The hell are you talking about saying it's not difficult for a director to create a charismatic villain? Jeez that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If that were the case, you wouldn't be able to name one weak attempt at villainy in any movie.FrozenLiquid
Sure you can. You can blame it on the writer and the director since they're the ones responsible for whatever the villain character says and does.
I wouldn't say the comic books are deeper than the current movie franchise, though if you're talking about the Joker than that's true. The new film franchise is a crime drama in a superhero outfit, which is much different from the comic book-centric Batman setting.FrozenLiquid
The movies are not deeper than the comics. They think they're deeper than the comics because they avoided the main premise behind Batman's conception. It emphasizes perspective symbolism of Batman over his individuality. Why the hell would you want to destroy the very thing that gives Batman his identity? The shining example of this perversion is how much they morphed Batman's origin. I maintain that it was because they felt this movie would be lighter and more marketable by going another way.
In the first movie, Nolan knew exactly that the faceless mugger was the only thing that kept Batman fighting everyone instead of tracking down just one person. So as to do away with the original origin, he has Bruce find out who the killer is and disregards the entire idea behind Batman being born in the alley so Bruce can just create the Batman as a symbol later. That's why his Bruce Wayne was on the verge of murdering Joe Chill. His abuse of the origin ruined everything for me; I want Batman, not Bruce Wayne in a batsuit. Instead of gradually discovering his nature as Batman, the idea of Batman ends up being taught to Bruce Wayne. He learns about the potency of "fear" from the resident mob boss of Gotham, which is most notably not from the Bat. He learns about the detriment of impassioned crime from his little girlfriend Kattie Holmes, which is most certainly not the original source of his parents and Zorro. He decides to be Batman based on a philosophy taught to him by a confidant of Ra's Al Ghul, and this is most certainly not done--As it should have been done--From his awakening in the alley. What is supposed to be Batman's personal journey turns into this dissapointing richochet of learned values and ideals. To make things worse, instead of learning the trade himself, they turn Batman into a James Bond with Luscious (Freeman) playing Q.
In this one, the nature of Two-Face's insanity has switched from a gradually cultivated disassociate disorder to a form of mental trauma onset by intense stress just so Nolan's Bruce Wayne can have more development. Joker's personality has been rounded down to a scary image and darkly quippy personality. In both cases, they're made out to be monsters under the bed with really really intimidating images. This is no different than when Batman got the WB treatment with "The Batman" when all the villains became parodies of themselves as monstrosities and Batman became a relatable teenager. It was made to eliminate controversial interpretations and mature themes behind the original series. The movie, like the series, simplifies the characters and their defining moments.
The comic books also have continuity in the period between the 60s and 80s which, quite frankly. majorly suckeFrozenLiquid
That continuity was sacked up until Didio gave Morrison Carte Blanche in the Batman books.
Though I think the only story in the Batman mythos which is head and shoulders above Batman Begins/Dark Knight in terms of depth is definitely Frank Miller's The Dark Knight returns. It's probably the best idea for a Batman story that will never be topped, ever.FrozenLiquid
Miller's doing a pretty good job of topping himself in the All Star Batman series. Too bad it's only coming out about once a year at this point.
I personally prefer Arkham Asylum, but props to Frank Miller's take. It is most definitely his magnum opus.FrozenLiquid
Arkham Asylum was good. But I hate Morrison. He actually made the book to sepak against the cultivation of a dark batman. The book backfired on him; everyone loved that Batman and the villains.
TDK didn't draw attention to Joker's scars though, unless you're trying to write off the movie in favour of the comic books. You should've realized that the varying levels of sociopathic behaviour characterized by the different tones in his voice captures the essence of his well known persona. The Joker in TDK doesn't have a beginning, and he didn't have an end, and that too symbolizes the elusive reality of the man behind the mask (too many writers have made the mistake of trying to find an origin for the Joker). That's another thing, you don't know whether the Joker is insane or not; at times he exercise things that are incredibly shocking, and at other times he strangely enough seems to be grounded within reasoning. I think Heath Ledger alluded to that idea amazingly. Sure, his version is not going to mutilate schools of fish just so that he could have them grin, but at the same time he has the fundamentals that make him a fantastic transition to the realistic take of Batman on the silver screen.FrozenLiquid
It's not necessarily the character's actions that bother me. It's his development as a character. The real Joker is pivotal as an insane individual who has a point to make through that very insanity. Insanity is controversial. Insane monstrosities aren't. The movie polarized him as "bad" and Batman as "good." It deflates the idea that they're two sides of the same coin.
Log in to comment