The Dark Knight: Now with Batman 3 casting discussion

[RendeR]

See thats where I think your wrong. Joker scared the shit out of me. The idea that someone like that could actually exist freaks me the hell out. ledger showed me what true evil looks like.

Lector never frightened me, Lector was a caricature in my mind compared to Joker. Ledger's portrayal gives me nightmares.

[RendeR]

Great movie either way you feel on the issue, fantastic series of movies and I cannot wait for #3 to roll out.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

I don't really know who will contend for the supporting nod. But my feeling is that he will not contend unless it is a truly crappy year for movies.

I can understand the sentiment against him for winning Best Actor, but saying he'll have trouble contending for Best Supporting Actor? He would win that category going away most years.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

You bolded my part, but read it again. I said that Anthony Perkins embodied a psychopath. He didn't just become Hannibal. In this movie, Heath Ledger embodied the Joker, but he did not ground it in reality of what a psychopath is.

I guess I'm starting to understand your distinction, but I don't understand why it's relevant to voting on Academy Awards, unless every voter makes the same distinction.

You're stating a preference regarding on-screen characters, rather than really stating a universally recognized "trait" of superior acting.

[larrymcg421]

However it appeared, to me, that it was based primarily of comic book versions of the Joker first and real life psychopaths were a far second.

I'm not sure why the former is automatically worse than the latter.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure why the former is automatically worse than the latter.

I agree. I mean, he was playing a character based on the comic books. I felt like he was more than adequately psychopathic. Sure, he had the Joker's flair and all that, but that was the role he was supposed to play. He nailed it.

I've read a few Batman books, the classics, like 'Killing Joke' and "Dark Knight Returns" and a few others, but I never really got the Joker until I saw this movie.

[larrymcg421]

I'd also add that the fact they never try to explain the Joker's background is one of my favorite parts of the movie. I hated how in the earlier series of films, they spent so much screen time with the character's background. In this one, they poke fun at that with the Joker's conflicting stories. This dude has no motivation other than to fuck shit up, and that's what makes him a terrifying villain. He's not supposed to be grounded in reality, so it seems silly to criticize Ledger for not accomplishing something that was never intended.

I'd also like to say that Aaron Eckhart is really getting a disservice in this thread. He is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood. If any of you haven't seen In the Company of Men, go see it now. It's an independent film where Eckhart plays one of the most despicable chauvinistic characters I've ever seen. I thought he did a terrific job at playing both sides of Harvey Dent, and his transformation is the key part of the film. If I had an Oscar ballot, I'd be voting for both Eckhart and Ledger for Supporting Actor.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I can understand the sentiment against him for winning Best Actor, but saying he'll have trouble contending for Best Supporting Actor? He would win that category going away most years.

Yes and no. A lot of times, the Best Supporting Actor nod got to someone whose movie is also going for Best Picture. As cool it would be to see this type of movie make it there, it truly doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the Best Picture category (of course, my opinion).

Originally Posted by molson

I guess I'm starting to understand your distinction, but I don't understand why it's relevant to voting on Academy Awards, unless every voter makes the same distinction.

You're stating a preference regarding on-screen characters, rather than really stating a universally recognized "trait" of superior acting.

You have an excellent point actually. And to be fair, I haven't seen enough good movies to compare against. Whatever gets nominated for Best Picture would be a good indication of who would be considered. And I don't think Dark Knight should and will be considered for it.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure why the former is automatically worse than the latter.

It's not worse if that was the goal, to make him more like the comic book. I am not saying he needed to go there for me to enjoy the movie. You don't have to have three dimensional characters to have a good to great movie if the story is exceptional. All I am saying is that approach usually doesn't go hand and hand with winning awards.

Look at Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Both did well, had great stories, but the characters were mostly archetypes and you didn't see an actor considered for Best Actor/Supporting Actor. That is how I see this film.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'd also like to say that Aaron Eckhart is really getting a disservice in this thread. He is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood. If any of you haven't seen In the Company of Men, go see it now. It's an independent film where Eckhart plays one of the most despicable chauvinistic characters I've ever seen. I thought he did a terrific job at playing both sides of Harvey Dent, and his transformation is the key part of the film. If I had an Oscar ballot, I'd be voting for both Eckhart and Ledger for Supporting Actor.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

Look at Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Both did well, had great stories, but the characters were mostly archetypes and you didn't see an actor considered for Best Actor/Supporting Actor. That is how I see this film.

Ian MacKellen and Alec Guiness were both nominated.

[Autumn]

Getting back (or ahead) to a third movie, I think Catwoman is a good idea. Yes, it's been played out, but for a reason. When you look into it most of Batman's rogue gallery is ridiculous and wouldn't work in a movie like this. There are few villains that can be made into anything serious or dark. I think we've listed most of them here. I can't see Nolan pulling out something like Croc or Orca. Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman, Bane, Talia, there's not much more I don't think.

And yes, I think the series is ripe for her contribution. After Joker, a villain of sort of benign amorality would be perfect to blur the lines for Batman rather than harden them. Someone who would kind of legitimately poke some of the air out of his inflated stance.

But I agree that there's not a lot of actresses out there that oculd handle it in a Nolan movie. It would have to be something sultry, like Megan Fox, yes. But she'd have to have the playful quality of Catwoman. And would have to be an actor that could stand up with Bale, Freeman, Caine, Ledger, Eckhart, Neeson, etc.

However, I have full faith in Nolan's casting department. I think most people thought they were a bit nuts for casting Ledger, and Bale wouldn't have jumped out at most people either. I think they have a good eye for casting, and I bet they'd find someone, someone we woudn't have picked.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Ian MacKellen and Alec Guiness were both nominated.

Dammit....totally wrong on Lord of the Rings there, but either way I did say this:

...but the characters were mostly archetypes...

However I was totally wrong that no one got a nod so my bad.

[Karlifornia]

I think a second helping of Arnold as Mr. Freeze is just what the doctor (and the academy) ordered.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Autumn

But I agree that there's not a lot of actresses out there that oculd handle it in a Nolan movie. It would have to be something sultry, like Megan Fox, yes. But she'd have to have the playful quality of Catwoman. And would have to be an actor that could stand up with Bale, Freeman, Caine, Ledger, Eckhart, Neeson, etc.

However, I have full faith in Nolan's casting department. I think most people thought they were a bit nuts for casting Ledger, and Bale wouldn't have jumped out at most people either. I think they have a good eye for casting, and I bet they'd find someone, someone we woudn't have picked.

The thing that worries me is that the Nolan movies I've seen haven't done well with women, but I don't know whether it's bad casting or bad directing - Memento I don't remember any female performances, in The Prestige Scarlett Johansson was nothing special, Batman Begins and Dark Knight they missed both times with Holmes and Gyllenhall. It seems all those movies are about a psychological struggle and rivalry between men, usually 2 but occasionally 3 (Dark Knight) or 1 with himself (Batman Begins). I hope the Nolan brothers can pull off a main female character, but it seems to be the one thing missing in their directing so far.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The thing that worries me is that the Nolan movies I've seen haven't done well with women, but I don't know whether it's bad casting or bad directing - Memento I don't remember any female performances, in The Prestige Scarlett Johansson was nothing special, Batman Begins and Dark Knight they missed both times with Holmes and Gyllenhall. It seems all those movies are about a psychological struggle and rivalry between men, usually 2 but occasionally 3 (Dark Knight) or 1 with himself (Batman Begins). I hope the Nolan brothers can pull off a main female character, but it seems to be the one thing missing in their directing so far.

I remember Carrie Anne Moss from Memento. It wasn't the greatest role ever, but there was some complexity to her. I agree, however, I haven't seen much evidence that he can pull it off.

I could see Catwoman filling the romantic void, but not being the main villain. She's just not all that menacing or terribly interesting really. Besides, I don't think I'll ever get that bad taste out of mouth after having watched that Halle Berry abomination of a film.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Besides, I don't think I'll ever get that bad taste out of mouth after having watched that Halle Berry abomination of a film.

Hey...WATCHIT! She won a MAJOR award for that role...

[Autumn]

I agree Catwoman wouldn't be the main villain. She's not bad enough to fill that role, especially in a Nolan film. I think she'd be a foil for Batman to ponder what he's doing, she often plays kind of a Robin Hood role. I wouldn't want it to be a romantic deal a la Michelle Pfeiffer's though, I think that would be too trite. But they could play up the angle of two creatures of the night, his need for people who understand his dual identity, blah, blah.

I think pairing her in a film with The Riddler or something would work. She often ends up helping Batman in the end.

[law90026]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

You bolded my part, but read it again. I said that Anthony Perkins embodied a psychopath. He didn't just become Hannibal. In this movie, Heath Ledger embodied the Joker, but he did not ground it in reality of what a psychopath is.

So, and this is my opinion, he was much closer to being an archetype. You have living psychopaths today that have the same desires of the Joker and if that would have been studied (or implented if he did this study), it would have given the Joker a little more dimension.

Ledger basically created physical nuances and vocal delivery, which is commendable by itself. However it appeared, to me, that it was based primarily of comic book versions of the Joker first and real life psychopaths were a far second.

I think you might be giving Heath some disservice her. My wife, who works as a criminal psychologist, was thorougly impressed with his performance as a psychopath, down to the constant licking of his lips which she tells me could be an indication of past chemical/drug use to treat such conditions.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

Okay, you do have me on that one, but still, overall, there are way more Joker scenes/lines that stand out more than any other character in the movie.

The cross examination in the trial early in the movie by Dent was also very well done.

[Chief Rum]

I find it funny that Ant seeks humanity in the Joker to justify an Oscar nod for Ledger, but it doesn't occur to him it is a human, who no doubt has tons of actual humanity that comes out of him because that is who he is, who completely hides that natural humanity to play the role he does.

There are people who think that this very role Ledger played led to his death. Think about that.

Ledger's Joker was better than any acting performance I have seen in a while, including all of last year's acting nominees (yes, even DDL and Bardem).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by law90026

I think you might be giving Heath some disservice her. My wife, who works as a criminal psychologist, was thorougly impressed with his performance as a psychopath, down to the constant licking of his lips which she tells me could be an indication of past chemical/drug use to treat such conditions.

I kind of assumed the licking was due to the huge scars on his cheeks. He would lick to prevent drool from leaking out because his mouth didn't close all the way. It was a nice effect, but I don't think you can trace it to supposed past treatment of anti-psychotics.

[Lorena]

man, you guys are hardcore

[Lorena]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

There are people who think that this very role Ledger played led to his death. Think about that.

His co-stars beg to differ, everything I read states that he was fine in between takes and acted normal. It's easy to rush to judgment on things like this because his role was so dark and creepy. Only 1 person knows the truth and unfortunately he's no longer here to defend himself.

[MJ4H]

its ok lorena im here now

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lorena

His co-stars beg to differ, everything I read states that he was fine in between takes and acted normal. It's easy to rush to judgment on things like this because his role was so dark and creepy. Only 1 person knows the truth and unfortunately he's no longer here to defend himself.

That says nothing about the rest of my post, though, which were the main points.

[SFL Cat]

In light of the above discussion, an interesting video on You Tube.

YouTube - JACK NICHOLSON: I WARNED HEATH LEDGER (THE JOKER)

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

In light of the above discussion, an interesting video on You Tube.

YouTube - JACK NICHOLSON: I WARNED HEATH LEDGER (THE JOKER)

That laughing at the end was very disappointing.

[Noop]

Great Movie. Heath Ledger was brilliant.

[Lorena]

Who woulda thought Beetlejuice and The Joker were related?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Lorena

Who woulda thought Beetlejuice and The Joker were related?

Huh?

[DrAFTjunkie]

Strange thought (and I know an impossible one, based on Nolan's pretty strict adhesion to the DC universe) but why not have a Catwoman who is a tranny? Leguizamo could probably pull it off, or you could just go balls out and get Alexis Arquette.

Seriously though, I'm all about Crispin Glover as The Riddler, Paul Giamatti as The Penguin and Isla Fisher as Poison Ivy.

I just can't figure out who I'd like as Catwoman...

[MikeVic]

Nice pic Lorena!

[Qwikshot]

Just reading the last bits...dunno if anyone caught it yet.

Anthony Hopkins won as cannibal Hannibal Lecter.

Anthony Perkins was in Psycho and it's sequels.

Heath Ledger played the part well...I seriously think that the trilogy is flawed now because it seemed that a rematch was in the works (as far as actors that could stand in for Ledger in a Joker reprise, I could only put forth Depp).

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Lorena

Who woulda thought Beetlejuice and The Joker were related?

That's just Bruce Wayne in another disguise.

[Swaggs]

I will be pretty bummed if they use the Joker again in this series.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I will be pretty bummed if they use the Joker again in this series.

I think Nolan won't but you could see at least in this series that adversaries like Scarecrow made a reprise and weren't killed off in favor of the next bad guy.

Joker though is such a part of the Batman universe, you wouldn't think that he could just "disappear", one of his last lines is how he couldn't kill batman "because he's having too much fun..." (major paraphrase)

This movie felt like the ending to the story, it felt like the end of a trilogy not the middle piece. I'm thinking it's going to be hard to top this one.

[Swaggs]

Maybe they could pull something off using the Joker in prison or an asylum talking to someone in shadows (so his voice is present, but not his face) or briefly show him from behind, speaking to Harley Quinn through glass. Something like that might work.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Lorena

Who woulda thought Beetlejuice and The Joker were related?

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Huh?

You know this post makes a lot more sense when the picture isn't blocked by your work's firewall...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DrAFTjunkie

Strange thought (and I know an impossible one, based on Nolan's pretty strict adhesion to the DC universe) but why not have a Catwoman who is a tranny? Leguizamo could probably pull it off, or you could just go balls out and get Alexis Arquette.

I don't know how relecant it is, but when Daniel Craig was talking about how he wanted James Bond to have homosexual encounters, they asked Christian Bale about if this would be in Batman too and he (jokingly i think, but I didn't really pay attention) said he'd walk off the set if they tried to make Batman romantically linked with a man.


On the supporting actor argument, I think CR? nailed it. Even if he's "only" playing a stock character, he became that character. I knew it was Heath Ledger playing the role, and there were times I was trying to see Heath Ledger there and imagining the guy from A Knight's Tale or 10 Things I Hate About You delivering those lines and I couldn't even see him there. It wasn't Heath Ledger, recognizable actor, playing the role. It was The Joker. In my mind, that's acting at its finest when you know the real person playing the role but you still only see the character.

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Besides, I don't think I'll ever get that bad taste out of mouth after having watched that Halle Berry abomination of a film.

You have no one to blame but yourself. I just don't know what you were expecting.

[Lorena]

oops, i totally wasn't thinking

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Heath Ledger played the part well...I seriously think that the trilogy is flawed now because it seemed that a rematch was in the works (as far as actors that could stand in for Ledger in a Joker reprise, I could only put forth Depp).

I agree I think Johnny Deep would be able to pull off being the joker.

[Autumn]

Yeah, I've thought they might feature The Joker in Arkham or prison, in shadow or profile, but somehow involved in the story. I don't think they should try to feature him in a movie again unless this turns into a Harry Potter length series.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

In my mind, that's acting at its finest when you know the real person playing the role but you still only see the character.

This is a great point.

To add, it gets harder and harder to pull this off the more well-known an actor becomes. In my opinion, that is why so many TV actors have trouble crossing over into movies very well. It is hard to see Jennifer Aniston as anyone but Rachel or David Duchovny as anyone other than Mulder (although Californication is pretty damn good, anyway).

Since Ledger is/was pretty well at the top of his game, that made it all the more impressive to me.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

To add, it gets harder and harder to pull this off the more well-known an actor becomes. In my opinion, that is why so many TV actors have trouble crossing over into movies very well. It is hard to see Jennifer Aniston as anyone but Rachel or David Duchovny as anyone other than Mulder (although Californication is pretty damn good, anyway).

Sometimes this even applies to acclaimed actors - I love the guy and the movies he's in, but let's face it - Denzel's playing Denzel 90% of his movies.

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yeah, I've thought they might feature The Joker in Arkham or prison, in shadow or profile, but somehow involved in the story. I don't think they should try to feature him in a movie again unless this turns into a Harry Potter length series.

I'm trying to think of examples where a character is replaced with a different actor and it works out well. (Not re-launchings of franchises, but something like Dumbledore.) James Bond is the only one coming to mind off the top of my head, and you can argue (at least until the new Daniel Craig ones) they had very little long-term arc and were essentially stand-alone movies. (And of course, sometimes the replacement didn't work so well *cough* Timothy Dalton *cough*.)

[sterlingice]

Print Story: "The Dark Knight" leads box office for third weekend on Yahoo! News

Looks like it is going to make a strong run at #2 but Titanic is still safe.

Originally Posted by Reuters

"The Dark Knight" leads box office for third weekend
By Dean Goodman 30 minutes ago

"The Dark Knight" fended off a strong challenge from the new "Mummy" sequel to lead the North American box office for a third weekend, and is on track to become the second-biggest movie of all time.

The Batman blockbuster earned $43.8 million for the three days beginning Friday, distributor Warner Bros. Pictures said on Sunday. Universal's "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" followed with $42.5 million.

The Walt Disney Co. political comedy "Swing Vote" came in at No. 6 with just $6.3 million, the latest disappointment for its star, Kevin Costner, who has not had a $100 million movie since 1992's "The Bodyguard."

The total for "The Dark Knight" rose to $394.9 million. Warner Bros., a unit of Time Warner Inc, said it expects the film to add at least $100 million, surpassing the $461 million haul of 1977's "Star Wars" and its two reissues, the current No. 2 movie of all time in the United States and Canada. The $601 million record, held by 1997's "Titanic," seems watertight.

"The Dark Knight" will add yet another record to its impressive tally on Monday or Tuesday, when it breaks $400 million, which would be its 18th or 19th day of release. The old record of 43 days is held by 2004's "Shrek 2."

MUMMY BIG OVERSEAS

Pundits had predicted that the "Mummy" movie could open to upwards of $50 million, roughly in between its two predecessors, but the critically mauled Brendan Fraser film was a little bruised by the Batman juggernaut.

It marks the follow-up to 2001's "The Mummy Returns," which opened to $68 million. The franchise relaunched in 1999 with a $43.4 million bow for "The Mummy."

Universal said "The Mummy" was big internationally. The film, co-starring Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh, opened to $59.5 million from 28 territories. Top markets included Russia and South Korea, each with about $13 million. Because the action is set in China, and the Olympic Games kick off in Beijing on Friday, Universal has been cross-promoting the movie with its General Electric Co corporate sibling NBC, which holds the U.S. broadcast rights to the games.

Fraser has had a low profile since appearing as part of the ensemble in the Oscar-winning 2004 movie "Crash." But he now has two movies in the top 5, with Warner Bros.' "Journey to the Center of the Earth" at No. 5 with a four-week total of $73.1 million.

"Swing Vote," in which Costner plays a hard-drinking oaf whose vote will determine the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, was released as a counterprogramming attempt. Disney distribution president Chuck Viane billed it as "a thinking person's movie," but it ended up being one of the worst openings of Costner's career. Reviews were mixed.

Disney's only summer success, the Pixar-produced cartoon "WALL-E" has earned $204.2 million after six weeks, and will pass the $206 million haul of last year's "Ratatouille." But it will end up as only the sixth-biggest of Pixar's nine productions.

Despite the strong performance of "The Dark Knight" and "The Mummy," overall sales fell for the second consecutive weekend, according to tracking firm Media By Numbers. The top 12 films grossed $149 million, down 10 percent from the year-ago period. Year to date, revenues are flat at $5.9 billion, while the number of tickets sold is down almost 3 percent.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Kodos

That's just Bruce Wayne in another disguise.

This comment didn't get enough love

SI

[RendeR]

Ok, so perhaps I'm confused, but if TDK is setting records for "fastest to X hondred million, why is Titanic's record water tight? that 600 million mark was set over a long period of time. This movie has some real re-watching ability. hel I plan to see it at least 2 more times, aonther on the regular screen and at least once on IMAX.

Even if the high numbers of sales goes down, I think this movie can pull 5-10 million a week for a long time to come. I think it could overtake Titanic.

Probably won't now that I've said that, but I wouldn't consider the record "watertight" when this movie has only been out for less than 3 weeks.

[SnowMan]

lol @ "watertight" and "titanic" together.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by SnowMan

lol @ "watertight" and "titanic" together.

yeah the irony was not lost on me when I read it

[Radii]

What's with Batman's voice in 'Dark Knight'? - CNN.com

Though much of the voice effect is Bale's own doing, under the guidance of director Christopher Nolan and supervising sound editor Richard King, the frequency of his Batman voice was modulated to exaggerate the effect.

I remember thinking that batman's voice seemed... off, forced maybe? and that there have been comments on it here as well, so that was kinda interesting to read.