Yeah, dude! Nicholson was a fecking brilliant Joker "wait'll they getta loada me..."
<---- Fans of Nicholson's Joker may've noticed my 'location' on the side there
Two more Matrix films announced?
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
Yeah, dude! Nicholson was a fecking brilliant Joker "wait'll they getta loada me..."
<---- Fans of Nicholson's Joker may've noticed my 'location' on the side there
Yeah, people've said that to me before. But it just seems like a cop out to me. You can have a chaotic character and still maintain the character development.
Ledgers Joker raped and pissed on Jack Nicholson's. And I think Nicholson is a fecking legend.
Totally disagree with both your opinion and your horrible use of language (what is it with our generation and all the overly sexual aggressive ways of expressing that one thing is better than another??).
Anyway, Nicholson's Joker has way more depth, manages to be genuinely funny and yet still more psychotic than any other Joker (on film at least). Has charm, charisma and a brilliant, brilliant back story.
Nolan/Ledger's Joker is like a tame, kid's version of Blue Velvet's Frank Booth. Not violent or jarring enough to warrant the 'no back story' move by Nolan. Not charming or alluring enough to mask the total lack of motive. Even the visual aspect of Nolan's Joker had no originality and was stolen entirely from (the vastly superior) Ichi The Killer.
Okay I'll say it in a manner more appropriate to your sensitivity.
Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was better than Jack Nicholson's..
Correct me if I am wrong, but was Ledger's Joker meant to be funny?
What backstory? The moment he shoots Bruce's parents? Yeh brilliantly brilliant.. if we can even call that a 'story'.
Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was better than Jack Nicholson's..
Correct me if I am wrong, but was Ledger's Joker meant to be funny?
What backstory? The moment he shoots Bruce's parents? Yeh brilliantly brilliant.. if we can even call that a 'story'.
This whole no back story stuff could be a very simple explanation, was the original 3rd film not supposed to be set around his trial? If that is the case then they're bound to have planned on delving into his past, however what happened with Ledger kind of ruined that plan.
It was clear in Begins (as the title also suggests) is that it was the beginning of his story, basically it felt as if it was built around Batman vs The Joker, with a showdown in 2 and (possibly) his escaping from Arkham about half way through the 3rd, during his trial and having a final showdown with Batman, maybe resulting in Batman's having his back broken by Bane afterwards (as in the story and there is still potential for happening)
Obviously this is all guesswork basically, and what happened with Ledger means that only Nolan and his closest confidante's will ever know (unless he reveals it at some point).
It was clear in Begins (as the title also suggests) is that it was the beginning of his story, basically it felt as if it was built around Batman vs The Joker, with a showdown in 2 and (possibly) his escaping from Arkham about half way through the 3rd, during his trial and having a final showdown with Batman, maybe resulting in Batman's having his back broken by Bane afterwards (as in the story and there is still potential for happening)
Obviously this is all guesswork basically, and what happened with Ledger means that only Nolan and his closest confidante's will ever know (unless he reveals it at some point).
Very good point.. and this disappoints me because that sounds like it would have been a bloody good film.
RIP Ledger.
RIP Ledger.
There was a few of the original cast from the Matrix that held out for far too much money for the sequels and because of this they had to change the script in places, it'd be interesting to know by how much.
Sure I can accept that. All films to some degree are overrated, but it's not by any stretch the most overrated film ever.
Yes, Joker is always supposed to have a level of unhinged humour, hence his fecking name. Nolan did attempt this, but failed.
The 2nd paragraph of your post is one of the best things I've read in ages - "What backstory? The moment he shoots Bruce's parents? Yeh brilliantly brilliant.. if we can even call that a 'story'". Classic.
This is the back story of Nicholson's Joker...
We know that he was a thug on the street.
We know that during this time he kills Bruce Wayne's parents
We know that he then rises through the organised crime ranks
We know that he ends up 2nd in command to Carl Grissom
We know that he has an affair with Grissom's mistress
We know that Grissom tries to kill him in a set up
We know that Batman tries to apprehend him and he falls into acid
We know that Batman tries to save him as he falls
We know he undergoes backstreet plastic surgery
We know he then kills his former boss and takes his criminal empire
And we then arrive at the fully fledged Joker.
It's called character development, and if Nolan had cut 30 minutes of the exhaustingly superfluous action from The Dark Knight and simply been bothered to inject some of it into his Joker (just as he did so well with his Batman in 'Begins') it'd be so much more than a stylized action movie.
Nicholson and Ledger Jokers are too different to compare I think, totally different takes on the character.
(Although obviously Cesar Romero has both beat)
(Although obviously Cesar Romero has both beat)
He had the best goons that's for sure, they made some great noises when punched.
To be fair I rushed my response, I'll get back to you later on this after work.
This thread has gone wayyy off topic... it's now a Nolan/Batman thread..
Lol, I'm sorry. Seriously.
Spiderman 2 was very good. The third one was a bit shit though. Blade's another example of a very good comic book to film adaptation. It's a high octane movie...made perfectly for the big screen... you're not going to get Ran by Kurisawa...but only an idiot would expect these movies to be anything more than they're suppose to be. That said, I loved Spiderman 2 and the whole boy coming to terms with adulthood thing. But Spiderman's a pretty complex character...with plenty of inner struggles...and yeah SP2 did the comics justice. As for TDK, sure it was overhyped like all big budget blockbusters...but it was a fantastic movie to watch at the flicks, and it sounds even better at home on a decent sound system, especially the action sequences. The Joker made the movie though...and I'm not sure if the film would've been half as good without his performance. My only gripe was with HD's metamorphosis into Two Face - it was done far too quickly...and for this reason felt contrived.
Nicely done, lad! Nicely done.
You think that was good? Wait until you get a load off me.
This can go on for a while, and feck the thread further.
I've already done that one (I think).
And Mockers, while I regularly appreciate the sharpness of your wit - I never, ever want to get a load off you!
well it'd be on you to be fair.
Superhero movies are almost always shit. I still resent Mockney for making me watch Kickass.
Perhaps you should be back reading Homer, or Shakespeare. Even they don't explain agamemnon's background
Seriously dude, one of the points above merits their own story.
Geez, for crying out loud, should we have Alfred's backstory? Maggie? the chinese accountant dude? Oh.. wait a second, the way Bruce Wayne manages to get his fame and fortune deserves another movie?
EDIT : You assume it was the same Joker, Nolan never said they're that joker
No, we shouldn't have Alfred's back story. And even Bruce Wayne's 'love interests' get at least something of a back story.
A background story and character development are minimal requirements ffs, so don't act like I'm some kind of culture snob for not being able to ignore this fact.
The point is though that you're criticising them for not revealing the backstory of a character that they weren't finished with yet. They've had to remove him for reasons beyond their control, and so yes, his character definitely feels unfinished, but that doesn't make it a shit movie. They even played around with the whole backstory element with him, as has been mentioned already. They just couldn't finish it.
I agree that motivation and development are big parts of an antagonist, but it seems harsh to judge Dark Knight on that.
I prefer Batman Begins really (and prefer Memento, Prestige and Inception to that by some way), but they're both excellent films for what they are - superhero action blockbusters.
Aaaand, er, yeah, Matrix Revolutions was a bit shit, wasn't it?
Ok. name me the best movie your version.
What?
If you're gonna make demands of me at least bother to make them coherently, I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.
Apologies if English isn't your first language.
You seems to complain about every good movie, perhaps you should enlighten us as to which movie is you think the best of all time?
I see your point. But, to be frank, I'd rather have some character development before I've sat through 2 and a half hours of action sequences and faux husky voices.
I'm a massive Batman fan, I've always loved the mythic atmosphere of Gotham City, the tragedy that surrounds all the characters and the awesome villains - but I just thought that The Dark Knight was too formulaic, lacking in character development, lacking in plot and creatively lazy.
If Ledger hadn't died I think the movie's reception would've been very different (I'm sure it still would've been successful, but not the "Holy Grail of Superhero Movies" that it's so undeservingly become), and I don't think the view I hold toward the film would be at all controversial.
I realize I'm in the minority here and I'm cool with that. Films and literature and music are entirely subjective and I love that fact. One man's trash is another man's treasure!
And yes, the Matrix sequels are a fecking CRIME!
p.s great username, Ubik!
Haha, I see.
Well, the only movies I can recall complaining about are the Matrix sequels and The Dark Knight. If that constitutes "every good movie" to you then I'm surprised and sorry for you.
Anyway, what movie do I think is the best of all time? Wow, I couldn't really name you one movie because there are so many great films out there, top of my head (and it's late here...) these would all be in my "all time favourite" list -
Blade Runner
2001 A Space Odyssey
The Wicker Man (70's one)
Waking Life
Rosemary's Baby
Fight Club
Shawshank Redemption
Blue Velvet
Pulp Fiction
The Fly (Cronenburg)
Metropolis
Psycho (Hitchcock)
The Terminator
Halloween
The Matrix
Pan's Labyrinth
A Clockwork Orange
Repulsion
I could go on for fecking ages. All these films (and many more) are perfect in my eyes. I wouldn't wanna change anything about them.
All fair enough. See what you mean about the two and a half hours (wouldn't have minded it shorter), I guess I've imagined that they were keeping the mystery for that film, to be unravelled later on. The whole posthumous aspect of Ledger's performance does add something to it, shame we'll never get to see how that character would have developed further.
And cheers, just my little homage to a genius. Creating cyber dreamworlds 50 years back
Alright so I jumped the gun with my response, sorry about that.
You're right, Nicholson's character definitely had more of a backstory than Ledger's.. Though I don't remember comparing the two backstory's in the first place.
I get your point, though as someone said earlier we don't know what plans Nolan had for the third film - it could have all been about the Joker but I'm guessing that still wouldn't matter much to you because you would want to see the character development in Dark Knight. Fair enough.
For me it's simple though; Ledger's Joker was a serious, gritty, sadistic, scheming psychopath. Whereas Nicholson's was kind of camp.
Anyway, lets continue with the Matrix talk.
The Matrix was so much fun that you really wanted the sequels to be great. But they weren't and increasingly not so. You fear 2 further sequels would be worse still.
The matrix trilogy was basically finished tying up all the knots, the 4 and 5 will have the chance to start fresh, so i'm keeping my judgement on that.
It could go either way
I think the Wachowski brothers screwed the sequels by having Neo fly at the end of the first one. My initial impression at the end of the first film was that Neo would wreck the Matrix by flying around in broad daylight, all of the people in the matrix would see this and begin to question their reality. This view was strengthened by the fact that they used a song entitled "wake up" at the end of the film whilst the credits rolled.
Perhaps they didn't intend for there to be any sequels.
Perhaps they didn't intend for there to be any sequels.
Thats how I interpreted the ending of the first one as well.
Straight away in Reloaded you knew they'd chickened out of it when those three Agents showed up and Neo couldn't just explode them like he did Smith, upgrades my arse. They just realised they'd made Neo too godly and still needed to milk two more films.
Straight away in Reloaded you knew they'd chickened out of it when those three Agents showed up and Neo couldn't just explode them like he did Smith, upgrades my arse. They just realised they'd made Neo too godly and still needed to milk two more films.
I thought the exact same thing.
Not at all, Neo told Morpheous that The Oracle, is a system of control designed to guide "The One" who contains the reset code for The Matrix, back to the source. This then reboots The Matrix and it all starts again.
In the past, nobody in Zion knew about the system of control and therefore did all they could to find The One who would "save Zion" and free humankind. As the Machines are not actually capable of a lying he was indeed saving Zion and freeing humankind but not in the way they believed. He would save Zion from the Machines by brokering a deal and he would save humankind from their opression by brokering that deal too. Anyone who rejected The Matrix was free to leave and go to the new Zion.
The reason it is still left open is because the Machines are still opressing billions of humans and this time Morpheous knows that he must keep Neo away from the Oracle and away from the Source. If he can do this there will be a cataclysmic crash and The Matrix will never recover, wether this means that the billions of humans will die or will be free remains to be seen.
There are lots of paths it can take which is why I'm excited.
Another point I am interested in is what will come of Neo, will he be a normal person in this reboot that must find his way again or will he be working for the Machines as they refused to release his body after he destroyed Smith.
They should have a scene where Neo goes surfing with Patrick Swayze like he used to when he was younger.