Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)

2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.

Just watched Tim Burton's Batman again last night - the Joker story is fully told and brilliantly so.......and he is completely insane, Heath Ledgers version was ok, but not really insane enough for me and hardly even killed anyone. Jacks Joker kills an entire museum full of people just to have some one to one time with Vicki.

HL's blows up an empty hospital. The one if Suicide Squad seemed better - much more insane.

re Batman ageing - well he doesn't really do so in the main comics does he?

hL joker got everyone in the opening scene to kill each other. Presumably killed the fire dept of the fire truck he stole and then lit on fire. (Making a fire truck... Get it!?) Stabed that guy through the eye with the pencil. Etc etc...

Just saying hl joker has a lot of chaotic blood on his hands. Most of which you would have dificty pinning on him and all of which could not be predicted because his plan was chaotic and mad.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)

2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.

The whole reason I didnt mention his brother was in case people hadn't seen that, different countries get the show at different times. Also I for one am sick and tired of "Force of Nature" Joker, so am glad they are sort of explaining things.

3) ok. So batman can fight Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Scarecrow and Blackmask. But Penguin, Riddler, Hugo Strange, Mr Freeze, doll maker, Zsasz etc etc etc... are all pushing or past 50 by the time he first shows up as batman in gotham. Which means by the time Tim Drake is on the scene they are all like... 65ish?

By the time it's Long Holloweenish the Gotham-verses Batman is spending his nights beating up geriatrics.

Penguin is generally older than Bruce I thought, Riddler not usually being a physical villain works as an older badguy which also translates well to Strange. Mr Freeze can probably slow his aging for reasons and Zsaz well I guess will just be Bats beating up an old man. Most of the other villains can just have someone else adopt the name.

4) Which is still not AS bad as the fact that again, Gordon and the GCPD police database is going to have massive files on all these guys. Batman won't need to be a detective at all.

GCPD in the comics has had their Database filled by these villains for a long time in the comics and Bruce still has to do detective work, literally nothing will change.

and 5) Gordans constant working and then not working and then working again for the GCPD has lost all meaning. Every season is just flipping a switch back and forth between whether he works at that specific desk or not with no actual consequence.

That was a plot point for what 1 and a half seasons? They've already mostly moved on from that to him guiltily thinking he shouldnt and Bullock forcing him to stay. This season's cop leaving the department and coming back was Bullock.

I thought that the burning fire truck was a nice touch. It was really ‘creepy’ in a way.

I was also thinking, assuming that batman leaves the power armour for the justice league crossover events, would there be a chance to, ‘update’ his regular suit. What I mean is, he goes around cultivating the idea that he’s not human. That’s he’s some sort of monster. Yet for me personally, with his previous incarnations I find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn’t see him as just a guy in a bat themed suit. What if his suit was changed to look more ‘inhuman’ and scary? Although that might be sacrilege. And unnecessary. Maybe batman isn’t batman unless the lower half of his face is exposed.

I think an update of the Azreal suit post Knightfall could be a decent middleground, not full blown Iron Man but a lot more fighty than the recent incarnations

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I think an update of the Azreal suit post Knightfall could be a decent middleground, not full blown Iron Man but a lot more fighty than the recent incarnations

Yes! That’s what I’m thinking of. Not power armour but still armour none the less, with a fully enclosing mask. Go down the Nolan route and have it as a redesigned military gear, but you don’t necessarily have to say it is.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)

2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.

Just watched Tim Burton's Batman again last night - the Joker story is fully told and brilliantly so.......and he is completely insane, Heath Ledgers version was ok, but not really insane enough for me and hardly even killed anyone. Jacks Joker kills an entire museum full of people just to have some one to one time with Vicki.

HL's blows up an empty hospital. The one if Suicide Squad seemed better - much more insane.

re Batman ageing - well he doesn't really do so in the main comics does he?

hL joker got everyone in the opening scene to kill each other. Presumably killed the fire dept of the fire truck he stole and then lit on fire. (Making a fire truck... Get it!?) Stabed that guy through the eye with the pencil. Etc etc...

Just saying hl joker has a lot of chaotic blood on his hands. Most of which you would have dificty pinning on him and all of which could not be predicted because his plan was chaotic and mad.

Hmm maybe - I remember him killing some other bad guys and Batmans sorta girl friend but nothing like the murder spree that Jack had - just cos he could.

I found HL's Joker super precog with his plans skills very uncovnicing.- it was worse than 24!

This is how Azrael's armour is looking at the moment:



To be honest, though, I really don't see a need for a Batman redesign to that extent. Rebirth made some nice aesthetic changes (a touch of purple on the cloak, a slightly sharper cowl) but beyond that, I don't think it really needs to change at all.

You could go with the Injustice look, more armoured and about half way between the current version and Nolan's look, but to be honest, the 'everyone has segmented armoured suits now' look got dated fast after the N52 when suddenly the likes of Superman and The Flash have that kind of style. Back to basics like what Batfleck has is the best, if you ask me.

@ Paradigm

You raise good points (I like Batfleck myself). And it is easy to get carried away. Superman doesn’t need that. I just think that without any armour Bruce is taking too much of a risk. And again, if he wants to appear inhuman I think he needs to do more. But that’s just me. This is all entirely subjective.

For me, something like this would be the way to go.

Costume design is an interesting point of discussion and one of the strengths of the MCU that's easy to take for granted. It doesn't hurt that the early styles largely worked and newer designs have been able to build on that success. As much as the Ultimates experiment has driven the creation of the films, its interesting that they mostly lifted Caps costume from it while picking up the others from other sources. While its largely fallen on the forgettable side of MCU films, its pretty impressive to consider how much of a blank check Thor enabled regarding costume design. Giant yellow horns? Sure, lets do this.

DC definitely haven't managed to find a way to make their costumes look both iconic and reasonable. Wonder Woman is probably the big exception. Batman has certainly had some success as well, but what works for him doesn't translate to other characters very well. Certainly I think we'd have a different conversation if Green Lantern's costume hadn't been a complete disaster.

It's interesting to note we've never gotten iconic costume designs out of the X-Men franchise either. That might be the one thing I'm curious to see come out of the Fox acquisition.

The X-men get their classic costumes for all of 5 seconds of Apocalypse... hopefully they actually get to wear them in Dark Phoenix, as it seems that'll be the last outing for this particular incarnation.

I do think the X-men are very relevant to this discussion actually, as especially in the latter half of the franchise, they've been consistently good (opinions may differ, but I haven't seen an X-men film I didn't like... I still don't get the hate for Origins or The Last Stand) without attracting the sort of fanfare that the MCU has had.

Especially Days of Future Past, that's got to be one of the best comic book movies going and balances its large cast as well as any Avengers outing, but was a bit of a dark horse and I don't recall much hype around it when it released. Ok, it was up against some pretty big Marvel titles (sandwiched between arguably two of their best, Guardians and The Winter Soldier) but even so, I don't remember it garnering that much attention.

And yet, the X-verse will be 10 films in come September, and as a franchise has outlasted 2 Hulks, 2 Daredevils, 2 Spidermen, 2 Supermen, 2 Batmen and has consistently been good. It's a very different approach to the one Marvel have taken, and you could argue it's not really a cinematic universe since all the films are essentially telling one story (aside from maybe Logan, which could exist in a vacuum and would still be perfect) but even if you aren't a fan of some of the entries, that staying power is impressive, especially when you consider that X-men 2 is often regarded as one of the first truly great comic book movies.

Deadpool had iconic xmen costumes. Negasonic wore the yellow and very very dark blues


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, obviously, deadpool himself. Spot on.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)

2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.

Just watched Tim Burton's Batman again last night - the Joker story is fully told and brilliantly so.......and he is completely insane, Heath Ledgers version was ok, but not really insane enough for me and hardly even killed anyone. Jacks Joker kills an entire museum full of people just to have some one to one time with Vicki.

HL's blows up an empty hospital. The one if Suicide Squad seemed better - much more insane.

re Batman ageing - well he doesn't really do so in the main comics does he?

hL joker got everyone in the opening scene to kill each other. Presumably killed the fire dept of the fire truck he stole and then lit on fire. (Making a fire truck... Get it!?) Stabed that guy through the eye with the pencil. Etc etc...

Just saying hl joker has a lot of chaotic blood on his hands. Most of which you would have dificty pinning on him and all of which could not be predicted because his plan was chaotic and mad.

Hmm maybe - I remember him killing some other bad guys and Batmans sorta girl friend but nothing like the murder spree that Jack had - just cos he could.

I found HL's Joker super precog with his plans skills very uncovnicing.- it was worse than 24!

I wouldn't really call it precog, just good planning. Here are some things people often forget about Joker. He is really smart, he is really motivated, and he is obsessed with Batman. He doesn't even care so much about winning or beating Batman as long as he has his attention and he is willing to do anything for that attention. So a very smart Joker who has been following/watching Batman for years would be able to catch him off guard. Lead him in to traps. That is what makes Joker a good villain. You never really feel like Batman is truly in control of a situation just because The Joker can come at you from any direction, some directions you didn't even know existed.

Or at least, that is my take on him.

I agree. Its not joker is a elemental force. Its that jokers goals and motivations are so simple and his lack of care about colateral damage so vast that you just cant predict how little or how far he will go to get what he wants.

And as pointed out, what he really wants is his continued relationship with batman. To push and push and try to make batman break his code. And the stronger batman holds to his code the more joker wants to push.

I’m also in the camp that Heath Ledger made a truly fantastic villain, but fell someway short of being Joker.

No maniacal laughter. Nothing felt spontaneous about his plans.

Seriously. I don’t mean to detract from his performance as such, but the character just wasn’t Joker. He was insane, but he wasn’t mad? He never felt like he had any kind of punchline, however twisted and demented his plans.

Take the two ships scene. It’s a brilliant premise, barring the ‘why did nobody notice the bombs before’ issue. But it’s just not Joker. Where’s the taunts? Where’s the self aggrandising commentary? Where’s his enjoyment of the prank?

Again, the burning of the money. He just does it. He doesn’t actually seem to take any joy in what is a senseless act.

Definitely a powerful performance, but not Joker.

FWIW, I think the War of Jokes and Riddles might be the best Joker origin story.

I'm going to go with Arkham Origins as my favourite Joker history. Possibly an unconventional choice, but I pick it mainly because it manages to both tell how the Joker is born without ever actually elaborating on where he came from, thus preserving the mystery. But seeing his first meeting with Batman, and how that took him from a regular, if flamboyant crime boss to the insane, obsessive supervillain is done very well there over the space of just a few scenes. Some fantastic voice work from Troy Baker helps as well.

This little excerpt really sums it up:

Joker: Tell me, my dear, have you ever had a really...bad...day?

Psychologist: And what do you mean by that?

Joker: You of all people should know. (laughs) There's nothing so cruel as memory. The pointy, bitey little thunderbolts. Unwanted party crashers, screamers through your synapses. Inescapable, unrelenting...not at all friendly. You can't even escape into madness! And then you meet someone who changes your life. And you feel that you don't even know who you are any more! Isn't it funny how one little encounter can cleave off little pieces of your past, deform your memories and persona until you rethink your whole identity — and as you realize how foolish it all is — your laughter reverberates off the walls of your own emptiness.

The full scene is here, worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9akBjJZB29w

What I think is that anyone saying that 'X' performance or version 'is' or 'isn't' the Joker probably doesn't actually much about the character. The Joker has been so many different things in the comics -- terrorist, silly bankrobbing clown, agent of chaos, etc. -- that authors even created explanations for all his different personas.

Grant Morrison (in his classic 'Arkham Asylum') suggested that the Joker had a kind of 'supersanity' that changes and adapts to his current reality. More recently, Geoff Johns dropped the bombshell that there have been THREE Jokers in the DC universe (this is about to be explored in Doomsday Clock).

Seriously, it's probably the very last character in the DC universe that should be considered to have a single defining version. Everyone is allowed to have their favorite version. But the 'is' and 'isn't' talk is pure silliness.

I very much doubt that has has always been 3 jokers. I bet its some infinite earths bs and they are from collapsed time lines.

Instead i like the begining of the new 52 when batman explained that joker had no ID (maybe?) And as a result he keeps reinventing himself. And if joker gets out again hes going to be worse then ever.

That was a good explanation that i really enjoyed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m also in the camp that Heath Ledger made a truly fantastic villain, but fell someway short of being Joker.

No maniacal laughter. Nothing felt spontaneous about his plans.

Seriously. I don’t mean to detract from his performance as such, but the character just wasn’t Joker. He was insane, but he wasn’t mad? He never felt like he had any kind of punchline, however twisted and demented his plans.

Take the two ships scene. It’s a brilliant premise, barring the ‘why did nobody notice the bombs before’ issue. But it’s just not Joker. Where’s the taunts? Where’s the self aggrandising commentary? Where’s his enjoyment of the prank?

Again, the burning of the money. He just does it. He doesn’t actually seem to take any joy in what is a senseless act.

Definitely a powerful performance, but not Joker.

Heath Ledger didn't play the Joker. He played a hyper capable Charles Manson.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m also in the camp that Heath Ledger made a truly fantastic villain, but fell someway short of being Joker.

No maniacal laughter. Nothing felt spontaneous about his plans.

Seriously. I don’t mean to detract from his performance as such, but the character just wasn’t Joker. He was insane, but he wasn’t mad? He never felt like he had any kind of punchline, however twisted and demented his plans.

Take the two ships scene. It’s a brilliant premise, barring the ‘why did nobody notice the bombs before’ issue. But it’s just not Joker. Where’s the taunts? Where’s the self aggrandising commentary? Where’s his enjoyment of the prank?

Again, the burning of the money. He just does it. He doesn’t actually seem to take any joy in what is a senseless act.

Definitely a powerful performance, but not Joker.

I look at the Nolan-verse as its own take on Batman. I try not to put it up against others a lot. Heath Ledger made an amazing Joker for that series. It was very serious, it was grimdark. You couldn't really have a traditional Joker in that setting. Powersuit Baleman would probably just wreck him.

Now aside from that, talking about the traditional Joker. I don't think he takes any joy from what he does. None at all. It is all an act. The commentary is used to get under peoples skin. The pranks are a gimmick so he can be "spontaneous". He does something sick and twisted, something really demented, then he laughs. Because that is the last thing you expect a sane person to do. Because that is what will truly mess with a person, something that will cause them to break. Which is what he is trying to do. He breaks people. He warps them and twists them. He wants to prove that all people have darkness in them just looking to come out. But he cannot break Batman and that kills him. Because if there is one person that can hold out, it means he is weak.

See, the Joker really is insane. His "madness" is just an act.

 Lance845 wrote:
I very much doubt that has has always been 3 jokers. I bet its some infinite earths bs and they are from collapsed time lines.

Instead i like the begining of the new 52 when batman explained that joker had no ID (maybe?) And as a result he keeps reinventing himself. And if joker gets out again hes going to be worse then ever.

That was a good explanation that i really enjoyed.

Eh, the comics seem to have forgotten about that three Jokers thing anyways. It hasn’t been brought up again for a long time.

 AduroT wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I very much doubt that has has always been 3 jokers. I bet its some infinite earths bs and they are from collapsed time lines.

Instead i like the begining of the new 52 when batman explained that joker had no ID (maybe?) And as a result he keeps reinventing himself. And if joker gets out again hes going to be worse then ever.

That was a good explanation that i really enjoyed.

Eh, the comics seem to have forgotten about that three Jokers thing anyways. It hasn’t been brought up again for a long time.

It's apparently being explored post Doomsday Clock.

I don't think it's possible to make "ALL" comic book movies work.


You'd have to start with all comic book stories not sucking to start with (I'm not saying that they're all ***** but there's an awful lot of crap out there, and a lot of awful crap - in comics and comics-based movies and TV) that no-one outside a fringe group within a niche group gives two craps about.

You need actors who gel with the material.
You need directors who *grok* the material without necessarily being slavish to it. Get the look and the feel right and it can work quite well.
You also need a studio that allows them to carry on with their vision without interfering with it.
You also need an audience who can enjoy it without needing to be elbow deep in the "lore" - so it has to translate to mass-market without being too "fans only".

Iron Man worked because of RDJ. He was more than willing to take the p*** out of his own life to lend flesh to his portrayal of Stark.

But, it also had all the other ingredients in the mix. You didn't need to know all the background. You had a director who knew what he was doing and how to do it, while being faithful to the material.

Quite a few of the [insert generic superhero film here] movies didn't work because they didn't have all of those things. Script was bad, or budget was inadequate, or casting was an ill-fit, or they were just niche characters that only certain nerds cared about.

I don't know. I had no idea there was a Kick-Ass comic book until well after I'd seen the movie, and I'm a bit of a superhero/comic geek. And yet the movie did reasonably well. Just because a comic is obscure doesn't mean it can't appeal to a wider audience if it fulfills the other criteria you list.

Mark Miller comics are kind of a special case. He doesn’t so much write comics as movie scripts with the story boarding mostly finished. Luckily his more CLINT worthy moments usually get left out of the films and in general comics seem to have moved past his gimmicks.

 chromedog wrote:
Iron Man worked because of RDJ. He was more than willing to take the p*** out of his own life to lend flesh to his portrayal of Stark.

But, it also had all the other ingredients in the mix. You didn't need to know all the background. You had a director who knew what he was doing and how to do it, while being faithful to the material.

Quite a few of the [insert generic superhero film here] movies didn't work because they didn't have all of those things. Script was bad, or budget was inadequate, or casting was an ill-fit, or they were just niche characters that only certain nerds cared about.

I agree with your point of view. A lot of superhero movies live and die by their star. Iron Man was a huge success thanks to RDJ performance. The same could be said for Wonder Woman whose success pretty reside on Gadot's performance. A good editing job and memorable score certainly helps too.

 Vulcan wrote:
I don't know. I had no idea there was a Kick-Ass comic book until well after I'd seen the movie, and I'm a bit of a superhero/comic geek. And yet the movie did reasonably well. Just because a comic is obscure doesn't mean it can't appeal to a wider audience if it fulfills the other criteria you list.

On the other hand, Wanted the movie is a steaming pile of hot Garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with the comic.

 LunarSol wrote:
Mark Miller comics are kind of a special case. He doesn’t so much write comics as movie scripts with the story boarding mostly finished. Luckily his more CLINT worthy moments usually get left out of the films and in general comics seem to have moved past his gimmicks.

Not familiar with the term CLINT worthy, explain please.

 Just Tony wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Mark Miller comics are kind of a special case. He doesn’t so much write comics as movie scripts with the story boarding mostly finished. Luckily his more CLINT worthy moments usually get left out of the films and in general comics seem to have moved past his gimmicks.

Not familiar with the term CLINT worthy, explain please.

Millar likes to be edgy and crass and gets a lot of mileage out of shock factor. The most direct translation we've probably gotten out of his stuff is probably Hit Girl, but its worth noting that he's responsible for a lot of Marvel's success with significant filtering. For example, the Banner being tossed out of the helicopter to summon the Hulk? Millar originally had Fury do that in Ultimates. Also, that moment when Cap tells Hulk, "Smash" in Avengers? It's similar to a moment in Ultimates when Cap tells the Hulk that the Chitari think he's gay to make him fight them. Likewise, Marvel chose not to lift Cap's iconic Ultimates line when asked to surrender, "What do you think this A stands for? France?"

CLINT worth is just a joke I use to describe this sort of stuff. It's an old comic joke back when people were worried that the name was being used to slip in some derogatory language (combine L and I into one letter...). I use it to specifically refer to Millar's work because back in 2010 at the height of his popularity, he launched CLINT magazine... cause that's the kind of guy he is I guess.

 LunarSol wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I very much doubt that has has always been 3 jokers. I bet its some infinite earths bs and they are from collapsed time lines.

Instead i like the begining of the new 52 when batman explained that joker had no ID (maybe?) And as a result he keeps reinventing himself. And if joker gets out again hes going to be worse then ever.

That was a good explanation that i really enjoyed.

Eh, the comics seem to have forgotten about that three Jokers thing anyways. It hasn’t been brought up again for a long time.

It's apparently being explored post Doomsday Clock.

The 'three Jokers' thing definitely seems to be part of Doomsday Clock. I say 'seems' just because it's strongly pointing one way but hasn't been confirmed yet.

If you want the explanation with spoilers, here it is:








Automatically Appended Next Post:

epronovost wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
Iron Man worked because of RDJ. He was more than willing to take the p*** out of his own life to lend flesh to his portrayal of Stark.

But, it also had all the other ingredients in the mix. You didn't need to know all the background. You had a director who knew what he was doing and how to do it, while being faithful to the material.

Quite a few of the [insert generic superhero film here] movies didn't work because they didn't have all of those things. Script was bad, or budget was inadequate, or casting was an ill-fit, or they were just niche characters that only certain nerds cared about.

I agree with your point of view. A lot of superhero movies live and die by their star. Iron Man was a huge success thanks to RDJ performance. The same could be said for Wonder Woman whose success pretty reside on Gadot's performance. A good editing job and memorable score certainly helps too.

The whole MCU is largely held together by RDJ. Call it the IMU.

Marvel has recently been backing that off, and they need to. But egads, they've made Tony Stark a kind of central figure in Peter Parker's life(!)(?) and the main character in CAPTAIN AMERICA: Civil War. Tony Stark has far more of a character arc than Steve Rogers in that film. Now, that may be because they don't think Chris Evans can carry a film by himself, and they may be on to something there.