The Dark Knight

[RTTingle]

And... its up!  Check out the previous mentioned website.

RTT

[Midnite]

For those who are lazy to go back a page.  :P

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

[steamteck]

We saw the trailer at "I am Legend" ( Excellent film , Will smith really shows he can act.) and my wife said " Well I see the problem with the not-joker but The rest of the cast can most likely carry the film. I wish they didn't feel the need to do something different."  The trailer actually turned me off all chaos and explosions little Batman goodness and a Joker I couldn't wait to leave the screen.  I really loved the first film so my hopes aren't completely gone but....

[bredon7777]

It still bugs me that the Joker's makeup stops at the neck.

It wont stop me from seeing (or enjoying) the rest of the movie (which looks AWESOME) but its just incongrous enough to ruin the immersion. I'm not going to be able to forget I'm watching a movie like I usually do when I watch really good flicks.  The whole time there's going to be a little voice in my head going "They got SO MUCH ELSE right - why did they stop literally half an inch from perfection."

It's like walking through the coolest, most tastefully designed house ever- then turning a corner and seeing a velvet Elvis.  Oh, you can continue the tour, but there's always going to be a part of you wondering about who made the questionable artistic decision. And why.

[Figure Fan]

I'm glad to finally see it at its full size.

Looks amazing. Yes, even the Joker. How dare I?! :rolleyes:

[TheMarvell]

anyone know if Scarecrow will be returning?

[MJB]

There was a rumor of a cameo but it hasn't been confirmed.

-MJB

[Sgt. Friday]

Just saw the trailer.

The Joker design...I don't know what I really think of it. It could very well work. And work very well.

Maybe it is the stringy hair, but the Joker's design and the way he talked almost seemed like something out of a cowboy movie. That is just the way it struck me.

[Jakew]

A few of the scenes in the trailer reminded me of the first Burton Batman film ... such as Joker menacing Dawes in the ballroom / Basinger in the library, and facing down Batman's motorbike with a machinegun / facing down the Bat Jet with the huge pistol. It's probably an intentional homage, I'm guessing.

I've gotto say  ... they should have kept The Joker out of the ads. They're really presenting this as the Joker show featuring Batman.

Aside from that, the film is looking great. Ledger's Joker is reminding me of some of the characters best appearances ... like his first story, Joker's Nine Way Revenge and Gotham Knights. And his "look" is quite good considering its a more realistic take on a very cartoony-looking character.

[Figure Fan]

A few of the scenes in the trailer reminded me of the first Burton Batman film ... such as Joker menacing Dawes in the ballroom / Basinger in the library, and facing down Batman's motorbike with a machinegun / facing down the Bat Jet with the huge pistol. It's probably an intentional homage, I'm guessing.

I've gotto say  ... they should have kept The Joker out of the ads. They're really presenting this as the Joker show featuring Batman.

Aside from that, the film is looking great. Ledger's Joker is reminding me of some of the characters best appearances ... like his first story, Joker's Nine Way Revenge and Gotham Knights. And his "look" is quite good considering its a more realistic take on a very cartoony-looking character.

Ditto that.

[BentonGrey]

Bah.  My wife watched the trailer with me, and was disgusted (both literally and figuratively) with the Joker.

[Pyroclasm]

Yay! My wife watched the trailer with me, and is excited with this take on the Joker.

;)

[Ares_God_of_War]

That trailer both fills me with glee and dispair.  :wacko: I love the way Ledger sounds and the body movement looks great but that make up makes him look like a homeless man with palsy applying lipstick. If they could have kept it neater with a sense of style it would be so awesome. Any nut job can smear lipstick allover himself but it takes a true maniac to go through with the effort of getting it right

[zuludelta]

I think it looks ok (and that's coming from somebody who isn't really a fan of Batman).

[Midnite]

New images

That poster has a Batman '89 feel to it.

[Midnite]

Linky

New pics!

[steamteck]

Bah.  My wife watched the trailer with me, and was disgusted (both literally and figuratively) with the Joker.

We saw the Iron Man trailer at the same time and my wife who loved" Batman Begins" thinks its the best Batman movie ever but finds Iron Man just ok normally, Said she was  way more interested in Iron Man. I really hope its better than the trailers. I want to see a batman movie not a Joker movie.

[herodad1]

i always hated the joker but i do like the way he looks in the new batman.

[Midnite]

Bale and Nolan on Heath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PWB8Spe0JY

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Actually, shouldn't the Joker be disgusting?  He isn't a nice fellow.  Even the TAS version was severely lightened.  You should fear the joker and be revolted by him.  So far, I'm okay with it, in spite of the sloppy make up.

[JKCarrier]

Actually, shouldn't the Joker be disgusting?  He isn't a nice fellow.

Too literal. The whole point is the irony of a silly-looking clown who is deep down a psycho. He's the flip-side of Batman, a scary demonic-looking guy who is really a hero.

[BentonGrey]

Actually, shouldn't the Joker be disgusting?  He isn't a nice fellow.

Too literal. The whole point is the irony of a silly-looking clown who is deep down a psycho. He's the flip-side of Batman, a scary demonic-looking guy who is really a hero.

Thank you, and that is precisely it.

[BentonGrey]

change is good. these characters need to find context in a more sophisticated and modern generation. they need to be re imagined. the previous interpretations of the character worked for that time because it was a less sophisticated time with less discerning minds that hadn't seen it all done before - the way our world is now. a stupid looking clown would look stupid to our modern audiences and would end up being more Burton-esque crap.

benton: you've beaten this argument to death here for months now since the pics were first shown. i think the whole board knows how you feel about the joker design, let it go.

i happen to think your interpretation is incorrect. but that's my opinion, just as much as you claim this new design is too literal and isn't supposed to be that way. we will all interpret characters differently. in the end the public will decide if the design is a winner or not by how well they receive the character when they watch the movie. 

IPS, I've stayed out of this debate in any substantial way lately because I feel like I've voiced my opinion enough, however, I would kindly thank you not to tell me how I can express myself.  If I feel obliged to agree with what someone else said, I will jolly well do so.  You've expressed your opinions on this before as well, you know.

As for your thoughts on change...Suffice to say that change is not always good.  Change is neutral, but it does allow the possibility of a new development being good.  Great characters, like great stories, are universal.  They don't need 're-imagining,' the don't need 'interpreting,' or anything else.  You have your view of the issue, and I can understand that, but you have to acknowledge that the character loses some depth when the very metaphor of his existence is stripped away.

[Pyroclasm]

The Joker has been represented as being more twisted in appearance than comical for many years.  One problem with the comical and well-dressed look is that in real life it is the epitome of camp.  The new Batman franchise eliminates the camp for something dark & twisted.  It's not so much a reimagining, but an evolutionary trend (or devolution if you choose)  I prefer the darker Joker.  I've preferred him that way for as long as I can remember.  Sure, this Joker wears makeup instead of having white skin, but to me, he's still the Joker I enjoy.

[the_ultimate_evil]

i do agree and disagree, i love the look of the costume and the actual face( the dark circles and hair, still not 100% on the scarring but i can live with it), but what i dont love is the fact that its not him, it's make-up. the disturbing fact about the joker even in his first story is that at the end we find out that it is his real face and not just a mask, tat may still happen but at the moment i'm going by the info i have

[Figure Fan]

great characters and great stories are great because they resonate inside us. that means they reach us and we can relate to them. people change over time and generations so the characters MUST be adapted for an audience to relate to the same characters and stories. otherwise the audience cannot relate and the story finds no audience.

Well said, IPS.

Art historians evaluate art based on the principle that art is a reflection of the time it was created. The Joker of yesteryear doesn't have a place in our time, and thus a new version is created to reflect the previous version, but it terms that a contemporary audience can relate to. It's common practice, and it makes sense.

Personally, I've learned to separate the source from the adaptation. The adaptation is not the source. It is an interpretation of the source. The X-Men films' Dark Phoenix storyline was very different from the source, but I still enjoyed it very much. In fact I think it was pretty freaking cool. I'll always have the book and the original story, and the movie doesn't change the book. It couldn't.

[steamteck]

[

Art historians evaluate art based on the principle that art is a reflection of the time it was created. The Joker of yesteryear doesn't have a place in our time, and thus a new version is created to reflect the previous version, but it terms that a contemporary audience can relate to. It's common practice, and it makes sense.

So the current audience prefers cheesy  dirty nasty crass styeless bad guys to their classy well done heroes? I'll stick to yesteryear or come to think of any number of contemporary  examples that give  me my "worthy foe" Ras sure filled the bill.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Uh no, they prefer scary, psychotic believable villains to cheesy, gimicky, unbelievable ones.

[Previsionary]

there's a lot of black/white bias going on here, it seems. Instead of basing Joker's appearance on the TAS/comics, why don't you base it on how well you think he actually works within the atmosphere of the movie. Just an idea.

[Talavar]

[

Art historians evaluate art based on the principle that art is a reflection of the time it was created. The Joker of yesteryear doesn't have a place in our time, and thus a new version is created to reflect the previous version, but it terms that a contemporary audience can relate to. It's common practice, and it makes sense.

So the current audience prefers cheesy  dirty nasty crass styeless bad guys to their classy well done heroes? I'll stick to yesteryear or come to think of any number of contemporary  examples that give  me my "worthy foe" Ras sure filled the bill.

Where does comparing the heroes come into this?  The comparison would logically be other interpretations of the Joker, or at least other villains. 

I'm of the opinion that the Batman Begins sequel, once deciding to use the Joker, absolutely had to do a unique spin on the Joker's appearance.  The Jack Nicholson version was a fairly traditional visual interpretation, and is too well known to simply do the same thing again.