Suggestions for Inclusion

Here is where to submit suggestions for adding to this site. Suggestions can be submitted as comments.

Comments are archived as needed. Archive pages:

230 Responses to “Suggestions for Inclusion”

  1. MBK, on February 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm Said:

    hahahaaaaaa you basically said it was a masterpiece without saying it. IT IS NOT. IT IS JUST AN INDEPENDENCE DAY FILM.

    and guess what? IDEPENDENCE DAY HAD A BETTER PLOT

  2. georgeboy, on February 16th, 2009 at 12:49 pm Said:

    ironman is better

  3. Earlofthercs, on February 16th, 2009 at 4:21 pm Said:

    MBK, do you mean it’s a film like Independence Day, using that’s a synonym for blockbuster? Assuming that’s what you mean, well, really there’s no inherent contradiction in the terms `masterpiece’ and `blockbuster’, a film doesn’t have to be a drama or art house or `serious’ or anything to be a masterpiece. It can just be very well made/written/successful in its endeavours.

    I don’t happen to CURRENTLY think TDK is a masterpiece (I co-signed to Jimmy in the `time will tell’ and `damn fine movie’, in its position as a well made summer blockbuster) as I believe the term requires something to be practically flawless (and to be the work of a master- I think Nolan’s becoming a master, I don’t think he is one yet. But then again, I can only think of a handful of current filmmakers that are.) I think TDK has flaws, though I don’t believe them to be anywhere near as major as the webmaster or his supporters (go through this site carefully, you’ll find many objections and so called flaws very simply explained away as misunderstandings on the viewers behalf. And no, its not up to a director to make a film completely easy to be understood by everyone. People- as a whole- think too differently, and have different tendancies of observation, for that to be possible or even desired). In fact its flaws are diminishing further and further in my estimation the more I think about and discuss the film.

    I mean, think of fine art. Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling is a masterpiece, and it’s serious and grand and weighty… but Toulouse-Lautrec’s Moulin Rouge posters are masterpieces, and they’re advertising for a strip joint. The work of the French impressionists was hated by art critics of the time as being hasty, ugly, unskilled… and loved by the public and eventually art critics came around. But now, with the work SO mass produced, allot of the weight of the original impressionist techniques is lost, and as an art form impressionism seems very dated and it is almost impossible for someone to use the style in an effective manner today. And look at more modern (and post modern artists) work often reviled by the public while applauded as masterpieces by artists and art fans.

    All I’m trying to say is that `masterpiece’ is a VERY subjective term and almost always only sucessfully applied well after a works production. I think it may too soon for people to proclaim it a masterpeice, but I certainly think its to soon to proclaim that it sucks.

    georgeboy,

    you like Ironman more. There is a difference.

  4. camaro, on February 19th, 2009 at 8:54 am Said:

    That would make sense but the movie is loved by almost everyone (crtics and the public) save a select minority that can see through the smoke. One good method actor and a couple good action scenes (the motorcycle turn around and jump back into the plane) are not good enough to make this movie a “masterpiece.” I agree with this site. It doesn’t suck, but maybe we need to say it sucks to counterbalance all the hysteria around this film… that has mysteriously faded away to boot.

  5. Earlofthercs, on February 19th, 2009 at 6:57 pm Said:

    camaro,

    Film critism in not Toaism, (we dont need to create more Yin energy to counterbalance the Yang energy or some such) saying something sucks doesnt somehow mystically balance out other people saying something’s teh awsome.

    That’s like saying we need far right politicians to somehow balance out far left politicians, when ultimately what would be better is that individuals form independant balanced and informed viewpoints as close to the objective truth as possible on any given single issue.

    The only logical recourse in any situation is is to analise the available information and form an opinion based solely unpon that, not on what other people think. And given that enjoyment of a film is always going to include a multitude of subjective factors, objecting bold faced towards others’ opinions as merely that of those who cant `see through the smoke’ is a bit disengenius.

    You’ve admitted that the mass hysteria has died down… I dont think this site contributed to that in anyway, its presance didnt somehow cause people to `see the light’ and realise TDK isnt `all that’ on, the contrary this site seemed rather to further cement most TDKs supporters opinion of teh awsomeness.

    I personally thought there were alot more quality moments than just a couple of action sequences and a method actor. Very subtle almost throwaway lines late in the film that fill in apparant earlier gaps that may have been playing on a viewers minds’ were near to masterfully done, IMHO. (like how, when Joker’s talking to Batman about Rachel and says `the way you threw yourself out that window, I really thought you were Dent’ – or somesuch- which explains retrospectively why he and his gang left Wayne’s penthouse off screen after that scene, for instance) its that kind of subtlety in a screenplay that gives multiple viewings of a film worth.

    But again, that kind of thing is something that plays on what I enjoy in a film- putting to gether a puzzle (its why I enjoyed Momento so much, and are an unappolegetic Nolan supporter) so there’s my objectivity compremised already! (why yes, The Riddler is my favourite Batman villain, how’d you guess?! haha)

    All in all, as a Batman fan, I enjoy a good argument, and have really appreciated this site’s existance on that fact alone.

    So thanks everyone!

  6. butchfag, on February 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 am Said:

    Okay, from what I’ve read, no one has tacked the overall issue why I hate movie. Forget little finneky things like plot and special effects, even acting.

    This movie was CONTRIVED BULLSHIT. Just the whole idea of it! We are talking about BATMAN! He is a guy in a BAT SUIT! And we’re talking about some freak who dresses up like a character from a deck of cards! And then there’s a guy with half his face burnt off, and he’s still talking!!!!
    It is FANTASY! So-
    HOW AND WHY THE FUCK ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TAKE THIS MOVIE SERIOUSLY!!!!!- And furthermore, WHY should it be so serious! IT IS BATMAN! He IS A COMIC BOOK CHARACTER!!!!

    I go to an action move to enjoy myself. Not to be bombarded with try-hard contrived crap that expects me to suspend belief in the way described above. If I wanted to see a movie that was more serious, I wouldn’t go and see something about Batman!

    The original Tim Burton was FANTASTIC – one of my favorites. I think the old series did get too silly, but I LOVED how Burton captured that curious blend of dark and light in a cooky, spooky, fun and enjoyable movie. And of course Jack Nickolson. Who could EVER forget that CLASSIC performance. Okay so Heath was pretty darn good, but it was the ONLY slightly redeeming feature for this load of try-hard CRAP that I had to endure.

    WHY are action/adventure movies so TRY-HARD these days? The only exception is the new Inidana Jones which actually brings back the fun and fantasy from the classic days of the 70s and 80s. So nostalgic, and I miss this style.

  7. camaro, on February 23rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm Said:

    youre welcome. i think by saying “it sucks” it makes people think. wait a minute, this movie sucks? well let me think about it. that said,

    i really wanted to like this movie. i bought tickets months in advanced, saw it again in IMAX and was basically crazy about it up until i actually saw the movie.

    i was underwhelmed.

    like previously stated, i think the main problem with TDK is the screenplay. its pretty weak. if you read the script, its fairly average. most of the joker comes from ledger; he made that character work. if there was a better script, the joker would have been even more amazing and it would have helped the other actors stand out more.

    i give this movie 2.5 stars out of 4. its decent and like someone else said, i thought ironman was the better movie. TDK tried to be too much and at times took itself too seriously. all that did was add to the mess. if heath ledger did not pull of the joker we would all be singing a different tune: that this is just an average movie that really isn’t all that great.

    camaro

  8. camaro, on February 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm Said:

    to add, i give batman begins 3 stars. i do think begins is the better movie

  9. pancakes, on February 26th, 2009 at 9:50 pm Said:

    See the only thing I don’t get is that everyone who goes around saying The Dark Knight SUCKS are pointing things out like “How come Batman didn’t get cut by the glass”, “How did Harvey Dent get in the limo without being seen”, “how unrealistic is the semi flipping over”.

    I’m just saying how could the movie be so awful when the only thing to complain about is ridiculous stuff like that?

    It’s all interpretive, but one time you are truly wrong is when your nitpicking a movie frame by frame to find the smallest shred of inconsistancy because you personally didn’t like it. Life isn’t perfect, so why should a movie be?

  10. Benoit Racine, on March 5th, 2009 at 5:11 am Said:

    (I wrote you about this.) Here are two seminal “reviews” of that film that pretty much sum up the wide spectrum of views on the subject.

    The first one was published in The Wall Street Journal by ultra-conservative right-wing nutjob fascistic mystery writer Andrew Klavan. It’s called “What Bush and Batman have in common”: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    The second one is by left-wing commentator-essayist Jim Kunstler and it’s called “The Dark (K)night”: http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/08/dark-knight.html

    Both see Batman as Bush except, of course, one thinks it’s a good thing and the other thinks it sucks.

    Here is my own IMDb comment on the film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/usercomments-2940

    (I was mad at hell and not going to take it anymore.)

    Great website, by the way!

    Benoit Racine
    Toronto

  11. Benoit Racine, on March 5th, 2009 at 5:19 am Said:

    There is also the question of the “Dendermonde Joker”, a 20-year old deranged Belgian man who stabbed two babies in the throat, killed a caretaker and mutilated 15 other babies in a Dendermonde, Belgium, day-care centre on January 23, 2009, while made up as the Joker in “The Dark Knight”. He laughed maniacally while being interrogated by police.

    The perpetrator, Kim De Gelger, has a family name that is an anagram of “Ledger” and committed his atrocious crimes the day after Heath Ledger’s death’s anniversary.

    See this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack

    I think Kim De Gelder should be nominated as the patron saint of all comicbook superheroes (or villains) in long underwear fanboys.

  12. Waffles, on March 5th, 2009 at 9:49 am Said:

    I can only agree somewhat. biggest complaint, too long, or rather it felt too long meaning something was wrong. at a certain point after being thrilled you say to yourself, okay, i’ve had enough.

    But in its defense, lets compare Dark Knight to something like the Transporter 2. My god, its a shinning star now.

  13. CJ, on March 5th, 2009 at 11:20 am Said:

    Benoit to you even know what facism is you damn communist

  14. camaro, on March 5th, 2009 at 11:24 am Said:

    CJ how about you check your grammar before posting? lets leave politics out of this discussion please

  15. Benoit Racine, on March 14th, 2009 at 10:31 am Said:

    The movie that keeps on killing…

    From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/13/police-shoot-man-dressed-as-joker

    Man dressed as Batman character the Joker shot dead by police

    Peter Walker and agencies

    guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 March 2009 01.45 GMT

    [A man dressed as Batman villain the Joker has been shot dead by police in America after pointing a loaded shotgun at them.

    The dead man, who was said to be obsessed with the character, was wearing full costume and makeup when he was challenged by officers in a national park in Virginia, according to legal documents.

    The FBI named him as army specialist Christopher Lanum, who was wanted as a suspect over the stabbing of a fellow soldier at Fort Eustis, a major army base in the state, several hours before. Lanum’s girlfriend, Patsy Ann Marie Montowski, who was with him when he was shot, told investigators that the soldier idolised the Joker, played in the most recent Batman film, The Dark Knight, by the late Heath Ledger.

    The events began at the base early on Sunday when Lanum become embroiled in an argument with a fellow soldier, Mitchell Stone, allegedly stabbing him and using a stun gun on him.

    Lanum and Montowski fled in her van, which was later spotted around 200 miles away inside Shenandoah national park. Police pursued the pair, who crashed the van after running over a spiked strip laid in the road.

    According to the FBI documents, Lanum told Montowski to kill him with the shotgun but she refused. He then pointed the gun at police, his finger on the trigger, and refused orders to drop it, before being shot several times.

    Montowski was also shot and taken to hospital. Details of the case emerged yesterday after she was charged in connection with the case following treatment.

    Follow-up: http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/records-eustis-soldier-was-preparing-war-idolized-joker

    Records: Eustis soldier was ‘preparing for war,’ idolized Joker

    Spc. Christopher N. Lanum was killed in a shootout with police.

    By Kate Wiltrout
    The Virginian-Pilot
    © March 13, 2009

    Spc. Christopher Lanum loved the Joker, the character from Batman.

    There were Joker posters and Joker masks in his barracks room at Fort Eustis.

    Early Sunday morning, Lanum cleaned his knives and told his girlfriend, Patsy Ann Marie Montowski, that he was “preparing for war.” He’d told her that before, but this time he was dressing the part, putting on a Joker costume he’d worn for Halloween.

    He dictated a good bye note to his daughter; Montowski wrote one to her own children. The letter, labeled “To our families and friends,” also contained messages to both their parents.

    The letter was found hours later in Lanum’s car at Fort Eustis, after the couple allegedly attacked Spc. Mitchell Stone, a soldier who shared a suite with Lanum in Building 696 at the Newport News post.

    After allegedly slashing Stone’s throat and shocking him repeatedly with a stun gun, Lanum fled with Montowski in her minivan with a 12-gauge shotgun, several knives and a bloody razor.

    Stone was taken by helicopter to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital with serious injuries.

    As Montowski drove west across Virginia, Lanum painted his face to look like the Joker.

    Hours later, after leading police on a slow-speed chase through the serpentine roads of Shenandoah National Park, Lanum – a 25-year-old combat medic who had served 15 months in Iraq – was shot dead.

    Montowski appeared Thursday in federal court in Norfolk. She is charged with being an accessory after the fact to Lanum’s alleged assault on Stone.

    Relatives of Lanum and Montowski declined to comment Thursday.

    An affidavit filed Wednesday in federal court describes in detail the couple’s alleged actions. The nine-page document, written by an FBI agent, includes information from interviews with Stone and Montowski, as well as descriptions of rooms 258 and 259 in the Fort Eustis barracks where Stone and Lanum lived.

    Montowski, who was wounded slightly in the shootout, told investigators that the trouble started after she left Lanum’s barracks room to get cigarettes out of her car.

    She told them Lanum, who had been cleaning his knives, refused to let her back into his room. So she knocked on Stone’s door and asked if she could pass through his room to the common area he shared with Lanum.

    The men began arguing, she said, and a full fight ensued.

    Stone, who Fort Eustis officials said Thursday has been released from the hospital, told an FBI agent that Lanum shocked him three times with the stun gun before he fought back and ended up wrestling Lanum on the floor. Stone said Lanum urged Montowski to use the stun gun, and she shocked him four more times before he was able to free himself.

    As he tried to open the door and flee, Lanum came from behind and cut his throat, Stone said. Stone made it to the first floor of the building, where he told base EMS personnel that Lanum had attacked him right after Lanum’s girlfriend passed through his room.

    Fort Eustis MPs found blood spatter on the walls, floors and furniture, and a knife and loaded .45 caliber handgun on the floor of the common room. A blood-covered stun gun was on the floor of Stone’s room. Hanging on a bedpost in Lanum’s room was a purse with Montowski’s driver’s license inside.

    Fort Eustis officials said Lanum, who returned from Iraq in September 2007, had been stationed at the base since November. Both he and Stone were assigned to the post’s health clinic. The 600 uniformed and civilian employees of the clinic have been offered counseling, said Karla Gonzalez, the base public affairs officer.

    Gonzalez said she had no information about whether Lanum, a combat veteran, had sought counseling or was receiving any type of treatment at Fort Eustis.

    The base is about to finish a month-long safety stand-down focused on preventing suicide.

    It isn’t clear whether Lanum intended to harm himself or expected to die. Montowski said that in the letter he dictated to his daughter, Andrea, before the assault, he said he could not explain his actions.

    Montowski told agents that she also wrote a good bye note to her children, but it was not a suicide note and she did so only because Lanum did.

    She told the agents that after the chase, Lanum tried to kill himself with a shotgun. At one point, he handed her the gun and asked her to shoot him, but she threw the gun down.

    According to the park rangers and Virginia State Police troopers involved in the chase, Lanum had the shotgun pointed at the officers who approached the driver’s side. His finger was on the trigger, and the affidavit said that he refused repeated demands to put down the gun.

    One trooper fired through the window, and Lanum’s shotgun discharged. He was struck several times and was declared dead at the scene. It is unclear who fired the fatal shots.

    Funeral services are scheduled for today for Lanum, who was born in Portsmouth and later attended Kellam High School in Virginia Beach.

    (end of story)

    I can just imagine the touching note to his daughter: “Daddy has to go out and dress up as his favourite movie character, the Joker, now and kill some people, darling. It’s just something that daddies do…”

  16. Keihzaru, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pm Said:

    I liked this movie, only liked, but surely I wouldn’t watch it again.
    When I go to see a Batman movie I expect to see goddamn Batman, no wealthy people debating hollywood philosophy for about half an hour.
    That thing of Batman speaking in a growly voice all the damn time is just ridiculous, is like he is trying to scare little children, maybe he should have tried to wear a white sheet too.
    If I was a mafia mobster with gun in hand an a guy in a batsuit came speaking like he had a cold I wouldn’t be sacred, I would just shoot in the huge mouth hole in his mask, I mean whats the point of having an armor in all your body if you left your move uncovered? a bullet in the mouth and all that junk would just be a wste of time.
    and that thing of the Joker intimidating a huge group of criminals that must have guns even up their asses.
    Come one! he just killed one of them, if you go into a mafia meeting and kill one of them they are not going to be intimidate and stare blankly at you while you speak, they would shoot you dead beyond recognition.
    Maybe they all had clourophobia (or however it is wirtten) and they were just pissing their pants, that would be the only at least bit logical explanation.
    Now with the topic of Ledger performance, I kinda liked it, I mean I have no problems, the cheesy dialogues are just the work of the “awesome writing staff”, the guy acted decently with the material given to him, but people really likes to overrate it, there are soem idiots that even think taht his insomnia was because “The incredible role he made as the joker and the joekr itself were too much emotional and psichological stress”, bullshit, since when an actor becaomes traumatized by playing a poorly written character?
    The transformation of Harvey Dent into two faces was just stupid, accelerated and poorly wirtten.
    One moment he is a prosecutor who wants to clean chicago from crime, but in a second he is a serial killer.
    The joker enters his room (The guy who fucking killed his girlfriend, kidnaped him and tied up to a chair in building full of whatever they were full of) and he practically tell dent “It wasn’t me the culpcrit, yeah even when I ordered your kidnaping and set the bombs taht killed your girlfriend it was the police fault kill them” and gives him a gun….. and then just lets him walk away and becomes a serial killer. WHAT THE HELL? If I was Dent and the Joker was in fornt of the cannon of the gun he just gave me I would just shoot a bullet through his skull. Poorly written crucial moments are kewl.
    Oh and Harvey Dent jus catches fire out of nowhere, and Batman instead of trying to turn the flames off he just stands there watching.
    and how does Harvey dent walk around with his facial muscles exposed and don’t even feel pain? or gets an ifetcion?

  17. Keihzaru, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pm Said:

    huh aprently I fell in the depths of extremely poor grammar and Typing in my previous post XD

  18. Alex M, on March 17th, 2009 at 1:21 am Said:

    I wrote an article entitled Watchmen vs Dark Knight in which I come down heavily on the latter… because it’s an appalling movie.

    http://www.playtime-magazine.com/2009/03/watchmen-vs-the-dark-knight/

    Here’s an excerpt….

    Early in the year I forced myself to sit through Christopher Nolan’s painful but much hyped follow-up to the dreadfully mediocre Batman Begins. You know Christopher Nolan, the guy who made the brilliant and ambitious movie, Memento, following it with one of the decade’s smartest American movies, The Prestige. As a Batman fan, sitting through The Dark Knight was a physically painful affair: dire, clichéd rubbish, an overly traditional man vs terrorist setup soaked to the brim in an unquestioning philosophy a mile or two to the right of Ann Coulter. The film’s parallels between the Joker and Al Qaeda were painfully obvious, and Batman’s “by any means necessary” method simply turned the character into an unthinking Jack Bauer and the movie into an apology for the Bush regime. None of this is helped by its traditional, laboured A to B blockbuster structure, which constantly eschews things like characterization and thoughtfulness, instead willing us to leave our brains at home and enjoy the high octane action. Now, there’s nothing wrong with the occasional thrill ride, but Batman’s tired car chases and fuzzy fight scenes don’t try very hard to offer anything new or creative.

  19. pancakes, on March 20th, 2009 at 7:18 pm Said:

    you spelled apparentely wrong.

  20. Darksoul, on May 8th, 2009 at 4:37 am Said:

    The Dark Knight was 2008’s most over-hyped bad movie.
    Now Star Trek is 2009’s The Dark Knight.
    Star Trek (2009) is the most over-hyped pile of S$%^ of the year.
    The Writers of The New Star Trek are the new Goyers and JJ is the new Uwe Bow.
    I do not know what to hate more Star Trek (2009) or The Dark Knight.

  21. george, on May 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm Said:

    sorry, Star Trek was good. it was much better than the overhyped and entirely average dark knight.

  22. Lo, on May 26th, 2009 at 3:34 pm Said:

    I don’t know if it was just me, but I had a serious problem with this movie. I have been reading batman comics since i was about 10, and i wanted to shoot myself in the foot after seeing this movie. Was it a good movie, sure, I’ll give it that. Was it BATMAN? NO. The thing that bothered me the most was the fact that Christopher Nolan was so obsessed with making Batman “believable” that he actually kind of insulted the story/comic. The story is already much more believable than most comic, but so what, either way, it doesn’t matter.

    Yes, batman is a story, it isn’t real, but it is an incredible comic book, and it is it’s fiction that makes it amazing.
    Why does the Joker need to wear makeup? Have we seriously become such an unimaginative society we can’t even stretch our imaginations to believe a man’s body could become altered after a chemical bath. This was what made the Joker the Joker. He is meant to be a contradiction of a attractive person with unhuman like qualities, chalk white skin, green hair and red lips. Not an average white guy who put some crappy spray-on hair dye, grease paint, and looks like a hobo.”I’m a man of simple tastes.” Did ANYONE on the set read the comic?

    Most of all i really didn’t like the fact Heath Ledger played him. I suspect 2/3 of the movie goers were 14 and 15 year old girls who would go see anything that had “THAT HOT GUY FROM ’10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU'”.

    My other question, what’s wrong with Harvey Dent having a chemical thrown in his face? What is so believable about being burned, if he was, he probably wouldn’t have an eye on that side either. But why can’t we just STICK to the story. Or at least the ORIGIN.

    My final question is why did Bruce Wayne seem to play such a small part in the movie. It hasn’t really touched on the emotional and psychological strain he experiences. How batman becomes a bitter person, torn between being Bruce and being who he really is, Batman. Or how he basically begins turning off as a human and becomes consumed with fighting crime.

    Well, thats all. My only point is the catch phrase for the movie , “Why So Serious?” is in my opinion a contradiction of the movie’s goal, to make it serious(OR “BELIEVABLE”). The characters live in an objective world, with consequence and dull normalcy.
    BOOOOOOOORRRRING.
    Imagination must exist in batman, that’s their unfathomable magic.
    But maybe batman just shouldn’t be made into a movie. Some of the best stories make for some of the worst movies and vice versa.

  23. Earlofthercs, on May 29th, 2009 at 12:01 am Said:

    What Batman comics have you been reading? Joker’s origin of `acid bath’ wasnt written until almost 40 years after his debut, so why is it more of an essential part of his character than his personality to you? I dont care why his face’s white, or who he was before he became the joker, I care that he acts like the joker… which he did, in this movie.

    Again the `acid’ in dents face was originally the origin of a different two face, Harvey Appolo from the old comic strips. The `acid in the face from maroni’ as two-face’s origin was only made canonical in the comcis in 1987- 45 years after his first appearance as a a comic book villain.

    The films are an alternate universe, if events happen a little differently it doesnt make them `wrong’ merely different. ITs the characterisation that’s important, and again Two Face behaves like two-face.

    I didnt find the movie boring at all.

  24. george, on May 29th, 2009 at 9:50 am Said:

    it does get boring in the third act. after the joker escapes its pretty much downhill, not a steep drop, but a slight decline to the end. i think if they got rid of dent it would have been a much better movie.

  25. Kevin, on May 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pm Said:

    Make a site about Terminator:Salvation. This raspy voiced Bale voice can ruin any movie.

  26. Lo, on June 24th, 2009 at 12:48 am Said:

    well i have no doubt youre right about the origin differences, Earlofthercs. And i appreciate the history lesson. You made valid points. But for the record i didn’t say the movie was boring, i was talking about the concept. I actually thought it was a relatively exciting movie. Yes, i have not read too many of the older comics, most I’ve read were from the 80s and after. Yes, THOSE comics. And i’m sure the original was different. No i guess it isnt essential what the joker looks like, but, personally, i didn’t think he was acting like the joker either. Just a psychopathic hobo. Just my opinion. And no, no one asked me. Im sure youre very knowledgeable about batman comics and i can appreciate that. But my point in the comment was mostly why the film was suppose to be realistic. It can be any origin im aware of or not. And no i didn’t say the alternate universe was wrong, i just thought the one they came up with was silly. The Burton joker wasn’t necessarily right either, (and yes im aware of the red hood, mobster, and struggling comedian alternate versions). And they chose the mobster, which was fine. I thought they got it mostly right for a film. And if there is another version im not aware of im anxious to know, im sure im ignorant to a lot of things But it was just belly aching, man. just seeing if anyone agreed with my personal opinion.

  27. Earlofthercs, on July 9th, 2009 at 8:54 pm Said:

    Lo, thats cool. we’re cool man, no worries.

  28. mdk, on July 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm Said:

    erm.. mr expert: so if the acidbath story was invented 40 years after jokers first appearance, that means joker was introduced in 1911 ?????,
    for the acidbath is first mentioned in Detective Comics #168 “The Man Behind the Red Hood” February, 1951

    and i think it has become essential for his charakter because this way the joker doesnt really choose to look “strange” (even if he dresses normal he is a “freak” its something like a stigma he isnt really responsible for; unlike somone using shabby makeup) and its important for the relationship between batman and joker (thats why he doesnt kill him: he feels guilty)
    and further i think heath ledger played the worst joker ever (actually i dont think he played “the joker” at all… that should not mean, he played the linguistically challenged clown bum bad) but thats just my oppnion and doesnt matter

  29. Tyrell, on July 31st, 2009 at 5:31 pm Said:

    omg wut da movie waz so dum i tink peepl wuz smokin weed wen tey saw it!!!1!111!!!!!! LOL mayb they shud see da real good moviez lik miami vice or 12 rounds. JOHN CENA CUOLD KILL BATMAN!!!

  30. Mothman, on October 9th, 2010 at 12:14 pm Said:

    I hate people who say “It’s just a movie”.

    Piss off if that’s the best critical input you can give. “It’s just a book”… It’s just a TV show” … I can’t watch this movie again because of dumb assed writing that includes fingerprints in brick dust.

Leave a Reply