The Dark Knight

[dreamcastrocks]

I was thinking this movie obviously left us wanting more and left it totally open for the next one. My question is who is going to play the Joker? So I was thinking what actors do you all think could pull it off and make the character similar to that of Ledgers? I was thinking maybe Depp, as he really gets into his characters pretty well and is weird enough to pull it off, what do all of you think? Who in your opinions could pull it off?

Nolan won't cast the Joker again. He will just move onto the next villian.

I'd love to see how he would do The Riddler.

 

[Pariah]

Nolan won't cast the Joker again. He will just move onto the next villian.

Why not? I think we could see the Joker again and I think someone else could do it well--especially that we've seen what madness incarnate does for the character on screen. I like that he was a physical character, so I wouldn't mind seeing someone like Russell Crowe take a shot at it.

I'd love to see how he would do The Riddler.

I really think the Riddler would be a let-down. He's sort of cheesy by nature, and not really mad at all. He's always been in the business of villaning for the dough, and not for the sake of being evil. That's what makes Joker such a powerful architype: he's madness/evil incarnate.

My guess, however, is that Harvey Dent/Two-Face is the villan in the next Batfilm.

Also, the same thing goes for the Penguin as goes for the Riddler. I don't think he's compelling enough to carry the part of the foil by himself. But, if you're interested in a great take on the Oswald Cobblepot's (the Penguin) psyche, there's a great one-shot comic book on the stands now that's a very good, if chilling, story:"Joker's Asylum: The Penguin."

You must be registered for see images

 

[Covert Rain]

Horsepoop.

Marlon Brando, James Dean, Robert Downey Jr. were seriously damaged men before they got into acting; they were druggies, alcoholics, and high risk-takers to begin with. Like most stars, they went through an enormous amount of rejection and then sudden adulation. It was very likely the many pressures of fame and fortune that tore them apart.
Marilyn Monroe -- Acting, or the parts she played, had nothing to do with her gradual dissolution. Booze and drugs and a damaged personality did. Or Bob Dylan. Kurt Cobain. Belushi.

...and Paul Newman is the farthest thing from a method actor.

Heath Ledger wasn't a true method actor, anyhow, because according to the cast, director, producer, etc. he was his normal funny self as soon as he was out of makeup. I heard interviews today about this very subject with the Director and Producer and they said he was excited about the role, and excited about the quality of work he was doing.

Acting is WORK, as well as art. It is really hard physical and mental work to play different types of roles well, as much or more than it is an emotional strain. Then there's the simple reality of shooting a big picture on deadline -- Schedules for the leads can often run from 4 AM makeup call to midnight, sometimes stuck off on location with a hundred other prima donas for months.

Martin Sheen had a heart attack making Apocalypse Now -- not Marlon Brando -- and it was purely from physical stress and exhaustion. Peter O'Toole had a very hard time recovering from Lawrence of Arabia -- because the shooting and location schedules and the sheer demands of carrying the movie nearly killed him -- not because he had to act like he was raped and tortured by Bedouins.

To blame this role for having anything to do with his death is nonsense. He'd already moved on to other roles -- why don't you blame those parts? He didn't turn homosexual or fall apart after Brokeback Mountain, which he said was an incredibly tough and challenging role for him emotionally and artistically.

He was in very heavy demand, doing one tough role after another with not much of a break, so no surprise he was stressed out, tired, and popping pills like a careless damn fool. Nevertheless, people who'd seen him in the week or two before his death said he was hugely enjoying being Daddy to his little girl.

Typically an actor that would be that impacted by the part of Joker would have a hard time separating himself from the role and find it hard to switch off. You always hear about some actors staying in character through filming because the part has such a heavy mental toll to go back and forth. Heath didn't seem to have that problem at all. To suggest he was acting inbetween takes, after filming etc..when he was hanging out with these people is crap.

You either can separate yourself from a part or you can't. Heath obviously could based on what everyone around him was saying. So that doesn't support the theory that part led to his death or had a devastating impact on him. He had already moved on and was filming another role. We have heard nothing to suggest from the other cast or director from his current film that he was having any issues either letting go of the Joker role.

By all accounts Ledger was a dedicated workaholic when playing ANY ROLE. So I think that acting in general was taking it's toll on this guy. However, to say this one specific role (the Joker) had a devastating effect on him is pure conjecture of the tabloid kind.

 

[Mulli]

Aren't here any other Batman villians they can use besides the ones we have seen in the movies?

 

[Pariah]

Aren't here any other Batman villians they can use besides the ones we have seen in the movies?

Not iconic ones, no.

 

[Mulli]

Not iconic ones, no.

I couldn't come up with any others. King Tut from the 60's just doesn't do it for me either.

 

[Pariah]

Some of the bigger ones of those that are left are Bane, Killer Crock or Clayface...or, some that I think could be translated to the screen without being too super-heroy...

The Calendar Man (might make for a cool story if they do "The Long Halloween")

You must be registered for see images

The Ventriloquist

You must be registered for see images

 

[Chaz]

I would expect the next movie to have more than one villain in it.

So far it seems to be the trend with Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow in the first one and both the Joker and Two-face in this one.

The Riddler or Penguin would be most likely with another character getting lesser or introductory treatment.

 

[MadCardDisease]

The Riddler or Penguin would be most likely with another character getting lesser or introductory treatment.

That is my guess also

 

[UncleChris]

People can compare ashtrays and sea lions if they like.... but to what end?

I'm simply pointing out that the characters, as well as the whole movie, were done very, very differently. Heath's character portrayal wouldn't have worked in Burton's Batman, and Nicholson wouldn't work in this one. The whole set up was different: Burton's surreal with over the top characters and sets, this one with a dark, gritty, realistic feel.

Fine... say you like one over the other, but to compare the two jokers as to who portrayed it best is a waste of time, IMHO. Nicholson was the best in his venue, Heath in his.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

Why not? I think we could see the Joker again and I think someone else could do it well--especially that we've seen what madness incarnate does for the character on screen. I like that he was a physical character, so I wouldn't mind seeing someone like Russell Crowe take a shot at it.

I really think the Riddler would be a let-down. He's sort of cheesy by nature, and not really mad at all. He's always been in the business of villaning for the dough, and not for the sake of being evil. That's what makes Joker such a powerful architype: he's madness/evil incarnate.

My guess, however, is that Harvey Dent/Two-Face is the villan in the next Batfilm.

Also, the same thing goes for the Penguin as goes for the Riddler. I don't think he's compelling enough to carry the part of the foil by himself. But, if you're interested in a great take on the Oswald Cobblepot's (the Penguin) psyche, there's a great one-shot comic book on the stands now that's a very good, if chilling, story:"Joker's Asylum: The Penguin."

You must be registered for see images

How would that play out?

 

[Pariah]

How would that play out?

Spoiler

He busts out of Arkham Asylum and swears to get his pound of flesh from the Batman for letting Rachel die?

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

I'd like to see them trot out a more obscure villain like Deacon Blackfire...

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

For those that don't know about Deacon Blackfire, here is a pretty good, quick review of the Batman: The Cult, which describe what Deacon does to Batman:

Batman: The Cult Review


Controversial, but undeniably good.



by Hilary Goldstein

You must be registered for see images attach

June 9, 2005 - By all appearances in 1988, Batman: The Cult was going to be a good, but standard, Batman tale. However, just a few pages into the first issue proved to me then, as it does now, that writer Jim Starlin and artist Bernie Wrightson were determined to rattle the cages. It begins with Batman abducted, a prisoner of charismatic Deacon Blackfire and his subterranean band of homeless followers. Kept hanging for weeks and barely fed, Batman slowly succumbs to Blackfire's brainwashing. Yes, even the Batman can be broken and Blackfire does just that.

Starlin makes certain we catch every moment of Batman's indoctrination into the cult, for the explanation of how Batman's will is being worn down to the Dark Knight's vivid hallucinations. Blackfire preaches justice, speaks the same message as the Batman, but says that brutality is the only way. It takes time, but Batman comes to agree with that position. After all, how could anyone doubt Deacon Blackfire?

The controversy comes, in part, from the murder -- the one Batman apparently commits. Armed with a machine-gun and hallucinating, Batman opens fire on what he thinks is the Joker. The dying man then changes to look like James Gordon and finally the truth is revealed. However, the murder is shown in such a fashion to one could argue Batman didn't actually do the killing. But those are just the hardcore unable to accept the truth -- Batman murdered a man while under the influence of a cult, incapable of controlling his actions or trusting his own senses.

The Cult is a brutal, dark story, but it's absolutely enthralling. There's perhaps a bit too much reliance on talking head news reports that look and feel too similar to The Dark Knight Returns, but overall this is a well-told mini-series. Batman has rarely been pushed to these limits and it's refreshing to see that it's not some hokey plot involving people from Bruce's childhood. This is Batman at his lowest and it takes a good 50 pages for him to recover even after he's free of the cult.

Interestingly, The Cult also features Jason Todd as Robin and is most likely the only Todd trade outside of A Death in the Family. For once he's not annoying. This is certainly his strongest performance, one last hoorah before death.

This is Starlin and Wrightson at their finest. While everyone clamors to read Year One and The Long Halloween, comic fans should take the time to pick up Batman: The Cult. This is easily one of the best Batman stories every told.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Jersey Girl]

Okay, finally saw this. Stupid busy schedule.

Funny how many people were crapping on Ledger in the beginning of this thread thinking he wouldnt pull off this role or pull it off well. I know its onl;y previews but seems to me that he probably did do a "better" joker than good ole Jack.

Definitely better than Jack. Incredible performance.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

It's kind of cool, because he couldn't finish the job, Johnny Depp, Collin Farrel and Jude Law will each be taking over for three parts of it I guess. Not sure how it's going to work...

Yeah. Not sure how that will work, but I think that's pretty cool.

One thing that I thought was cool (and this is a REAL spoiler, so I REALLY recommend you don't read it unless you've seen the film):

Spoiler

People in the theater clapped and went crazy when Jim Gordon reappeared. That was a great moment in the movie, and I thought it was really well delivered line when he got to tell his kid that he saved the Batman.

Oh heck yeah. That was very cool. Loved it!

Still thinking about it. F'n awesome.

BTW, there were a bunch of 6-8 year olds there with their parents. I don't know what those parents were thinking. A) Those kids are not going to sleep well all week and B) the movie was more than 2.5 hours.

C). It's rated PG-13. There's a reason that the rating system is in place. All this recent talk about the movie being too dark for kids? Then don't take them.

Its hard to beleive that with all the supermodels Bruce dates his heart would belong to an unattractive woman like Gyllenhal.

Other than that, there's too many talented and pretty while not being super-model gorgeous actresses out there, with name recognition. (hence my list of possible candidates).

Wow. Out of all the things you can say about the movie, this is what you guys pick? I thought she did a fine job and, not to sound silly, but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So, the world only has room for "pretty" performers? Then please tell me when I can stop seeing Jack Black and other "less attractive" men in leading roles sans shirt and, sometimes, pants.

This movie was freaking incredible. I think all the actors did a great job. And I absolutely love Morgan Freeman and Michael Cain. Great cast. Oh, and put me in the Ledger-for-Oscar camp. Outstanding, outstanding performance.

 

[SuperSpck]

Some of the bigger ones of those that are left are Bane, Killer Crock or Clayface...or, some that I think could be translated to the screen without being too super-heroy...

The Calendar Man (might make for a cool story if they do "The Long Halloween")


The Ventriloquist

You must be registered for see images

I think the big problem is that while these guys work in the comics they wouldn't translate as well to film. I would be especially wary of bringing the larger villians like Bane and Croc to life as it'd take an almost Hulk-ish CGI effort to give them real impact.
Clayface could be interesting in a murder/mystery style, provided they don't take it to MI3 levels of silly identity switching (oh, I suppose it'd still be fine, I just like taking shots at that movie). The same could be said for Calendar Man (although at his best he was just doing a Hannabal Lecter impression).

Two-Face and Riddler are the strongest two left.

 

[Pariah]

The same could be said for Calendar Man (although at his best he was just doing a Hannabal Lecter impression).

I think Julian Day is just a scarier/less goofy Riddler.

I'd wouldn't mind seeing a film adaption of "The Long Halloween." You could do it with smaller-named actors in the villain parts and get away with it because they're all in it so briefly.

You must be registered for see images attach

Amazon.com
It's refreshing when you find a Batman story that both is epic and successfully explores the core of a resolutely explored character. Taking as its catalyst a sub-plot from the seminal Batman: Year One, the story revolves around murders occurring on national holidays, the victims connected to Mob boss "The Roman." Dubbed "Holiday," the killer uses an untraceable handgun and leaves small trinkets at the scene. Plenty of suspects are available, but the truth is something the Dark Knight never suspected. This series scores two major coups: it brilliantly portrays the transfer of Gotham rule to the supervillains and charts the horrific transformation of Harvey Dent from hardened D.A. to the psychotic Two-Face. Both orbit around the sharply portrayed relationship between Dent, Commissioner Gordon, and Batman: a triumvirate of radically different perceptions of Justice. It is always great to see the formative incarnation of Batman, drenched in noir here.Jeph Loeb's writing is keenly aware that Batman is a detective, and Tim Sale portrays a Gotham that is a fertile breeding ground for corruption and madness. Here, Batman is coming to terms with the potent image he projects and the madness it attracts. There are many fine Batman stories, but the ones that capture the spirit with extreme clarity are few. On this alone, The Long Halloween comes highly recommended. Masterfully executed, this is an excellent chance to revisit the world of Batman as fresh as in the summer of 1939. --Danny Graydon

 

[SuperSpck]

I worry that they'd be able to do the adaption justice in the timespan of a movie. Unless they did two with a nasty cliffhanger.

 

[Pariah]

I worry that they'd be able to do the adaption justice in the timespan of a movie. Unless they did two with a nasty cliffhanger.

Here's the litmus test: The Watchmen. If they can make that work in a 2 hour film, they can make TLH work, IMO.

 

[ActingWild]

Wow. Out of all the things you can say about the movie, this is what you guys pick? I thought she did a fine job and, not to sound silly, but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So, the world only has room for "pretty" performers? Then please tell me when I can stop seeing Jack Black and other "less attractive" men in leading roles sans shirt and, sometimes, pants.

This movie was freaking incredible. I think all the actors did a great job. And I absolutely love Morgan Freeman and Michael Cain. Great cast. Oh, and put me in the Ledger-for-Oscar camp. Outstanding, outstanding performance.

Ah, but Jack Black hasn't portrayed the love interest in as a dramatic movie as this. Usually those actor's play those roles and it adds to the humor. I'm not saying Maggie has no talent, nor am I saying that the role just needs a pretty face. There are several attractive and talented actresses out there that I think would have made more sense.

And it's not just a guy thing, because the two people that were bothered more by it than I was, were my sister and my wife (my sister actually said that Gylenhaal distracted her from the story because she just didn't buy all these men fawning over her).

It doesn't change how brilliant this movie was or take away from Maggie's talent level, or that Batman can't be above "looks." If she wasn't the love/beauty interest for every guy in the movie, then it wouldn't be a big deal, but that's how the role was written.

However, beauty IS in the eye of the beholder as you say, and we've all got different eyes. So, those that find her attractive won't have an issue with it.

I personally wouldn't have mentioned it if I thought she was at least moderately attractive. As it is, I think she looks too much like Skeletor's little sister....and unless it's a comedy, that look doesn't work as the beauty for me. So, she's kind of my anti-type.

I guess, to be fair, I'd be just as upset if they cast Steve Buscemi as the next James Bond.

 

[Gaddabout]

I'm more attracted to Gylenhaal than super models, but then I've always found super models to be some of the uglier women on the planet. Modern aesthetic values are boring. Gylenhaal has some character, some uniqueness to her face.

 

[nashman]

^ Umm to each his own but Gyllenhal is NOT good looking think you need to look again. Wow, I guess if you think looking like a anerexic man is character, she has plenty of it.

 

[Chaplin]

This is ridiculous. 3 pages dedicated to how ugly Maggie Gyllenhall is? Why doesn't everyone say that she is better than Katie Holmes and move on with their lives??

 

[nashman]

Chap I won't say it because KH would have been better! At least she is attractive and since she played her character good in the first one, it would have been WAY better had she played the same part in this one IMHO. Sorry just having an ugly girl play the part that guys are supposed to be all in love with was just silly.

 

[Mulli]

Chap I won't say it because KH would have been better! At least she is attractive and since she played her character good in the first one, it would have been WAY better had she played the same part in this one IMHO. Sorry just having an ugly girl play the part that guys are supposed to be all in love with was just silly.

Please let that not be true. I haven't seen this yet, but if MG is worse than KH, this show is doomed. KH was turrible.