that to scare people.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: Eel O'Brian on January 27, 2008, 03:12:03 AM
I mean that in the comics the Joker's skin is bleached, his hair is green, and his face is fucked due to chemical exposure, unless they've revised his origin again recently.  In the new movie, he's just a normal guy with scars on his face who's apparently a really big fan of Joan Crawford.
Title: Re: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE
Post by: brawndolicious on January 27, 2008, 03:36:59 AM
yeah I don't get the point of throwing out the origin for a character like that.  It's not how the Joker looks that is important, it's why he looks like that.  A few scars and a ton of make-up is just a stupid idea.  and all the Nolan fanboys justify it as "not that bad" in motion.