Who is your fav tele or film Character?

[bigstickbonzo]

I'm in denial about the Roy Schieder part.

I like it so much because I can thinkk of more than a few people I'd like to do that to.

Who doesn't...especially people who got screwed on their 401ks.

[59LesPaul]

...almost forgot...

The coolest ever.....

[bigstickbonzo]

Agreed.

[danelectro59]

George C Scott as Gen. Patton

Chevy Chase as Clark Griswold

Bill Murray as John Winger

Clint Eastwood as Det. Harry Callahan

Michael Keaton as Bill Blazejowski

[Nathan]

In order (1-5)

Movies:

(Mary, see The Dark Knight, and see it now. Not only is it the best Batman movie ever, but it completely raises the bar on what a [super]hero movie should be. And Heath Ledger's Joker will never be topped... ever. He was fucking brilliant!)

Edited December 19, 2008 by Nathan

[Nathan]

TV:

[Mangani]

Let's give some old classics some attention.

[Mangani]

(Mary, see The Dark Knight, and see it now. Not only is it the best Batman movie ever, but it completely raises the bar on what a [super]hero movie should be.

I respectfully disagree. I can just as much argue that Spider-Man 2 is everything a 'superhero' movie should be. I don't think a superhero movie should be so pretentious, taking itself more seriously than it deserves. At the end of the day it's about a man running around in a campy costume fighting a silly looking villain for crying out loud.

Superhero movies 'should' be bright, fun, exciting and overall NOT too serious in my view. I mean, that's what the comic books were supposed to be, before the fashion for 'darkness' took over. They still aren't Shakespeare. Yes, you can try and inject a bit of realism and a bit of seriousness but in my opinion a superhero movie should be full of 'super' things visually, that you wouldn't get in other genres. Spider-Man fighting Doc Ock on the skycrapers and then on the train is the most 'super' visualised and stylised scene in any superherp movie to date. THAT'S superhero stuff to me.

Now, you can argue that TDK is what a 'Batman' movie 'should' be but Batman never was and never will be the sole epitome or the gold standard of what a 'superhero' is. There are stacks of great superhero characters out there and Spider-Man (and Superman) are every bit as iconic as Batman and are nowhere near as dark or as pretentious.

Spider-Man 2 or Superman the Movie are every bit what a superhero movie should be in my view. Moreso.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Mangani

[Mary Hartman]

TV:

Irkle and House compete. I knew it wouldn't last long/

[bigstickbonzo]

I respectfully disagree. I can just as much argue that Spider-Man 2 is everything a 'superhero' movie should be. I don't think a superhero movie should be so pretentious, taking itself more seriously than it deserves. At the end of the day it's about a man running around in a campy costume fighting a silly looking villain for crying out loud.

Superhero movies 'should' be bright, fun, exciting and overall NOT too serious in my view. I mean, that's what the comic books were supposed to be, before the fashion for 'darkness' took over. They still aren't Shakespeare. Yes, you can try and inject a bit of realism and a bit of seriousness but in my opinion a superhero movie should be full of 'super' things visually, that you wouldn't get in other genres. Spider-Man fighting Doc Ock on the skycrapers and then on the train is the most 'super' visualised and stylised scene in any superherp movie to date. THAT'S superhero stuff to me.

Now, you can argue that TDK is what a 'Batman' movie 'should' be but Batman never was and never will be the sole epitome or the gold standard of what a 'superhero' is. There are stacks of great superhero characters out there and Spider-Man (and Superman) are every bit as iconic as Batman and are nowhere near as dark or as pretentious.

Spider-Man 2 or Superman the Movie are every bit what a superhero movie should be in my view. Moreso.

There has yet to be a Batman film that does justice to the character. Nolan's Gotham City has its moments, just like Burton's did. What makes Batman have the most appeal is his search for vengance, a feeling most people can relate to. While a few other comic characters have similar back stories, because Batman refuses to use lethal weapons and relies more on smart technology and his intelligence to fight crime, it eliminates that "couldn't happen" element and makes the reader or viewer question whether it really could or not. The human element to Batman is what makes him the most universally rich comic character. And a vigilante with the most complex group of villains ever created.

I do agree Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie" is a classic because it not only launched the superhero movie but it did justice to the comic and provided enough "campiness" to make it not so serious. Plus, Gene Hackman with Ned Betty is comic genius.

Sam Raimi jumped the shark with SpiderMan 3..but the second is definitely the best. It has the best story, the best action and the best acting from the cast out of the triligy. The third could have been amazing with the promise of Venom, but he was lost in the shitstorm of a script. And he plans to make a fourth movie? I think its time to hang it up.

What I..and most people of the character enjoyed with Ledger's Joker was the complete 180 in his personality compared to Nicholson's portrayel. The problem I have with both is the Joker is both of those personalities and so much more. I think it can be done in a single movie, you just have to know how to write for the character. The darker side of his personality is fun and frightening, but you have to show his goofy side...a character who's mind switches like a light switch. I felt Ledger provided some element to that, but overall..because the movie is dark, they left much of that out to keep the flow of the movie and not to take anything from Nicholson. I'm still waiting for my Joker on film.

Edited December 19, 2008 by bigstickbonzo

[Nathan]

I respectfully disagree. I can just as much argue that Spider-Man 2 is everything a 'superhero' movie should be. I don't think a superhero movie should be so pretentious, taking itself more seriously than it deserves. At the end of the day it's about a man running around in a campy costume fighting a silly looking villain for crying out loud.

And I have to respectfully disagree. I was never the biggest fan of Spiderman to begin with, although I have some Spiderman comics that I enjoy. However, as far as I'm concerned, the Spiderman movies were travesties. Only the second one had any promise as a "superhero" movie.

And I'm sorry, but I don't see how Batman was so "pretentious." Finally, Nolan took Batman back to how he was envisioned at his beginnings. Check out the early, original Batman comics. Then take a look at the graphic novels. Batman was never that campy, 60's travesty or that Joel Schumacher screw-up. Batman was, is, and always will be a dark, serious, almost anti- hero, especially since his entire reason for being is vengeance.

Superhero movies 'should' be bright, fun, exciting and overall NOT too serious in my view. I mean, that's what the comic books were supposed to be, before the fashion for 'darkness' took over. They still aren't Shakespeare. Yes, you can try and inject a bit of realism and a bit of seriousness but in my opinion a superhero movie should be full of 'super' things visually, that you wouldn't get in other genres. Spider-Man fighting Doc Ock on the skycrapers and then on the train is the most 'super' visualised and stylised scene in any superherp movie to date. THAT'S superhero stuff to me.

I admit, I enjoyed Iron Man quite a bit and thought it was one of the best movies of 2008, and I definitely pre-ordered the special edition (as I've done with The Dark Knight).

However, it depends on the type of "(super)hero" movie we're talking about. Batman should not be a light, campy, fun little romp for the kiddies. Batman is supposed to be dark and serious. He is supposed to be a brooder. In fact, I'd venture the idea that Batman is truly the Gothic hero. Batman is a dark soul. His entire being is revenge and vengeance. He exists solely to wage war on crime. The personality of the man behind the mask (the man who, as a child, witnessed his parents death and was traumatized by it) does not allow for a light, goofy, campy sense of humor. He can act as such (a playboy), but this is not who he is.

Spiderman came about because a teenager was bitten by a spider and decided to have fun with his new powers. Sure, he ended up with a vengeance deal like Batman, but his being is playful. Strong, serious, and mature, yes, but playful.

Iron Man is led by a man who saw first-hand the evil his weapons were used for and decided to fight back, but, again, his personality is playful and cheery.

Hence, both Spiderman and Iron Man allow for camp.

Batman is dark. Batman is vengeance. Other heroes may want vengeance. They may seek it. They may fight in the name of it. But Batman personifies it.

Nolan (and Bale), I think, portrayed that better then anyone ever has in the world of non-animated (super)hero movies.

Now, you can argue that TDK is what a 'Batman' movie 'should' be but Batman never was and never will be the sole epitome or the gold standard of what a 'superhero' is. There are stacks of great superhero characters out there and Spider-Man (and Superman) are every bit as iconic as Batman and are nowhere near as dark or as pretentious.

I'd actually argue that Batman has had the biggest effect on the Superhero world. Yes, Superman (and maybe Spiderman) is more popular and more read, but I think Batman had the most impact.

Spider-Man 2 or Superman the Movie are every bit what a superhero movie should be in my view. Moreso.

As I said earlier, in my view, the Spiderman movies were travesties. 2 was the only one with a glimmer of hope, but the whole trilogy (Dear God, please let there NOT be a fourth), I'd say, is a perfect example of what a (super)hero movie should NOT be. And when you say Superman the Movie, do you mean the most recent Superman or the early one with Christopher Reeve? If you mean the early one, then I'd agree with you to a point as it was a brilliant movie and definitely raised the bar for it's time.

If you mean the most recent one (Superman Returns?) then there is no help for you, as that movie came close to destroying the Superman legacy (much like Batman and Robin did with the Batman legacy).

Irkle and House compete. I knew it wouldn't last long/

I am a huge Steve Urkel fan. Always a hilarious character.

There has yet to be a Batman film that does justice to the character. Nolan's Gotham City has its moments, just like Burton's did. What makes Batman have the most appeal is his search for vengance, a feeling most people can relate to. While a few other comic characters have similar back stories, because Batman refuses to use lethal weapons and relies more on smart technology and his intelligence to fight crime, it eliminates that "couldn't happen" element and makes the reader or viewer question whether it really could or not. The human element to Batman is what makes him the most universally rich comic character. And a vigilante with the most complex group of villains ever created.

I actually think Nolan came extremely close. I don't think he hit a bullseye, but he came really damn close.

I do agree Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie" is a classic because it not only launched the superhero movie but it did justice to the comic and provided enough "campiness" to make it not so serious. Plus, Gene Hackman with Ned Betty is comic genius.

Agree 100%.

Sam Raimi jumped the shark with SpiderMan 3..but the second is definitely the best. It has the best story, the best action and the best acting from the cast out of the triligy. The third could have been amazing with the promise of Venom, but he was lost in the shitstorm of a script. And he plans to make a fourth movie? I think its time to hang it up.

Agree. Although I think there's a reason with the story. Have you seen Iron Man and the new Hulk? Noticed how they tied them together with the Avengers thing? Spiderman was an Avenger, too, so if there is a fourth (Dear God NO!) it'll be solely to tie it in with Iron Man, Hulk, and the whole Avengers thing.

What I..and most people of the character enjoyed with Ledger's Joker was the complete 180 in his personality compared to Nicholson's portrayel. The problem I have with both is the Joker is both of those personalities and so much more. I think it can be done in a single movie, you just have to know how to write for the character. The darker side of his personality is fun and frightening, but you have to show his goofy side...a character who's mind switches like a light switch. I felt Ledger provided some element to that, but overall..because the movie is dark, they left much of that out to keep the flow of the movie and not to take anything from Nicholson. I'm still waiting for my Joker on film.

Which version of the Joker are we talking about? Because the original Joker was actually even darker then Heath's portrayal, and the Joker he was told to study to help him build his version (from The Killing Joke) was about as dark. Later comics, the animated series, and Nicholson's Joker all added this playful, goofy side to the Joker that wasn't really there. It wasn't bad, but I personally loved the fact that Ledger's Joker turned back to the original Joker.

Another aspect of the original Joker was that they never said whether his skin was bleached or painted (in fact, I do believe there's an early comic that hints at the idea of him actually painting on the clown face). The permanent smile was another feature added later to the Joker, as well. In his first appearance, he was nothing more then a murdering, brilliant, somewhat crazy mastermind who disguised himself as a clown.

The bleached skin, permanent smile, and playful side were all added much later. Again, not to a negative effect (in fact, I'd say it made the Joker even more iconic as one of, if not the greatest comic villain of all-time), but still. Heath's Joker goes back to those darker roots, including the idea of not having an origin story.

So Heath's Joker is closest to the Joker as he was originally envisioned, with certain later characteristics added on.

Plus, let's be honest... Nolan put more realism into his version of Batman then anyone ever did. I could see Heath's Joker being real (and Bale's Batman, and Eckhart's Two-Face, and Murphy's Scarecrow). In fact, Nolan gave the entire story-line a sense of realism, like this whole thing could actually happen. Neither Burton nor Schumacher ever did that. And to me that gives this Batman even more credence as the best Batman movie around. And that is also how it raises the bar, IMO, for (super)hero movies. It lends the story realism, something most (super)hero movies fail to do. And yes... even with heroes like Spiderman and the Hulk and Superman, it's very possible to put realism into them.

[MisterMcLov1n]

tie between Vito Corleone and Red from Shawshank Redemption.

[bigstickbonzo]

Plus, let's be honest... Nolan put more realism into his version of Batman then anyone ever did. I could see Heath's Joker being real (and Bale's Batman, and Eckhart's Two-Face, and Murphy's Scarecrow). In fact, Nolan gave the entire story-line a sense of realism, like this whole thing could actually happen. Neither Burton nor Schumacher ever did that. And to me that gives this Batman even more credence as the best Batman movie around. And that is also how it raises the bar, IMO, for (super)hero movies. It lends the story realism, something most (super)hero movies fail to do. And yes... even with heroes like Spiderman and the Hulk and Superman, it's very possible to put realism into them.

I know what you're saying and you're right about his origins and how they've changed over time. My take with the Joker has always been one minute he's got his arm around you, chatting in your ear about yesteryear and the next minute, he's got you pinned to the ground, removing your tongue with a knife just to see if you can still talk after he's done. It's that kind of psychosis I yearn for in the character because it does every aspect of his every evolving personna justice. While I do agree, the original intent of the character was very dark with little back story, with time, if anything, the backstory only adds to a reoccuring theme in the Batman universe: fallen from grace. All of the characters in Gotham City have some kind of scars from their past. However, I do like the notion the Joker had no backstory and that's what makes him so dangerous. Nolan certainly achieved this with the Dark Knight, which is certainly the best Batman film and little argument, the best comic book film. But, it could have been so much more..

I guess growing up loving the murderous side of him and also enjoying the trickster that was brilliantly done with "Batman: The Animated Series," my take on him is of someone who has many faces, of which you're never quite sure what you're gonna get....much like his nemesis and the only thing keeping him going, Batman. I think that's where Nolan's Joker fell so short. He touched on it briefly during the interrogation scene, but it has so far been largely ignored on screen. The Joker can not live without Batman and in turn, Batman can not exist without villains like the Joker.

Edited December 20, 2008 by bigstickbonzo

[Mangani]

And I have to respectfully disagree. I was never the biggest fan of Spiderman to begin with,

That's probably why you don't care for the Spider-Man movies, in the same way why I don't care for the Batman movies. I was never a fan of Batman the character to begin with. In my opinion the Lee/Ditko and then the Lee/Romita Amazing Spider-Man of the 1960s is the greatest comic book of all time, alongside the Lee/Kirby Fantasic Four from the same period. Both comic books kept up an astonishing and inventive high standard for almost a decade.

although I have some Spiderman comics that I enjoy. However, as far as I'm concerned, the Spiderman movies were travesties. Only the second one had any promise as a "superhero" movie.

And yet 1 and 2 were universally acclaimed and extremely popular. If you don't like them that's fine, but they weren't travesties. I wasn't expecting them to be identical to the comic books.

And I'm sorry, but I don't see how Batman was so "pretentious."

Because it tries to take itself too seriously????? It's pretending to be something it isn't. It's just a superhero flick about a guy running around in a campy outfight fighting a silly looking villian. You can't takle it too seriously, just like you can't take James Bond too seriously.

Finally, Nolan took Batman back to how he was envisioned at his beginnings. Check out the early, original Batman comics. Then take a look at the graphic novels. Batman was never that campy, 60's travesty or that Joel Schumacher screw-up. Batman was, is, and always will be a dark, serious, almost anti- hero, especially since his entire reason for being is vengeance.

Ok, that's fair enough when it comes to Batman, but as I said Batman is and never was the gold standard or the norm for the superhero genre. Batman certain isn't the be all and end all of the superhero genre.

I prefer them bright and light............. sure with some serious input but not too dark and disturbed. I'll watch something else if I want that. If I want something serious I definitely won't watch a film that has a man in a bat costume in it hehe.

Of course, I'm not saying I would have liked a return to the tongue in cheek camp of the Adam West Batman t.v series though.LOL.

[Mangani]

I admit, I enjoyed Iron Man quite a bit and thought it was one of the best movies of 2008, and I definitely pre-ordered the special edition (as I've done with The Dark Knight).

Iron-Man was good. Not as good as I thought after the praise it got. I didn't see it until in came out on DVD and I had heard so much praise for it in the meantime. Spider-Man 2 easily remains Marvel's best movie effort, followed by the X-Men series. I prefer both to Iron-Man.

Spiderman came about because a teenager was bitten by a spider and decided to have fun with his new powers. Sure, he ended up with a vengeance deal like Batman, but his being is playful. Strong, serious, and mature, yes, but playful.

Although Peter Parker while also being Spider-Man suffered more angst and more personal day to day issues that we all share (girlfriend problems, money problems etc etc) than just about any other superhero you can think of. Sure, Bruce Wayne had a bad childhood but he's still a millionaire and not 'one of us'.

Iron Man is led by a man who saw first-hand the evil his weapons were used for and decided to fight back, but, again, his personality is playful and cheery.

Hence, both Spiderman and Iron Man allow for camp.

Batman is dark. Batman is vengeance. Other heroes may want vengeance. They may seek it. They may fight in the name of it. But Batman personifies it.

But doesn't that get a bit too much after a while? I could never get into any Batman comic books as a kid. I found the whole 'reason' for Batman being as he is quite dull and I found Bruce Wayne an uninteresting character for the most part. I was brought up on the comic books of the 1960s and early 1970s for the most part. Batman (and DC in general) weren't a big deal then. Maybe if I was younger I might have enjoyed the later Batman.

I'd actually argue that Batman has had the biggest effect on the Superhero world. Yes, Superman (and maybe Spiderman) is more popular and more read, but I think Batman had the most impact.

Oh I don't know about that. I don't think we can narrow that down to one character as being the most influential. I do think the Silver Age Marvel of the 1960s and the early 1970s changed the comic book world more than any other period.

As I said earlier, in my view, the Spiderman movies were travesties. 2 was the only one with a glimmer of hope,

Just a glimmer of hope hehe? It was excellent and the best superhero movie I have ever seen.

but the whole trilogy (Dear God, please let there NOT be a fourth), I'd say, is a perfect example of what a (super)hero movie should NOT be.

Can you explain this? Spider-Man has some seriousness (that fight with the Goblin at the end of the first Spider-Man movie is brutal and totally serious), it has a lot of fun and laughs (the scene in Spidey 2 in the elevator is hilarious), it has bright awesome set piece action scenes that you won't see in any other genre type (the fights with Doc Ock on the train/skyscrapers), it has romance and it also has a message (though the message is not overdone).

I fail to see why the Spider-Man trilogy is a perfect example of what a super hero film should not be. 1 and 2 were damn good and at the end of the day they know what they are and they don't try to be anything else other than superhero flicks that are a lot of fun and very very enjoyable to watch. In my personal life I know more people who enjoyed the Spider-Man movies than any other superhero series.

And when you say Superman the Movie, do you mean the most recent Superman or the early one with Christopher Reeve? If you mean the early one, then I'd agree with you to a point as it was a brilliant movie and definitely raised the bar for it's time.

Yes I mean the Chris Reeve film. Superman The Movie (1978) and Superman II (1980) are also great examples of a superhero film...and I say that as somebody not a fan of DC.

If you mean the most recent one (Superman Returns?) then there is no help for you, as that movie came close to destroying the Superman legacy (much like Batman and Robin did with the Batman legacy).

Nope. I didn't like Superman Returns.

Agree. Although I think there's a reason with the story. Have you seen Iron Man and the new Hulk? Noticed how they tied them together with the Avengers thing? Spiderman was an Avenger, too, so if there is a fourth (Dear God NO!) it'll be solely to tie it in with Iron Man, Hulk, and the whole Avengers thing.

No, Spider-Man was not an Avenger in the original Silver Age Marvel. A few times Spider-Man 'tried out' for the Avengers but he realised he was too much of a loner/hot head to be part of a team. It would seem that Marvel movies are mostly based on these older original stories (Sam Rami's Spider-Man certainly is, apart from Venom). In later more recent Marvels Spider-Man did join the Avengers but these later Marvels are merely bastardizations of the original characters and I don't think they are going to be much of a source for the movies. The movies appear to be harking back to the golden age of Marvel.

And to me that gives this Batman even more credence as the best Batman movie around. And that is also how it raises the bar, IMO, for (super)hero movies. It lends the story realism, something most (super)hero movies fail to do. And yes... even with heroes like Spiderman and the Hulk and Superman, it's very possible to put realism into them.

Well there is a certain amount of realism in the Spider-Man and Hulk movies. Same with X-men. Just not too much of it. I don't want superhero movies taking away all the wonder and awe and being too realistic. The comic book was firstly a visual experience. This is what sticks out the most. I like my superhero movies standing out visually so different from any other genres. Visuals like in Spider-Man 2 are not going to be seen in any other type of movie and that's what I want. I don't want Spider-Man looking like a cross between Die Hard and James Bond.............and that's what comes to my mind when I look at Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Mangani

[Spalove]

TV

Detective Olivia Benson aka Mariska Hargitay (Law and Order SVU)

Dr. House aka Hugh Laurie (House)

Buffy Summers aka Sarah Michelle Gellar (BTVS)

Sylar aka Zachary Quinto(Heroes)

[Nathan]

I know what you're saying and you're right about his origins and how they've changed over time. My take with the Joker has always been one minute he's got his arm around you, chatting in your ear about yesteryear and the next minute, he's got you pinned to the ground, removing your tongue with a knife just to see if you can still talk after he's done. It's that kind of psychosis I yearn for in the character because it does every aspect of his every evolving personna justice. While I do agree, the original intent of the character was very dark with little back story, with time, if anything, the backstory only adds to a reoccuring theme in the Batman universe: fallen from grace. All of the characters in Gotham City have some kind of scars from their past. However, I do like the notion the Joker had no backstory and that's what makes him so dangerous. Nolan certainly achieved this with the Dark Knight, which is certainly the best Batman film and little argument, the best comic book film. But, it could have been so much more..

I guess growing up loving the murderous side of him and also enjoying the trickster that was brilliantly done with "Batman: The Animated Series," my take on him is of someone who has many faces, of which you're never quite sure what you're gonna get....much like his nemesis and the only thing keeping him going, Batman. I think that's where Nolan's Joker fell so short. He touched on it briefly during the interrogation scene, but it has so far been largely ignored on screen. The Joker can not live without Batman and in turn, Batman can not exist without villains like the Joker.

This I can understand. And I actually love it, too. The Joker was almost... schizophrenic. You never knew what you got with him. One minute, he's your best friend, the next, he's the one torturing you. This is one characteristic that I think made him so amazing as a villain.

I actually do think Ledger showed this more. It was most prevalent in the Interrogation scene, but what about Nurse Joker? Especially the part when the hospital is blowing up and then stops in the middle, he turns around is just like "What? Oh come on, come on, come on... ah, there we go..." then he jumps on the bus. I honestly thought that was funny. You also have to look at "the disappearing pencil." He's somewhat quirky throughout the whole movie. He treats almost everything as a joke. The difference is, instead of giving each side the same amount of time, they focused more on his dark side.

And if you think about it, imagine the Joker in real life. would the animated series Joker be more realistic to you, or Ledger's Joker? I'd say, if someone's that screwed up, he's going to be about as dark as Ledger's Joker, if not darker.

That's probably why you don't care for the Spider-Man movies, in the same way why I don't care for the Batman movies. I was never a fan of Batman the character to begin with. In my opinion the Lee/Ditko and then the Lee/Romita Amazing Spider-Man of the 1960s is the greatest comic book of all time, alongside the Lee/Kirby Fantasic Four from the same period. Both comic books kept up an astonishing and inventive high standard for almost a decade.

You're right, of course. But to me, a superhero should be more mature. And a character like Batman has to be dark.

And yet 1 and 2 were universally acclaimed and extremely popular. If you don't like them that's fine, but they weren't travesties. I wasn't expecting them to be identical to the comic books.

In my personal opinion, the first had an okay script, okay acting, and an okay story-line. The second had a great script, great acting, and a great storyline. The third... well... the third should not have happened.

Because it tries to take itself too seriously????? It's pretending to be something it isn't. It's just a superhero flick about a guy running around in a campy outfight fighting a silly looking villian. You can't takle it too seriously, just like you can't take James Bond too seriously.

James Bond and Batman are two extremely different things. Honestly, I don't think James Bond could handle himself in Batman's world.

And this is where I think you're not getting it. To you, a superhero (or any kind of hero) story should be campy, fun, light, and humorous, but with serious stories around them. I abhor this in a hero story. I don't mind humor, because humor breaks up a monotony of seriousness, and it needs to be there, especially when you're dealing with a character like the Joker. If you can't make your audience laugh, even a little, then you're not doing it right. But to me, a hero story should revolve around the story. Especially when it comes to a hero like Batman.

The Joker is not just some silly-looking villain, and let's be honest... I could say the same about the Green Goblin, Doc Oc, and many other Spiderman villains. I could also say the same about Doom from the Fantastic Four. And let's not forget about Bizarro from Superman.

Batman is a different class. His story really isn't one for the kiddies, and isn't supposed to be. And the Joker is not some goofy-looking clown-face. He is serial killing mastermind who, as Alfred says in Dark Knight "just wants to watch the world burn." That has always been the Joker's purpose. He's the thief who is stealing for the sake of stealing, throwing out his loot along the way. He's the killer who kills for the sake of killing, using knives just to savor the different reactions he gets. He's Ted Bundy, Richard Dahmer, and Charles Manson all rolled into one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Joker is the personification of coulrophobia (fear of clowns).

Each of Batman's villains may look silly to the untrained eye, but they are scarred. Few of them actually do what they do for a purpose, but all of them personify a fear, and also a side of the Batman.

There is a very short-lived, extremely unpopular, and now very hard-to-find comic out there exploring what would happen if Batman took over, and Bruce Wayne disappeared. Alfred Pennyworth had died, Bruce had no loves... he had no constant in his life at all. And Batman took over. And guess what? He broke his one rule (that rule being his refusal to kill), becoming evil. Very evil. He still waged his war on crime, but now he was killing the criminals, and any innocent who got in the way. How Bruce came back to his senses and "fought Batman" is unknown because the series didn't last more then two comics. No one liked it. But it asked an interesting question. And it shows who Batman is... who he's supposed to be.

Ok, that's fair enough when it comes to Batman, but as I said Batman is and never was the gold standard or the norm for the superhero genre. Batman certain isn't the be all and end all of the superhero genre.

Batman is one of the few superheros without any powers. He is certainly not the typical superhero. But I'd venture the thought that Batman is the most realistic, and of all Superhero stories, Batman was so popular because of the chance that his story could actually happen. Batman, and his villains, could actually exist in our world. Superman can't, the Fantastic 4 can't, the X-Men can't, and even Spiderman can't. But Batman can.

I prefer them bright and light............. sure with some serious input but not too dark and disturbed. I'll watch something else if I want that. If I want something serious I definitely won't watch a film that has a man in a bat costume in it hehe.

But a bat is not a goofy symbol. Many people are afraid of bats. In fact, the phobia is so common it has a name: chiroptophobia. I have friends with chiroptophobia. I used to have it myself, although I've been able to get over it completely (partly with the help of teh Batman stories, believe it or not). Bats have fueled superstition and fear for centuries, if not millenia. So Batman is actually quite a fearful character for many people.

Of course, I'm not saying I would have liked a return to the tongue in cheek camp of the Adam West Batman t.v series though.LOL.

Thank goodness for that...

Iron-Man was good. Not as good as I thought after the praise it got. I didn't see it until in came out on DVD and I had heard so much praise for it in the meantime. Spider-Man 2 easily remains Marvel's best movie effort, followed by the X-Men series. I prefer both to Iron-Man.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I really think Iron-Man was Marvel's best effort.

Although Peter Parker while also being Spider-Man suffered more angst and more personal day to day issues that we all share (girlfriend problems, money problems etc etc) than just about any other superhero you can think of. Sure, Bruce Wayne had a bad childhood but he's still a millionaire and not 'one of us'.

This is true, but again I go back to the fact that Spiderman simply cannot exist in our world because in our world, a person doesn't get bit by a spider and suddenly get all the abilities of a spider. At best, they get a little itchy bump, at worst, they die. But they don't get super-powers.

On the other hand, a millionaire could very easily decide to wage a war on crime, buy tons of fancy gadgets, create a costume, and then go out and fight crime. Batman could actually happen in our world.

So Peter Parker/Spiderman may suffer more of the everyday teenage angst that we did as teenagers, but Bruce Wayne/Batman can actually exist. And that's the biggest difference.

But doesn't that get a bit too much after a while? I could never get into any Batman comic books as a kid. I found the whole 'reason' for Batman being as he is quite dull and I found Bruce Wayne an uninteresting character for the most part. I was brought up on the comic books of the 1960s and early 1970s for the most part. Batman (and DC in general) weren't a big deal then. Maybe if I was younger I might have enjoyed the later Batman.

Marvel was quite a bit more popular then DC then, but, IMO, DC is simply a better brand of comics.

To me, the realism is the most important. I understand the want for awe and wonder, and Batman does give us that (after all, he can fly, and I don't know anybody who will argue the idea that the Batmobile is, without a doubt, the coolest hero car to ever exist in comic books [and the Tumbler is freakin' awesome! I want one of those...]). But, to me, I like the fact that Batman could actually happen in our reality. That's what makes it the best to me.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Nathan

[*eviljane*]

I gave this alot of thought and these are guys I can always watch, and never loose interest

Johnny Depp

Jack Nicholson

Tom Hanks

Heath Ledger

I never watched alot of TV Series, but Monty Python's flying Circus, and the Red Dwarf series. Which were both on the BBC network

[wanna be drummer]

on the topic of Batman: Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman did amazing jobs as Alfred and Lucius Fox

[zepyep]

Hi Mary,all,

Great minds think alike!

TV: Archie Bunker

Film: Richard Blaine

KB

I love House, he has a wry wit which cracks me up. And he acts like he really doesn't give a toss as far as what people think of him. But you know deep down he does. Anyhow he is odd but get's the job done and that's why he is so lovable.

Past would have to be Archie Bunker. And yes I hear him and Sammy Davis were really pals lol.

Current films, I love what they've been doing with Spider Man. They've kinda blown Batman a bit IMO. I guess I should see more movies.

As far as the past for films. I would have to say Dirty Harry. Clints my number one actor, Wayne and Bogie 2nd and third.

"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"

BTW, I think I've seen every film Eastwood has done, some many times because you can watch him more than once. I guess that's a fan I dunno

[Black_Dog_90]

Darth Vader (Star Wars)

Indy or Indiana Jones (Indiana Jones)

The Joker (Heath Ledger) (The Dark Knight)

Chewbacca (Star Wars)

Alex (A Clockwork Orange)

Emmet Brown Doc (Back To The Future)

Marty McFly (Back To The Future)

...

Just a few of my favorites.

[maven2blue]

[*eviljane*]

I'm a Hyper Hypo.

[wanna be drummer]

What I..and most people of the character enjoyed with Ledger's Joker was the complete 180 in his personality compared to Nicholson's portrayel. The problem I have with both is the Joker is both of those personalities and so much more. I think it can be done in a single movie, you just have to know how to write for the character. The darker side of his personality is fun and frightening, but you have to show his goofy side...a character who's mind switches like a light switch. I felt Ledger provided some element to that, but overall..because the movie is dark, they left much of that out to keep the flow of the movie and not to take anything from Nicholson. I'm still waiting for my Joker on film.

The Joker in film died with Ledger...for a good while anyways. Or so I think

[bigstickbonzo]

The Joker in film died with Ledger...for a good while anyways. Or so I think

Well I've written 3 Joker stories and the best one has an older Joker fighting an older Batman in their final showdown. It was inspired by "The Dark Knight Returns," but is much better than that anti-climatic druel.

Edited to Add: I think an older Batman story is possible, but it would be extremely difficult to sell to studio execs, who'd most likely feel it wasn't marketable because it didn't leave room open for a franchise. Of course, if you introduced a heir to the Batman throne, anything is possible..but I've got too much damned respect to do something as boneheaded as that.

Edited January 30, 2009 by bigstickbonzo