http://www.atasteforthetheatrical.com/deathtrap/default.htm


I can't say I especially like the Joker's "grim and gritty" look. At the very least comb your hair. But I'm really looking forward to the movie to see what they do with Harvey Dent, who's my all time favorite supervillain (and who, just my luck, isn't in the trailer at all).

There's a lot of cool stuff in there, but then there's stuff I'm not so sure of... and Ledger's Joker pretty much tops that list. The Joker has never really worked 100% as a character for me anyways, and I'm not convinced the extra level of grim and grittiness is going to solve that for me. I'm especially not convinced by the actor's delivery. Even by the end of the trailer, I was sick of hearing him draw out his wooorrrrrrds. It's like he started with a bad Nickelson impersonation and then just made it more generic.

We'll see though... I've grown more fond of the last one over time, and more forgiving of its flaws. I'm looking forward to this one.

According to wikipedia, Heath Ledger spent a month alone in a hotel room to develop his "Joker" persona, which is about the worst excess of "method acting" I've ever heard of. The character is an over the top, mass murdering clown. Its not a role that requires a lot of range. Caesar Romero did fine and he wouldn't even shave off his mustache. Same with Mark Hamill, who will never be mistaken for Lawrence Olivier.



The villain's master plan and subsequent death ("I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"?!?) still bug me, but I thought they did a good job with Bats's origin and most of the supporting cast. I enjoyed it more than any of the previous Bat films and I think this one will be good too.

To me, Heath Ledger IS the Joker. That picture of him saying "Evening, Commisioner" reminded me of every clown-induced nightmare I had as a kid. I felt my stomach physically clench. I love Nolan's films, because unlike Shumaucher and even Burton to a degree, he takes this universe serious. Not serious to the point it isn't entertaing, but serious to the point its realistic, that it could conceivably occur in our world. Make-up and a grimy scarred smile makes the Joker more menacing to me than a chemical bath could. No city-wide release of poison perfume gas from giant floats, no horrible rap number in a museum, no over-the-top gizmos and gadgets that the Nicholson Joker had, just pure pale-face horror. I love what Gordon says in the trailer "No ID, no nothing. Just custom-clothes, lint and a lot of knives." No frying hand-buzzer, no boxing-glove gun, just back-to-basics Joker, stripped down his his mentally unbalanced core. The Joker isn't supposed to make you laugh like Nicholson's Joker tried (and failed) to do, he's supposed to make you so terrified of his uncompromising chaotic view of the world that you sleep with a night-light on.

On top of all this, a few years ago I may have joined you in being skeptical about Ledger but he's proved his acting chops with "Brokeback Mountain." He's come a long way since his teen movies from the late 90's. I don't see Nicholson in his performance at all. I see someone with the potential to be a better Joker than Nicholson ever was. In Nolan I trust.

That's a very glib statement and one that's completely unfounded and without merit. You're taking the "it's just comics, why give them any respect?" approach, which is ironic since you're a comic-fan. That's something I would expect to come from one of those generic mainstream reviewers who long for the silly days of "Batman and Robin" and don't understand why "comic-movies had to grow up." Not you.

If I may, you have no idea what goes into playing the Joker or what process Ledger had to go through. To boil down the role of a psychotic killer into a simple one-note performance is to damn his Joker before it even hits the screen. If Ledger wasn't trying at all and treating it like a paycheck, he's lazy and disrespectful. If he's taking the role seriously, he's excessive and self-absorbed. You just can't please internet-critics. There's always something to complain about.

If you want further proof that playing a psychopathic killer takes real acting talent, see "No Country for Old Men." If Ledger can pull out a performance half as good as the serial-killer from that movie, then you'll do an 180 on your "its not a role that requires alot of talent" statement.

> Caesar Romero did fine and he wouldn't even shave off his mustache.

Wha-Wha-What?!? Sorry, but your whole argument goes down the toilet when you make that ludicrious claim. You're either looking at the past through rose-colored glasses or have never actually picked up a Batman comic with the Joker, as he was meant to be, in it. Look, the Batman series is okay for a campy laugh, but Romero was NOT threatening or even unnerving. I'm not pissing on Romero. That Joker is great, if you want a Joker based on the awful, campy, REALLY comic-code approved Batman books from the 50's through to the mid 60's. If you want Joker as Bob Kane INTENDED him to be, (and the interpretation that creators like O'Neil and Miller brought back decades later) then Romero is NO Joker! I'm sorry, may he RIP, but you've GOT to be kidding! I think we have very different ideas on what makes a good Joker.

>Same with Mark Hamill, who will never be mistaken for Lawrence Olivier.

I did love Mark Hamill in the Batman cartoon series. But that's voice-acting. A tad easier than actually embodying the Joker wouldn't you say?


I do too. I just wish you weren't so dismissive of Ledger's Joker. Hope I didn't come off as too harsh. I'm just very excited about this film and I think the trailer is all sorts of kick ass.

I'm not a huge Joker fan (he's probably 4th or 5th on the list of the Bat Rogue's gallery in terms of appeal), and griming him up in an attempt to make him more realistic and scary doesn't add to the character's appeal. And Ledger definitely deserves to be tweaked for his preparedness for the role: locking yourself in a hotel room and living off room service for a month is goofy no matter how you slice it, and excessive for any part. Read "Mad Love" and "Killing Joke", watch some of the Dini/Timm cartoons and Romero gad about madly, and one can get the gist of the character.

And as I aid in my original post, despite my misgivings about Ledger I think the trailer still looks good, and look forward to seeing the movie itself.

Ahh, I thought Nicholson was a brilliant Joker-- but then, I adore that movie and have seen it, oh, hundreds of times, probably.

Well, Brokeback was shite, but Ledger's convinced me in the trailer that he could be a good Joker. There is no Heath Ledger there-- there's just a maniacal clown. Should be good.

I've read "Killing Joke." Do you know who's also read it? Ledger. He's using it as source material for his Joker interpretation.

I don't understand. From your comments, you seem to prefer that Ledger put no work into the part. You mock him because he's taking the role seriously, which is something any Batman fan should be thrilled about. I suppose people thought Brando was "excessive" for his ground-breaking method acting during 'On the Waterfront' and DeNiro was "excessive" for gaining 40 pounds for his role in 'Raging Bull.' Now I'm not making comparisons between 'Dark Knight' and those movies, but my point is this... all I care about is how much work Ledger's putting into this role, and IMO the more the better. Whether or not you think he's a Hollywood pretty-boy has no impact on the quality of the movie. So I hope you haven't already prejudged Ledger. Because from my take on the trailer, I didn't even see Ledger, just the Joker.

Yeah I agree, I think it'll be awesome. And I hope you thought Brokeback was shite for a legitimate reason, and not because of the "OMG GAYS R TEH GROSS LEWL!!1" factor. To me the movie showed that Ledger is a serious actor and really changed my opinion of him.

As I said before, the Joker just never fully worked as a character. That's why I much prefer Harley Quinn... you're not supposed to take her seriously as a real threat, so the clowning around works.

I don't really think too highly of the whole serial killer angle either, as serial killers only are successful as long as you can't find them. As soon as they're standing in the middle of a street with a machine-gun laden motorcycle zeroing in on them, they're pretty much done.

So I have problems with the Joker either way.



I've got no beef against Ledger as an actor... but we watched this trailer in my office today and two other coworkers quickly chimed in noting the Nicholson voice (one said half Jack Nicholson, half Jack Palance... which I can hear too.) Regardless, he delivers almost all of the lines the same way throughout the trailer... by drawwwwwwwwing out occassional wooorrrrrrrrrds. In the trailer, at least, I find it a bit cheesy.

Ever see or read "It"? Or heard of a jolly fellow named John Wayne Gacy? Believe me, nothing's scarier than a homicidal clown. Joker seems alot more plausible to me than Harley Quinn, who I admit I've only seen in a couple Batman cartoons.


Well, when I said it's good that the new Batman films are more realistic than previous interpretations, obviously there's a point where it can become so realistic it's not entertaining. If the whole movie was Joker luring people into various alleys and knifing them, the movie would get boring pretty quickly. Let's also remember that there's a man in a giant bat-suit who jumps from building to building and takes the law into his own hands, and he hasn't been caught either.


Sorry, I don't see it. I really think people are looking for reasons not to like the new Joker, either because of how they think the Joker *should* be or who has previously played him (such as you) or because they have preconceived notions and bias about Ledger (shrike).

I knew that, actually. And while I think its an OK comic, I don't think "Killing Joke" shows the definitive version of the character.




I'm mocking him for taking his role too seriously.


>which is something any Batman fan should be thrilled about. I suppose people thought Brando was "excessive" for his ground-breaking method acting during 'On the Waterfront' and DeNiro was "excessive" for gaining 40 pounds for his role in 'Raging Bull.'


If they did those things while locked in a hotel room for a month, yeah, that would be excessive.


>Now I'm not making comparisons between 'Dark Knight' and those movies, but my point is this... all I care about is how much work Ledger's putting into this role, and IMO the more the better. Whether or not you think he's a Hollywood pretty-boy has no impact on the quality of the movie.

I've never seen Heath Ledger movie, so I have no preconcieved notions about him.


>So I hope you haven't already prejudged Ledger. Because from my take on the trailer, I didn't even see Ledger, just the Joker.


I kind of saw the Crow, which isn't the Joker at all.

... You just said in your very last post 'read "Killing Joke" ..... and one can get the gist of the character.' And now you're saying you DON'T think "Killing Joke" shows the definitive version of the character. So which is it?


Um... perhaps I'm wrong... but isn't that what an actor's SUPPOSED to do? You're mocking him for being an overachiever at his job, basically.


What does the hotel room have anything to do with anything? You seem to be obsessed with Ledger's hotel room. And how do you know they weren't in a hotel room rehearsing?


Well, that's good. But you seem to think his month in a hotel-room will do harm to his Joker role instead of making it better, which you still haven't explained beyond saying it's "excessive."


The Crow?? In what way?

I said it as part of a much longer list of other source material, which taken together give the person the gist of the character.




His job to make believe? I guess I am. Just like I'd mock somebody who prepares to play Helen Keller by walking around with earmuffs and a blindfold for a month.



If he spent a month alone in a hotel room, who is he rehearsing with?

And the entire hotel room comment was brought up as an aside to Vizh's comment on how he didn't think too much of the interpretation of the character, and I pointed out the excess Ledger took to prepare for the role.



I did no such thing. I said I didn't think much of how the character was portrayed, for reasons I pointed out in my very first post (too grim and gritty), then I pointed out the silly lengths Ledger apparantly went through to prepare for the role.




In the way that they both look like greasy haired mimes.

You mentioned two comic stories, the Dini cartoons and Romero's interpretation from the 60's. I wouldn't call that a long list. If "Killing Joke" makes that very exclusive cut, then obviously its interpretation is pretty spot-on in your mind. And yet when I brought up the fact that Ledger had read and studied the Joker from that very book, you backtracked and said "well that's not really the definitive version of Joker anyway." You can't have your cake and eat it too.


Yes. It's called acting. That's what he does. He's an actor. So you basically just hate actors then? Because their job IS "make believe."

>I guess I am. Just like I'd mock somebody who prepares to play Helen Keller by walking around with earmuffs and a blindfold for a month.

Being blind and deaf are real afflictions, so if someone did that for a month and then thought they could be Helen Keller, I can see how people would think he were trivializing the plight of people with real disabilities. To my knowledge no one has a case of Joker-itis. There's no one who can legitimately say "Hey, that's not how a Joker really acts!" as opposed to a blind or deaf person who could say "Hey, that's not how a blind/deaf person acts!"



I'm still not clear on how "excess" (and I'm not sure it is) is a bad thing when a actor is trying to get into a role. You could call it excess. I call it hard work.


Too grim and gritty? Why, because he doesn't put make-up over a mustache? The new Batman is grim and gritty. The comics are grim and gritty. Batman is meant to be grim and gritty. The Joker in the "Killing Joke" was very grim and gritty. You don't get much grimmer and grittier than what he did to Barbara and Commisioner Gordon in that book.

Would you rather too campy?


Well, the greaser-haired mime that is the Joker predates the Crow by about fifty or sixty years.

I had a problem with his character speaking as if he had marbles in his mouth the whole time, and the movie just bored me in general. And trust me, I had to write papers on the damned thing, so I've analyzed it to death, as it were. You should know me well enough to know I don't judge something based on "teh gays."

As far as Ang Lee movies go, I prefer Hulk.

Yeah, I knew you probably had a good reason. Just wanted to make sure, because I've heard lots of people bash it based on the "gay cowboys" premise.


I liked 'Hulk.' Very underrated superhero movie. "OMG HULK NOT SMASHING ENUFF!!!1 WANT MONEY BACK!!!1100" ~ Typical fanboy.

Plausible isn't terribly important in my "man dresses as a bat" entertainment. I've only seen her in the cartoon, and I enjoyed the fact that she deflated the very self importance that the mythic take builds up. I don't want a campy tone overall, but as with the "X-Files" humorous episodes, I think it's great when a show can step back from being so full of itself.

After all, "Why so serious?"


See above. It's the very reason that making him John Wayne Gacy doesn't make the character better in my eyes. Making him a serial killer in clown make-up just makes him a slasher villain to me.



You're welcome to disagree, but it's very much unfair to tell someone "your opinions aren't valid because you have some prior bias" when I could and did tell you exactly what I didn't like about what I saw in the trailer. If you can't hear him drawling his every other line, then maybe I'm not the one who has blinders on. It's not a subtle speech pattern...

Really, when you taken away the "frustrated comedian" aspect of the character, the Joker just becomes a mass murderer with an interesting visual and a perverse fixation on a particular hero. He's Sabretooth, or *shudder* Carnage.

When "plausible" isn't important, we get dreck like 'Batman and Robin' and the Batman TV series. A certain level of plausibility is needed. I like to suspend my disbelief, but I can't do that if there's not some measure of realism.



Uhm... Vizh, the Batman movies aren't a TV show. They're special events that occur every three years. If this was just one in a series of episodes, I would agree with you and be all for a humorous installment. But this is a movie series.


Ooooh. Touche!


I don't think he should be John Wayne Gacy. I was just pointing out that yes, clowns can be threatening. Take it from someone who's hated clowns since he was a wee lad.


Well the "prior bias" part was the fact that you were comparing him to Nicholson's Joker. If you saw that trailer from a fresh perspective you might not think Ledger's acting was derivative. Ever since the Joker was announced for this film, the net's been abuzz about how the next Joker won't compare to Nicholson's, so I think people are looking for evidence of a rip-off, when there's really nothing there. So he has a creepy drawl. I don't find it Nicholson-esque. And I noticed that plenty of times, he sounded completely different from any previous Joker interpretation like when he gleefully exclaims "like me" before the building blows up.