bask in its glory.
bask in its glory.
The White Stripes 9/18
Batman, Sponge Bob.. it's all the same to me.
Aw yeah, there's the pathetic excuse for a villain I was looking for out of Heath. Good Heath. Way to fulfill everyone's expectations that you weren't remotely up to this task.
i actually think ledger looks like he might be OK. less of a caricature than Nicholson was, and a little more deranged. I don't think the film looks very good though.
some interview snippets from both Ledger and Nicholson:
source.DRE: Is doing the role of The Joker scary after Jack Nicholson did it so well?
HL: I’m not going for the same thing he went for. That would be stupid. It is also two very different directors with different styles. Tim Burton did a more fantastical kind of thing and Chris Nolan is doing nitty gritty handheld realism. I love what [Jack] did and that is part of why I want to do that role. I remember seeing it and thinking how much fun it would be to put on that mask and attempt to do something along those lines. But it would obviously be murder if I tried to imitate what he did.
sourceMTV: What do you think of another actor, Heath Ledger, playing the Joker in next summer's "The Dark Knight"?
Nicholson: Let me be the way I'm not in interviews. I'm furious. I'm furious. [He laughs.] They never asked me about a sequel with the Joker. I know how to do that! Nobody ever asked me.
MTV: It was never brought up?
Nicholson: No. It's like, in any area, you can't believe the reasons things do or don't happen. Not asking me how to do the sequel is that kind of thing. Maybe it's not a mistake. Maybe it was the right thing, but to be candid, I'm furious.
MTV: I'm surprised to hear you sounding competitive about a role like that.
Nicholson: Well, the Joker comes from my childhood. That's how I got involved with it in the first place. It's a part I always thought I should play.
MTV: Will you see the new film?
Nicholson: I'm not inclined to watch it because of what I said. But if it's a good movie, I'll catch up with it somewhere. I don't think they ever really captured Tim Burton's spirit [since he stopped being involved]. They kind of drove the franchise into the ground. Tim Burton's a genius. He had the right take on it. That's why I did the movie. I did the movie based on a single conversation with him. We both come from the cartoon world originally. We had similar ideas. Tim said [the Joker] should have a humorous dark side to him. [Burton is] one of the great moviemakers. I think the world of him. He's the most unassuming man. And he doesn't feel pressure. That's what I love about him. Once he's in there, he's smiling making the movie. That's it!
I personally think he looks pretty good from the trailer, but let's wait until the movie is out until we start judging.
Well, they're not, but they are.
All I can say is if Christian Bale is in it, I'm watching it. He's got star power.
the busy bee has no time for sorrow.
Well, they are. Technically even a prequel is still a sequel.
they aren't sequels. they aren't prequels. the storyline has changed. the tim burton films don't continue from the christopher nolan films, and vice-versa. they draw from the same sources, but have no direct depedency on each other.
You're right, and you're not. In the context of each individual set's world, no they are not sequels. But in our world they most definitely are. It is the sixth Batman movie.
No, not remotely end of story. You're talking about two different kinds of sequence.
according to Randy, that shot by shot remake of Psycho was a sequel.
*based upon tedious fact checking.
That was a remake. That's not even a good comparison. But yes, it is.
Gentlemen, I beg you to please try and think reasonable for a moment. First, is Batman Forever a sequel to Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns? You'll say yes. By whose decree? Joel Schumacher's? I'll bet Tim Burton would say that's not a sequel to his movies. Yet, it is. And Batman Begins is still a sequel. It is part of the Batman franchise--a sequel in that it follows a sequence of movies. It is not a sequel in the continuity of the story.
When I heard Heath Ledger was playing the joker, I instantly thought it was the wrong decision.
Now after seeing the trailers, I think Heath may actually do a pretty damn good voice. His character looks great and he sounds really good too.
I can't believe Jack Nicholson is so bitter about this. How weird would it be having a younger looking Batman, with an old ass Joker? No disrespect. I love Jack Nicholson. But it doesn't make logical sense to have him as the Joker in this movie.
So... the 1989 Batman was the sequel to the 1966 movie starring Adam West then?
For your health
And not "the" sequel, but yes, it is "a" sequel no matter what. Literally: that which follows.
The Nolan Batman's have NOTHING to do with the previous four films made. In Nolan's world, the previous four might as well not exist. There's nothing related story/character/anything wise between the new films and the old franchise. So sitting here trying to argue they're "sequels" is stupid. What, because they both have the word "Batman" in the title? I guess "The Lost World" films (1925, 1960, 1997) are all related as well then?
There's nothing related? You mean besides all the characters they have in common?
How about Night of the Living Dead and Return of the Living Dead? No continuous characters/directors/producers whatsoever. Are they sequels or not?