 | Messenger
|
|
Visionary notes that both he and shrike were mildly positive in our assessments of the film.
| |
|
Subj: No, not really. I just like a spirited debate as much as the next person. It's a break from boredom (and watching the trailer again :). Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 08:09:28 am EST
| Reply Subj: Man, you really, really care that people love this first glimpse of the Joker.
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 10:29:58 pm EST |
|
|
|
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >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 knew that, actually. And while I think its an OK comic, I don't think "Killing Joke" shows the definitive version of the character.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ... 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?
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > 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. 
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >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,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm mocking him for taking his role too seriously.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > His job to make believe?
> >
> > 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!"
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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'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.
> >
> > > > > >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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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."
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >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.
> > > >
> > > > The Crow?? In what way?
> > >
> > >
> > > In the way that they both look like greasy haired mimes.
> >
> > Well, the greaser-haired mime that is the Joker predates the Crow by about fifty or sixty years.
|
|
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2003-2024 by Powermad Software
