Anyone who didn't like The Dark Knight is a tool.

[Shryke]

There is no history to the character.

[Paddy]

[quote name='Bronn Stone' post='1460614' date='Jul 29 2008, 15.44']In the movie, yes. In the history of the character, not so much. That was my objection. They weren't true to the history of the character - at least what I consider to be the best parts of the history of the character.[/quote]
Oh I don't know.
Far and away the best Joker story I've read (and for all the Batman I've read, surprisingly little of it is actually about the Joker) was The Killing Joke.

Both Killing Joke and Dark Knight share something which both make a large part of the Joker's philosophy, that one bad day can make a person evil.

I'd say that both showed the Joker as being quite the anarchist.

[Blaine]

The Killing Joke is the definitive piece on the Joker. And you can't really go wrong with Alan Moore and Bolland's art.

[Tobin]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1460190' date='Jul 29 2008, 00.01']The funny thing is, while the guy riding shotgun in the van couldn't shut up, the driver wore a full faced mask and never said a word. I was thinking "Could they make it any more obvious that the driver is a Joker agent?" :dunce:[/quote]

Yeah, I said something similar to my hubby:
"I think the driver is a bad guy - he hasn't said a word while the other guy can't shut up."

In the same scene - I physically lurched when the truck flipped. It felt like someone had tried top pull my stomach out my back.

[Jerol]

"Ooh excuse me. I want to drive." There were only a couple laughs in this movie but that is the one that resonates with me today.

[VigoTheCarpathian]

[quote name='LogicWarrior' post='1459752' date='Jul 28 2008, 16.39']All of the Joker's ideas were more or less taken from game theory and ethics. My suspension of disbelief was killed about thirty minutes in when it became apparent that for this to happen, the Joker would have to be a PhD and Batman and the police all high school dropouts...[/quote]

I concur, and find it very disappointing that Christopher Nolan, and Hollywood in general, cannot completely reinvent ethics and game theory for every movie they make. It really is sad that for every summer blockbuster, there is no requirement that they present a completed and original set applied mathematics scenarios. For shame...

And I'm not certain, but could it be that, as a villain, one wouldn't have to have a PhD in ethics/game theory in order to rig up a "fucked up situation", and for other people reacting to this situation, they might be acting emotionally instead of rationally, so their level of education (PhD vs. high school dropout) might not be a factor?

Regardless, I still agree that any movie that presents any idea that might be similar to another existing idea, regardless of if it's in an interesting way, deserves scorn. "Taxi Driver" is the most worthless movie ever, cuz I read some Dostoevsky and Sartre and they totally had bitter loners in them...

[Crazydog7]

[quote name='CarpathianTheVigo' post='1460924' date='Jul 29 2008, 13.31']I concur, and find it very disappointing that Christopher Nolan, and Hollywood in general, cannot completely reinvent ethics and game theory for every movie they make. It really is sad that for every summer blockbuster, there is no requirement that they present a completed and original set applied mathematics scenarios. For shame...

And I'm not certain, but could it be that, as a villain, one wouldn't have to have a PhD in ethics/game theory in order to rig up a "fucked up situation", and for other people reacting to this situation, they might be acting emotionally instead of rationally, so their level of education (PhD vs. high school dropout) might not be a factor?

Regardless, I still agree that any movie that presents any idea that might be similar to another existing idea, regardless of if it's in an interesting way, deserves scorn. "Taxi Driver" is the most worthless movie ever, cuz I read some Dostoevsky and Sartre and they totally had bitter loners in them...[/quote]


This is why people don't like math geeks. Could you sound any more stuck up?

[Mexal]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1460942' date='Jul 29 2008, 13.39']This is why people don't like math geeks. Could you sound any more stuck up?[/quote]

I took that entire post as sarcasm.

[potsherds]

[quote name='Mexal' post='1460946' date='Jul 29 2008, 17.44']I took that entire post as sarcasm.[/quote]
Yup.

[VigoTheCarpathian]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1460942' date='Jul 29 2008, 10.39']This is why people don't like math geeks. Could you sound any more stuck up?[/quote]

This is why people who don't like math geeks don't get sarcasm.

I did try to sound as "stuck up" as possible, but will endeavor to try to sound more so in the future.

[Bronn Stone]

[quote name='Paddy' post='1460660' date='Jul 29 2008, 07.59']Oh I don't know.
Far and away the best Joker story I've read (and for all the Batman I've read, surprisingly little of it is actually about the Joker) was The Killing Joke.

Both Killing Joke and Dark Knight share something which both make a large part of the Joker's philosophy, that one bad day can make a person evil.

I'd say that both showed the Joker as being quite the anarchist.[/quote]

This may be the source of our disagreement. I thought Frank Miller's[i] Dark Knight[/i] was vastly superior to [i]The Killing Joke[/i], in terms of overall story, trueness to the characters and visual effect. And though it is not a Joker story, Miller's [i]Batman: Year One[/i] was even better. Moore's [i]Watchmen[/i] and especially run on [i]Swamp Thing[/i] are brilliant - [i]The Killing Joke[/i], not so much, IMO.

[LogicWarrior]

[quote name='CarpathianTheVigo' post='1460924' date='Jul 29 2008, 10.31']I concur, and find it very disappointing that Christopher Nolan, and Hollywood in general, cannot completely reinvent ethics and game theory for every movie they make. It really is sad that for every summer blockbuster, there is no requirement that they present a completed and original set applied mathematics scenarios. For shame...

And I'm not certain, but could it be that, as a villain, one wouldn't have to have a PhD in ethics/game theory in order to rig up a "fucked up situation", and for other people reacting to this situation, they might be acting emotionally instead of rationally, so their level of education (PhD vs. high school dropout) might not be a factor?

Regardless, I still agree that any movie that presents any idea that might be similar to another existing idea, regardless of if it's in an interesting way, deserves scorn. "Taxi Driver" is the most worthless movie ever, cuz I read some Dostoevsky and Sartre and they totally had bitter loners in them...[/quote]

Well no, the Joker couldn't have rigged the entire hospital for demolition regardless of education. I'm just trying to say that while this was a darker Batman, it was by no means a realistic Batman.

And I never said Nolan should reinvent ethics. He should just do more than base his action scenes on well known game theory problems. LOL!

And I liked TDK. It's one of the best action movies ever and by no means "worthy of scorn". LOL!

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='Bronn Stone' post='1460573' date='Jul 29 2008, 10.25']I was never a huge fan of the Batman comics but I did read more than my share of them and I was a bit bothered by Nolan's interpretation. Joker shooting his henchmen for no good reason made no sense to me. Since he doesn't care about money really, he has no real reason to quibble about them getting their shares of the take. He's crazy - but more calculatingly crazy. Lawful Evil vs. Chaotic.[/quote]

That was the thing, they were not his henchmen. They were just guys he contracted for the job. None of them knew each other, each was more then willing to kill the others, they were not a team but small time tools. Leaving them alive allows there to be a trail to follow him back to, killing them removes the evidence. It was not about stealing money but getting the mobs attention, while making sure he can show up when he chooses. The mob guys play by rules, the Joker makes his own rules. In this interpretation of the joker, he clearly is chaotic, I am certainly not going to quible over whether or not that fits the comic. The movie trancended the comic book movie genre and really needs to be evaluated based on its internal story. (IMHO)

I like the fact the entire plot was simply to send a message to Batman about the people he is trying to protect and what it will eventually drive him too. I did not think the plots were that complex either. It never really mattered which way the authorities reacted, it worked in his favor. The few times he guesses , they were very easy guesses. Batman going after Rachel was easy to see, I mean he saw him jump out a window, the cops using Dent as bait, makes sense, cops trying to shoot the guys in clown masks with guns, who wouldn't guess that. The only one that was a stretch was the evacuation of prisoners by the ferry. But had they not done that, the bombs still would work with two sets of civillians.

[LogicWarrior]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1461014' date='Jul 29 2008, 11.24']That was the thing, they were not his henchmen. They were just guys he contracted for the job. None of them knew each other, each was more then willing to kill the others, they were not a team but small time tools. Leaving them alive allows there to be a trail to follow him back to, killing them removes the evidence. It was not about stealing money but getting the mobs attention, while making sure he can show up when he chooses. The mob guys play by rules, the Joker makes his own rules. In this interpretation of the joker, he clearly is chaotic, I am certainly not going to quible over whether or not that fits the comic. The movie trancended the comic book movie genre and really needs to be evaluated based on its internal story. (IMHO)[/quote]

:rolleyes: An evil guy killing off his henchmen/hired goons/whatever you decide to call them does not "transcend" the comic book genre, in fact it's quite typical.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='LogicWarrior' post='1461016' date='Jul 29 2008, 14.27']:rolleyes: An evil guy killing off his henchmen/hired goons/whatever you decide to call them does not "transcend" the comic book genre, in fact it's quite typical.[/quote]

The movie as a whole movie moved beyond "comic book movie" so as long as the movie charecter "Joker" is consistent in his actions it does not need to be docked for not following the comic book.

[Humble Asskicker]

First of all,

[quote name='LogicWarrior' post='1458738' date='Jul 28 2008, 01.13']lol at every response on pg 6. It's a guy who wears makeup and kills people, for fuck's sake, there isn't any interpretation for that besides chaotic force of nature. Most comic book movies give the villain a cheesy background story and motivation that takes up a lot of time that could be better spent on action. TDK threw that convention out the window, which makes it a great comic book movie, but it's not a deep, oscar-worthy film in any way.

and i admit, the joker is a 3 dimensional character, he kills people, does villain monologues, AND makes jokes. OMG OSCAR![/quote]

I realize this is a ways back in the thread, but I don't want the poster to forget that, because of this post, he is in fact an idiot.

Sorry for that preamble. To the current conversation:

...by quoting the same poster

[quote]Well no, the Joker couldn't have rigged the entire hospital for demolition regardless of education. I'm just trying to say that while this was a darker Batman, it was by no means a realistic Batman.[/quote]

Has someone already mentioned how criticizing pedantic points for the sake of collapsing a masterpiece? Sort of not seeing the forest for the trees kind of deal. Why do people do this again? This is a work of fiction, so obviously it won't take the fullest pains to concede to every point of realism. Most of the shit in this movie wouldn't happen in real life. 'cause it's fiction and that's how fiction tends to work. Artistic liberties for drama.

And if you're worried about philosophy in this movie being nothing new, well I agree. And then would ask if there exists anywhere in literature or movies of the last century anything with a new philosophical bend, because I'm pretty sure the shit's been said and done already for many hundreds of years.

I think that instead of dwelling on small details just to be defiant of those ignorant masses you stand over, you would be better served in allowing yourself to savor the beauty as a whole. Wondrous things allowed to be wondrous can be nice, you know.

[Galactus]

I'm as usual going to be hated for this but... I wasn't TOO impressed. Yes, it was a good movie. Even excellent. But it was not the second coming of Christ that some fanboys made it out to be.

Ledger was fantastic. Truly amazing. He really carried the movie, and that kind of was what made it less than impressive: When he wasn't on-screen, I quickly lost interest. It felt like it could have been "the 2½ hour Ledger Show" and it would not have been much diminished.

I think Bale was not very convincing as Batman. As Bruce Wayne? Yeah, he worked as Wayne, but not as Batman. Maybe it's because Batman occupies a less cartoonish place than other superheroes, but he often looked just silly.

And the action scenes were.... not that impressive. Less shakiness than in BB, but they simply were not particularly exciting to watch. Also, while we got the bat-gadgets a bit we didn't really get to see Batman-the-Detective, which is a bit of a pity.

I'm saying this, admittedly, as not much of a Batman fan.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='The Humble Asskicker' post='1461038' date='Jul 29 2008, 14.42']And if you're worried about philosophy in this movie being nothing new, well I agree. And then would ask if there exists anywhere in literature or movies of the last century anything with a new philosophical bend, because I'm pretty sure the shit's been said and done already for many hundreds of years.[/quote]

Ann Rand?

I would certainly say there is a twist to the ethics in this movie. The questions may be the same, but they have been the same since humnity starting painting in caves. In this case the questions are asked a bit ambigously, toss in high emotions and make sure the stakes are real and not a philosphical mind game. Then do the whole thing with a mass of people with everyone watching. Sure you can do the whole thiller thing with it coming down to one person making one choice, but what happens when you make everyone try and answer it at once.

[Humble Asskicker]

[quote]I'm as usual going to be hated for this but... I wasn't TOO impressed. Yes, it was a good movie. Even excellent. But it was not the second coming of Christ that some fanboys made it out to be.[/quote]

It was even better. I don't recall Christ leaping off towers in Hong Kong or taking down a squad of SWAT in burst of total badassness.

[Crazydog7]

[quote name='CarpathianTheVigo' post='1460968' date='Jul 29 2008, 13.53']This is why people who don't like math geeks don't get sarcasm.

I did try to sound as "stuck up" as possible, but will endeavor to try to sound more so in the future.[/quote]


I think you're on the right pass :cheers:


Anyway the character of the Joker reminded me of a more demented Keyser Soze.

I'm still not understanding what happened to the Scarecrow apart from that one scene.

And I think the reason that people are jumping all over this is that it is a big-budget media hyped movie that is actually good as opposed to a big budget media hyped movie that is supposed to be good.

I liked this way better then any of the Star Wars prequels that I paid money for.