My guess is they won't play the Joker card (pun intended, especially if you've seen the movie) in the first sequel to Batman Begins.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Official Batman Begins Thread.
- Thread starter loib
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
~Shard~ said:
That's true. It would be just what we would expect. Which is why it would cool if they didn't...
oops !
Hey geography wasn't my best subject. But wasnt Greenland part of Canada long ago? probably not. Oh well. chaulk another 1 for ya.
Still gotta see this movie most likely tomorrow. Tried with my dad last night, and as predicted, he wore a nice brown-suede (He's somewhat dilusional that the 70s still is around; but he was classy) suite. And also as predicted about 15 women, aged 15-43 mostly older approached him thinking he was Mr. Freeman, asking for autographs. He was really taken aback, but I immediately spoke up. Movie was sold out the entire night, so we left; but not before he gave me a huge solid shot in the arm saying "Ya couldn't let me enjoy a little fame could ya?!" lol.
~Shard~ said:Greenland is not part of Canada. (I should know!) It belongs to Denmark.
Just thought you might like to know.
Hey geography wasn't my best subject. But wasnt Greenland part of Canada long ago? probably not. Oh well. chaulk another 1 for ya.
Still gotta see this movie most likely tomorrow. Tried with my dad last night, and as predicted, he wore a nice brown-suede (He's somewhat dilusional that the 70s still is around; but he was classy) suite. And also as predicted about 15 women, aged 15-43 mostly older approached him thinking he was Mr. Freeman, asking for autographs. He was really taken aback, but I immediately spoke up. Movie was sold out the entire night, so we left; but not before he gave me a huge solid shot in the arm saying "Ya couldn't let me enjoy a little fame could ya?!" lol.
Used to belong to Denmark. I believe it was in 1979 that Denmark granted Greenland independence*, and its proper name is now Kalaallit Nunaat (which I think is Inuit for "it's frickin' freezing here").~Shard~ said:
And my 2¢... Batman Begins is better than the 4 previous Batman movies COMBINED. I love how there was ZERO camp, and how everything seemed so real AND possible.
* OK, it's not QUITE independent, but almost.
dejo said:
And that's true as well - it could be effective simply as a teaser as well. That way when the sequel comes out, you know that The Joker is around, yet he isn't featured in the movie, which makes you wonder...
Kinda like how you know that Scarecrow is still out there...That being said, I'm still going to bet that The Joker will be in the sequel.
I absolutely adored this movie. Dark, psychological. The villains are almost a minor element and actually seem sinister and dangerous, unlike in the other films (except Joker, he was *Crazy*) I can't wait to see who they use for Joker. I'm sure he'll be in the sequel. How nice it would be if they lost the "two villain" formula. This movie didn't feel like a two-villain formula film though, because the villains where used so sparingly and well. They seemed like they where there for a reason.
Now, what I really want to know, is: Will they dare to make Ras al Ghul immortal? They hinted at it in the film, I love how they handled it, but this could be misdirection. In the comics, Ras can restore himself to youth or life with a Lazarus Pit, whatever that is.
One thing I hope for a potential Joker movie is that they find a better way to do the makeup. Nicholson's looked like what it was, some guy with a ton of whiteface on. Nightcrawler in X2 looked like he was slathered in makeup as well. I'm sure there's a way to make Joker disturbingly pale but not have it be pancake.
I also think that people who say Joker is funny are way off. Joker is a guy who had a bad accident with industrial chemicals. He's not a comedian, he's been twisted into insanity by brain damage and psychological trauma. He poisons people so they laugh themselves to death, with the result that his victims mirror his disfigurement. I'll bet a Freudean analysis would find fertile ground here. He finds death and destruction humorous, and takes glee in pain and misfortune. He's just plain scary.
Oh, and my vote for Joker is Christian Slater! J/K, I don't think they should use Nicholson light. I have three ideas:
1. Crispin Glover. Ok, maybe typecasting after Charlies Angels and Willard, but still. This guy fits the look, we've seen that he can be interesting as a psycho, and I think of the three I'm thinking of he'd do the best laugh.
2. Eddie Izzard. Yeah, a comedian. Despite what I said, Eddie is a great actor and has a good look. He's stockier than I'd like for my Joker but I think he'd do a great job and his face is right for a more round Joker look.
3. Johnny Depp. If you can get him. Definitely the best actor around right now, known for quirky characters. Maybe he doesn't have enough edge, but he's again got that great sharp-featured slim look like Joker in the comics. I don't think you could do better than him.
Now, what I really want to know, is: Will they dare to make Ras al Ghul immortal? They hinted at it in the film, I love how they handled it, but this could be misdirection. In the comics, Ras can restore himself to youth or life with a Lazarus Pit, whatever that is.
One thing I hope for a potential Joker movie is that they find a better way to do the makeup. Nicholson's looked like what it was, some guy with a ton of whiteface on. Nightcrawler in X2 looked like he was slathered in makeup as well. I'm sure there's a way to make Joker disturbingly pale but not have it be pancake.
I also think that people who say Joker is funny are way off. Joker is a guy who had a bad accident with industrial chemicals. He's not a comedian, he's been twisted into insanity by brain damage and psychological trauma. He poisons people so they laugh themselves to death, with the result that his victims mirror his disfigurement. I'll bet a Freudean analysis would find fertile ground here. He finds death and destruction humorous, and takes glee in pain and misfortune. He's just plain scary.
Oh, and my vote for Joker is Christian Slater! J/K, I don't think they should use Nicholson light. I have three ideas:
1. Crispin Glover. Ok, maybe typecasting after Charlies Angels and Willard, but still. This guy fits the look, we've seen that he can be interesting as a psycho, and I think of the three I'm thinking of he'd do the best laugh.
2. Eddie Izzard. Yeah, a comedian. Despite what I said, Eddie is a great actor and has a good look. He's stockier than I'd like for my Joker but I think he'd do a great job and his face is right for a more round Joker look.
3. Johnny Depp. If you can get him. Definitely the best actor around right now, known for quirky characters. Maybe he doesn't have enough edge, but he's again got that great sharp-featured slim look like Joker in the comics. I don't think you could do better than him.
panphage said:
Interesting, but I have to lay down a "Hell no!" to Izzard. A great comedian, not the greatest actor IMO, and probably would be wrong for the Joker.
But Crispin Glover? Typecasting maybe, but a great idea! He's pulled off the insane angle as proven previously, and looks-wise is most idea to play the Joker... good suggestion!
Depp - well the man can pull off most rolls can't he? He's already donning the white face makeup for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory....
dejo said:
O they will play it. There would be a blacklash from the batman community if they didn't. But who knows. Many interviews with either nolan or bale have said that this movie is all about batman, not the villians. a joker villian, played well, would probably take away from that.
Piarco75 said:
o man. I would stand in line for the next batman weeks in advance if depp played the joker.
The trailers so far don't look all that good for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory but the "depp and burton connection" have yet to disappoint, so i will be seeing it opening night. But ya, depp would be my choice so far. But only because i'm a huge fan
Depp is a really good actor.
Anyway, I saw the movie last night with my friends. I was actually expecting it to be a total flop, and on top of that, I was never a big Batman fan. Now I am. The movie was SO good! It makes me want to see the other Batman movies that are out, I'm so curious about what else happens and what surrounds Batman "after" this movie. btw, the batmobile in this one is WAY cooler than any of the other batmobiles. It just seems more accurate that it would look like this one. So cool.
Anyway, I saw the movie last night with my friends. I was actually expecting it to be a total flop, and on top of that, I was never a big Batman fan. Now I am. The movie was SO good! It makes me want to see the other Batman movies that are out, I'm so curious about what else happens and what surrounds Batman "after" this movie. btw, the batmobile in this one is WAY cooler than any of the other batmobiles. It just seems more accurate that it would look like this one. So cool.
If Batman Begins is your first Batman movie, do yourself a favor... don't watch the previous Batman movies. Although the first one (Batman) features good performances by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson, the funk/camp level in the older movies gets higher and higher with each movie. Batman Begins, by contrast, has zero funk and zero camp; it's the way Batman should have been to begin with.joecool85 said:
not the biggest comic book/action movie fan, and i loved this movie. probably one of the best movies i've seen lately.
my questions/comments about the joker:
i think that the original batman was the best of the original 4 (batman begins may be better overall)... and that jack as joker was classic. therefore, it seems weird to me that they'd remake the best previous one, especially since it's not that old in movie age time.
as for setting it up with the end of batman begins... well, yeah, but that doesn't inherently mean it will happen. i realize that there's differences between the star wars epic and the batmans (ie, one person has controlled all of star wars movies, while batman has bounced around), but since we see darth vader come to life at the end of return of the sith, should we expect a remake of the originals?? i just thought it made sense for them to reference the next and most famous villain batman would fight, as it IS a prequel of sorts.
and finally, i guess that little kid will probably end up being robin?
my questions/comments about the joker:
i think that the original batman was the best of the original 4 (batman begins may be better overall)... and that jack as joker was classic. therefore, it seems weird to me that they'd remake the best previous one, especially since it's not that old in movie age time.
as for setting it up with the end of batman begins... well, yeah, but that doesn't inherently mean it will happen. i realize that there's differences between the star wars epic and the batmans (ie, one person has controlled all of star wars movies, while batman has bounced around), but since we see darth vader come to life at the end of return of the sith, should we expect a remake of the originals?? i just thought it made sense for them to reference the next and most famous villain batman would fight, as it IS a prequel of sorts.
and finally, i guess that little kid will probably end up being robin?
clayj said:
while the movie did have far less, it still had its cheesy jokes... though perhaps not "campy"...
"i gotta get me one of those"...
there were a few jokes like that (maybe 3-4) that kinda fell flat.
and i think that while the campiness wasn't in the original comics, a lot of that came from the tv show which was obviously crammed with it... for better or worse.
saw it last night, and i will say it was a good movie, bael plays a great batman. but the action scenes were "meh" you couldn't really see what was going on, you couldn't follow the fight blow by blow, it was just a blur and done.
Directing wasn't great, wasn't bad.
Not nearly as good as the tim burton batman's, but better than val kilmer and george clooney batman's
Directing wasn't great, wasn't bad.
Not nearly as good as the tim burton batman's, but better than val kilmer and george clooney batman's
eva01 said:
That's actually one of the things I enjoyed about the movie. The fight sequences were quick and fast-paced, and you couldn't see what was happening - just the way it should be when you're dealing with Batman! He studied a ninjitsu-like art, so the style lends itself perfectly to the fight sequences. I think hardly seeing Batman in the fights and having things so quick like that was very effective, and allowed the viewer to leave the rest up to his imagination. What you don't see is sometimes more powerful and effective than what you do see, so in this respect I actually enjoyed the fights even more, and I thought Nolan did an amazing job at capturing this atmospheric element of the Dark Knight.
eva01 said:
I disagree, but hey, that's a subjective thing!
Plus, I'm biased as I'm a big fan of Nolan. Memento is one of my all-time favorite movies. eva01 said:
Sorry, are you trying to compare actors or directors? You compared Burton (director) to Kilmer and Clooney (actors). Keaton was the first Batman, and Schumacher directed the last 2 Batman movies. Regardless, Burton and Keaton were the best combo - until now in my opinion.
I had the unfortunate experience of catching Burton's Batman on TV, and boy did the movie look dated. It was pretty campy, but I know, back in 1989, it was the coolest movie.joecool85 said:
The original Batmobile was so left field, it wasn't very realistic, although with BB, everything seems totally plausible. I was never a fan of Burton's Batman movies, so having a fresh director such as Nolan is such a treat for the fans.
Burton was, and is overrated. Case in point. Planet of the Apes.
For those who are intersted in how the batsuit works.
I have nothing else to contribute to this thread. For now.
I have nothing else to contribute to this thread. For now.
devilot76 said:
And I agree with your disagreement.
Burton is an excellent director in my opinion - I thoroughly enjoyed Batman, Batman Returns was good just not as good, I enjoyed Sleepy Hollow, Mars Attacks and Ed Wood, Nightmare Before Xmas was very visually stunning, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory looks promising, and Beetlejuice is another fun favorite as well. But like anything else it's all a mater of personal taste and opinion!
~Shard~ said:Sorry, are you trying to compare actors or directors? You compared Burton (director) to Kilmer and Clooney (actors). Keaton was the first Batman, and Schumacher directed the last 2 Batman movies. Regardless, Burton and Keaton were the best combo - until now in my opinion.
no that is how i know the movies
the first two because of burton, and those two because of who batman was, didn't know the director of the others.
Oooh. I completely forgot about Beetlejuice! Shudder, so creepy yet cool.~Shard~ said:Burton is an excellent director in my opinion - I thoroughly enjoyed Batman, Batman Returns was good just not as good, I enjoyed Sleepy Hollow, Mars Attacks and Ed Wood, Nightmare Before Xmas was very visually stunning, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory looks promising, and Beetlejuice is another fun favorite as well.
But like anything else it's all a mater of personal taste and opinion!
eva01 said:no that is how i know the movies
Fair enough, just wanted to make sure a proper comparison was being carried out.
Ironically, I remember the last 2 Batman movies more because of Schumacher than the actual actors, just since he did such a good job at tainting and destroying the series... Thank god for Nolan!