Batman Begs sequel title & casting info

[Javier]

I can't wait for the film to come out to see the debate lol

[Dj Eskimo]

had this pic for a while....

[Don Jacob]

is that heath ledger? ^

[Vegasmac25]

damn that picture gave me goose bumps. I dunno if its Ledger though.

[Dj Eskimo]

not sure who it actually is, it got posted on here just after Batman Begins came out and a couple of days later got removed from the Warner Bros website 

[Shallow]

Jack Best joker ever called it... no take backs!

but on the real i dont care what anyone says or how true to the comics he was or not... he played his role as the JOKER perfect.... when i seen it growing up i thought Joker not Jack ... i didnt really even know who Jack was at the time...

You hit two very good points right on the head. 1) You were a kid when you first saw it so right away you probably are brought back to a nicer time in life like many of our generation are and immediately think more fondly of that. Kind of like how the vast majority of kids who watch wrestling in the 80s will scoff at the idea of saying Austin was bigger than Hogan, and how most of the kids who grew up in the 90s will only think of Hogan as the old guy and Austin as the true star. In reality Austin made and generated more, money, he was a btetter in ring wrestler, and far more versatile on promos (though Hogan was amazing and his Hollywood years showed his versatility).

2) It was probably your first real exposure to the Joker and Batman, and Nicholson so of course you'll think of this Batman when you think of Batman and Joker. You also didn't know Jack from other roles. Imagine what would happen if Robin Williams got the part for the next movie and played Joker the way he plays himself. How stupid would you think it was? and how cool do you think and 8 year old who doesn't know Williams would think it was?

so they changed the joker for the better for this film.... and he did it perfect... DARK and EVIL not just some clown bouncing around... lol

Was this dark and evil part before or after the choreographed dance scene in the museum while bumping Prince from the boom box?


The Joker was changed for the better the year before, by Alan Moore, and Tim Burton credits his "dark" approach to Joker to The Killing Joke graphic novel, the major problem for me was making Nicholson keep all his Nicholson traits for the part instead of making it a unique character.

[Shallow]

if you mean jack as in this jack : i agree but if you mean jack as in this jack : i disagree




true to the comic or not.......good god damn role

Review by Matthew Doberman
At once whimsical and somber -- and, above all, dark -- Batman remains one of the better adaptations of a comic book character to the screen, and certainly one of the most stylized. This is not your father's Batman, and, given its relentless grimness, it perhaps shouldn't be your kids' either, if they are very young. In a broad sense, the film, falling on the cusp of the 1990s, reflects a final departure from the innocence of previous filmgoing generations to the cynicism and angst of a new one. Cinematic superheroes had moved from the simplicity of Christopher Reeve's Superman to the brooding, tormented, shadow-enshrouded Dark Knight. Michael Keaton, better known for light comic fare at the time, is surprisingly effective as the mysterious Batman, while Jack Nicholson hams it up to perfection as the maniacal Joker. Rounding out the leads, Kim Basinger's slinky, film noir heroine fits the spirit of the film well, even if she and Keaton don't develop much chemistry. More than just a solid achievement of Tim Burton's direction, this is one film in which the contributions of the set designer and the composer go a long way toward rounding out the full experience. Anton Furst won a set design Oscar for his vision of a bleak, soaring urban wasteland, a hodgepodge of architectural styles, reminiscent of Blade Runner and Metropolis, that suggests no particular time period; and Danny Elfman's score is appropriately dark and dramatic.
  4.5/5

allmovie bio:

Nicholson did not resurface until 1989, starring as the Joker in a wildly over-the-top performance in Tim Burton's blockbuster Batman.

how is that playing himself ^ when they go through his whole filmography and off screen life and describe his role as 'over the top' ?



again however the joker is suppose to be in the comic book is soemthing else than what the joke has ever beenon screen , plus in movie making that's the idea, to interpret a character in a different way, if you just cut and paste what's so entertaining about that?

brando did it with vito corleone
Di niro did it with jake lamatta
depp did it with hunter s thomson

when you read the godfather.....vito isn't as entertaining as Brando's interpretation
when you listen to jake lamatta it's not as entertaining as Di Niro's interpretation
when you listen to hunter s thomason it's not as entertaining as listening to depp interpret him

that's the idea of acting taking a character , capturing their esssence and giving them style


out of all the on screen joker's we've had the best to this point is Jack


here's another good analogy : all along the watchtower by bob dylan ....before jimmy hendrix covered it there were many many many many folk artists that stayed true to that songs , stayed within bob dylans idea of the song. But Hendrix came along and gave it more style, so much so that it changed the song forever , people don't look at that peice of work the same way anymore, even dylan plays it jimmy's way.

and in my opinion and many others' opinion that's what jack did for the role of joker. if you look at all the cartoons and anything Joker Related it's a slice off of jack's joker. and that's what i mean by Heath  Ledger better live up to the role, he can stay true all he wants to the comic but if he doesn't make that role his own and make it memorable then what's the point of me paying 8 bucks to see this movie, when i could just buy the comic book.

I think he did a better Joker here;



If you want to dig up reviews, you can find bad ones too. Keep in mind that most of the reviews from screeners before the film was released were bad, and then after released and successful the reviews changed completely. That's Hollywood.

What did Jack resurface from? He starred in 2 films in '87 and appeared in a 3rd. But then people actually believe that Travolta had been out of films for years when Pulp Fiction came out. And despite what allmovie says I think that clip I posted was more over the top than anything he did in Batman as fas as attitude goes. Not as far as plot. The plot in parts was just ridiculously over the top.

Godfather was a better movie than book and Brando may have added some things but he wasn't completely different. Bull was more about Martin showing his art off than La Motta and even then DeNiro spent a lot of time figuring out LaMotta. But let's go bck to Godfather. How would you feel if the remade it today and used Nicholson as Corleone and he did it his way? To anyone that had never seen Brando it would probably be amazing but for those that had seen Marlon it would be a joke.

What other portrayals of Joker. As far as I know there have only been two, and saying Nicholson is better than Cesar Romero isn't exactly a huge feat.

For the record, I prefer the Dylan acoustic version from Harding. The Jimi version was grerat but it wasa different song. Jimi's was about the music and the playing. Bob's was about the lyric. Both great, both different.

Heath just has to do what Nolan tells him and he'll be fine. The cartoon Joker takes way more from Romero than Nicholson.







Luke Skywalker even admits it.

And you should by some of the comics to see him done a bit better, but if you think you can equate Hollywood films to storybook comics you're wrong. It's a whole different medium.

[Shallow]

Comic book geeks are never happy with the way characters are portrayed in movies. No point in arguing with them.

I though The Crow was great and I loved Bale's Batman. I fely Reeve did a fantastic Superman. I thought Jackman was a perfect Wolverine and felt adding the height and taking away the bulk improved it from the comic. Snipes was a superb Blade. There are a lot of portatayals I like.

For Batman '89 I just think it was a stupid movie. It's a great kids film but for me that's all it was. It was so storybook revenge the visuals and characters were goofy, the plotlines were way out there. It was a great fairytale atman for younger people, but for Begins was a superb film for any age. Was it up there with the great films of all time? Absolutely not, but it was amazing for an action film about a super hero. If I had never read the book or if the comic never existed and Tim Burton was the man that invented Batman and Joker I'd still think Begins was a superior film. How true it is to the characters in the book is a just one issue I have with Burton's Batman. In general I don't think it's that great a movie for me as an adult. And I think Begins is a far better film.

[Don Jacob]

I think he did a better Joker here;

so in essence you admit that jack's joker made joker look more villainous than just loony

If you want to dig up reviews, you can find bad ones too. Keep in mind that most of the reviews from screeners before the film was released were bad, and then after released and successful the reviews changed completely. That's Hollywood.

that's funny when i just looked up original and old reviews (wether they were bad  or good regarding the movie), they all praised the jack's role as the joker. that' was the general consensus ....The Original Batman movie is a "visual masterpiece" and the roles Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton were praised to high heaven.

What did Jack resurface from? He starred in 2 films in '87 and appeared in a 3rd. But then people actually believe that Travolta had been out of films for years when Pulp Fiction came out. And despite what allmovie says I think that clip I posted was more over the top than anything he did in Batman as fas as attitude goes. Not as far as plot. The plot in parts was just ridiculously over the top.

here's what comes before that in his bio: The following year, Heartburn was less well-received, but in 1987 Nicholson starred as the Devil in the hit The Witches of Eastwick — a role few denied he was born to play. The by-now-requisite Academy Award nomination followed for his performance in Hector Babenco's Depression-era tale Ironweed, his ninth to date — a total matched only by Spencer Tracy. Nicholson did not resurface until 1989, starring as the Joker in a wildly over-the-top performance in Tim Burton's blockbuster Batman.

Godfather was a better movie than book and Brando may have added some things but he wasn't completely different

.
re read the godfather. Brando was a different Vito Corleone than the book he took the meat of what vito was , made him more menacing and gave him more style.

 

Bull was more about Martin showing his art off than La Motta and even then DeNiro spent a lot of time figuring out LaMotta

. true but when you watch old tapes of la matta speaking, watch him during the filming of the movie and such it can be said that DeNiro's LaMatta was more entertaining and made for the screen. his whole monolouge in front of the mirror , his jail sequence, and even him jsut talking is much different and entertaining than the real thing.

 

But let's go bck to Godfather. How would you feel if the remade it today and used Nicholson as Corleone and he did it his way? To anyone that had never seen Brando it would probably be amazing but for those that had seen Marlon it would be a joke.

bad example. Nicholson is a fabulous Academy Award Winning actor , it'd be almost impossible to top brando's role but given his credencials (he's a coppala AND a great actor) it'd be intereting to see where he'd go with the role and i'm sure he'd give it a good rah at it

What other portrayals of Joker. As far as I know there have only been two, and saying Nicholson is better than Cesar Romero isn't exactly a huge feat.

Cesar Romero-The original Joker.

Larry Storch-was the voice of the Joker in the 60s Filmation series and in the Batman episodes of "The New Scooby Doo Movies".

Lennie Weinrib-Played the voice of the Joker in "The New Adventures of Batman" from the late 70s.

Mark Hamill-voice

Andrew Koenig-Played the Joker in "Batman: Dead End"

he's the best out of that list, he's the most Villainous out of the bunch

For the record, I prefer the Dylan acoustic version from Harding. The Jimi version was grerat but it wasa different song. Jimi's was about the music and the playing. Bob's was about the lyric. Both great, both different.

same song, different approaches, but it's not fait to say that jimi ignored the lyrics and just focused on the music. he sang the same lyrics and you can say he felt them just as much if not MORe than dylan. but do you see where i'm coming from with this analogy? Jimi took something that was already a classic that was already in exhistance and made people ignore the original , and now everytime the vast majority of the world's population hears the title "all along the watchtower" they think Jimi's version. Same with the role of Joker....when people think about the Joker they think 1989's version playe by Jack Nicholson. tear it down all you want but it's a Role that will be remembered for a LONG LONG time.

he cartoon Joker takes way more from Romero than Nicholson.

appearance wise maybe , but personality wise i see more synister jack traits

Luke Skywalker even admits it.

that's nice,but where's your source for this



DC could draw up the greatest joker ever......jack's still the going to be remembered as the best live action joker
[/quote]

[Halu Sination]

heath ledger is a good actor, but giving him the role as joker? eh, can't say im too thrilled.

it's no secret that paul bettany would've been perfect. like others have already stated, he's damn good at capturing the darker, more psychopathic roles.

[MontrealCity's Most]

Everyoe thought batman begins would suck before they saw the preview, it was awsome. Let this producer do his thing. He dint disapoint in the firts one i doubt he will disapoint in the second one.

[M Dogg™]

Everyoe thought batman begins would suck before they saw the preview, it was awsome. Let this producer do his thing. He dint disapoint in the firts one i doubt he will disapoint in the second one.

I am giving him that, but after watching 10 Things I Hate About You, Brokeback Mountain and The Da Vinci Code, I am a little worried.

[Shallow]

I think he did a better Joker here;

so in essence you admit that jack's joker made joker look more villainous than just loony

Where did I admit that? I used an example of Jack in another role being more like The Joker than when he was the Joker. I didn't find him villainous at all. That pic of the Nicholson Joker looks more villainous than at any time in the movie as far as I'm concerned. Joker is supposed to be looney but evil looney. He'sa big goofball with an evil wrath that pops out now and then and is always hinted at while he's looney. I don't mind more wrath and loon but the way Burton presented him it felt like I was watching the Beetlejuice character. The Joker seemed like an idiot to me. Never evil, just stupid.

If you want to dig up reviews, you can find bad ones too. Keep in mind that most of the reviews from screeners before the film was released were bad, and then after released and successful the reviews changed completely. That's Hollywood.

that's funny when i just looked up original and old reviews (wether they were bad  or good regarding the movie), they all praised the jack's role as the joker. that' was the general consensus ....The Original Batman movie is a "visual masterpiece" and the roles Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton were praised to high heaven.

Most of the bad reviews towards Jack come from comic fans, but Roger Ebert didn't praise anything. The type of movie film critics take it for they don't expect Jack to dive into the character like it wasa legititimate movie. It's still about a grown man dressed like a bat in their minds. It was a high concept film and it was treated as such. It wasn't looked at the same way they would have looked at Driving Miss Daisy.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19890623/REVIEWS/906230301/1023

What did Jack resurface from? He starred in 2 films in '87 and appeared in a 3rd. But then people actually believe that Travolta had been out of films for years when Pulp Fiction came out. And despite what allmovie says I think that clip I posted was more over the top than anything he did in Batman as fas as attitude goes. Not as far as plot. The plot in parts was just ridiculously over the top.

here's what comes before that in his bio: The following year, Heartburn was less well-received, but in 1987 Nicholson starred as the Devil in the hit The Witches of Eastwick — a role few denied he was born to play. The by-now-requisite Academy Award nomination followed for his performance in Hector Babenco's Depression-era tale Ironweed, his ninth to date — a total matched only by Spencer Tracy. Nicholson did not resurface until 1989, starring as the Joker in a wildly over-the-top performance in Tim Burton's blockbuster Batman.

The way it was taken out of context made it seem like the reviewer was saying Jack had been gone for a while and came back in a completely different way.

Godfather was a better movie than book and Brando may have added some things but he wasn't completely different

.
re read the godfather. Brando was a different Vito Corleone than the book he took the meat of what vito was , made him more menacing and gave him more style.

 

Bull was more about Martin showing his art off than La Motta and even then DeNiro spent a lot of time figuring out LaMotta

. true but when you watch old tapes of la matta speaking, watch him during the filming of the movie and such it can be said that DeNiro's LaMatta was more entertaining and made for the screen. his whole monolouge in front of the mirror , his jail sequence, and even him jsut talking is much different and entertaining than the real thing.

 

But let's go bck to Godfather. How would you feel if the remade it today and used Nicholson as Corleone and he did it his way? To anyone that had never seen Brando it would probably be amazing but for those that had seen Marlon it would be a joke.

bad example. Nicholson is a fabulous Academy Award Winning actor , it'd be almost impossible to top brando's role but given his credencials (he's a coppala AND a great actor) it'd be intereting to see where he'd go with the role and i'm sure he'd give it a good rah at it

Was it Brando that made him more menacing, or was it Puzo re-writing the character a bit for the movie? What exactly did Brando do to the character to change him. I never blamerd Nicholson for what I thought of the Joker. I blamed Burton.

And what's so bad about the Godfather example. Of course Brando is better than Jack. That's not the issue. The point isn't can Nicholson top Brando it's that since you already see Corleone like this could you ever really see him like if he was like Nicholson? Probably not, but kids who never saw Brando wouldn't know and wouldn't care that it'd be a completely different Corleone. For the record Brando played a completey different character for Corleone. I have seen Nicholson act the same way he acted as Joker in many films. I don't see that as Jack diving into a character. It's because I had seen films with Nicholson before I saw Batman that ruined it for me a bit, not just that it wasn't Joker. Like I said before about Williams; If Robin Williams played himself as Joker in the new film I'd think it was stupid because I'd keep seeing Williams, and not The Joker.

What other portrayals of Joker. As far as I know there have only been two, and saying Nicholson is better than Cesar Romero isn't exactly a huge feat.

Cesar Romero-The original Joker.

Larry Storch-was the voice of the Joker in the 60s Filmation series and in the Batman episodes of "The New Scooby Doo Movies".

Lennie Weinrib-Played the voice of the Joker in "The New Adventures of Batman" from the late 70s.

Mark Hamill-voice

Andrew Koenig-Played the Joker in "Batman: Dead End"

he's the best out of that list, he's the most Villainous out of the bunch

You saod on-screen. I took it as live action film version, and as far as that is concerned there was on Romero and Nicholson. Dead End was a film school short and the other were cartoons, and even then I think the Joker in Return of the Joker and The Mask of Phantasm were better, but that's just me.

For the record, I prefer the Dylan acoustic version from Harding. The Jimi version was grerat but it wasa different song. Jimi's was about the music and the playing. Bob's was about the lyric. Both great, both different.

same song, different approaches, but it's not fait to say that jimi ignored the lyrics and just focused on the music. he sang the same lyrics and you can say he felt them just as much if not MORe than dylan. but do you see where i'm coming from with this analogy? Jimi took something that was already a classic that was already in exhistance and made people ignore the original , and now everytime the vast majority of the world's population hears the title "all along the watchtower" they think Jimi's version. Same with the role of Joker....when people think about the Joker they think 1989's version playe by Jack Nicholson. tear it down all you want but it's a Role that will be remembered for a LONG LONG time.

It's not an opinion that the guitar and music is more fcused on in Jimi's version. It's a fact. Just listen to the track, you can barely make out most words. I didn't say he ignored the lyrics. Who knows. I know it seems like a sadder song than Jimi's music made it sound but maybe he did that for a reason, or maybe he was so high he had no idea. I don't know. I just said I like Dylan's more because I like the lyrics beind more focused on. Tina Turner eclipsed Fogerty with Proud Mary. Houston eclipsed Parton with I Will Always Love You. The Earth Band eclipsed Springsteen with Blidnded By The Light. I still prefer the originals. You should have used Dazed and Confused as an example.


Yes Nicholson may be more remembered for the Joker than any other adaptation thus far, but so what. I'm not arguing fame. I'm arguing quality. Michael Jackson will probably more praise than Black Sabbath in the history books. Big deal. That won't change the fact I'd rather listen to Paranoid front to back than Thriller.

he cartoon Joker takes way more from Romero than Nicholson.

appearance wise maybe , but personality wise i see more synister jack traits

Luke Skywalker even admits it.

that's nice,but where's your source for this



DC could draw up the greatest joker ever......jack's still the going to be remembered as the best live action joker

[/quote]


What about the Cartoon resembles Nicholson? I don't see it. We've already established that Nicholson did not a create the dark evil sinister joker. I have ano old Wizard magazine where Hamill says it, but he never said he ripped him off. Just little things. The laugh is obvious. Hamill is obviously more sinister but Paul Dini is a famous fan of the comics and he writes that Joker.

I just recommended that if you like the Joker that DC has some great stories with him (a lot of bad ones too). I never said the comic version will be more remembered than Nicholson, but I'm willing to be that in 50 years there ill be another Batman film and another Joker and Jsck Napier will be as remembered by the masses then as well as Charles Foster Kane is by the masses today. The Joker will outlive Jack Nicholson juat like Hamlet will outlive Laurence Olivier. They existed before these famous actors brought them to new generations and they'll exist long after those actors are gone.

[M Dogg™]

http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=107719.650

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

LMAO @ Heath Ledger as the Joker.

I was skeptical when I heard Heath Ledger as Joker

but anyways heath ledger better do a fucking good job


jack=the joker

he better not fuck it up

Paul Bettany would of been a much better choice. He's a better actor than Ledger. I guess sticking your tongue down another man's throat was a prerequisite for the part of Joker.

Would have like Paul Bettany to be the Joker he would have been the better choice out of Ledger

Damn, Heath Ledger? Just... Damn.

Paul Bettany would've been cool IMO, but Heath Ledger? God...

Well, the first in the series was really good, so this could turn out fine. But still the idea of Heath Ledger as Joker bothers me.

And for what it's worth, I think Jack was excellent as Joker. Superb. I don't care what none of y'all comic geeks say.

Paul Bettany would have brought back the very dark Joker, the Joker I've been wanting to see since Jack perfected the role. I can't believe they gave it to Ledger over Bettany

heath ledger is a good actor, but giving him the role as joker? eh, can't say im too thrilled.

it's no secret that paul bettany would've been perfect. like others have already stated, he's damn good at capturing the darker, more psychopathic roles.

after watching 10 Things I Hate About You, Brokeback Mountain and The Da Vinci Code, I am a little worried.

LOL