07-22-2008, 02:24 PM
You're right, Joker did give a few different background stories. I think I was dozing off around the second one, though. (the movie dragged on for way too long)
I have a number of issues with the character, though. Characters should be characters; I'm just old school that way. When you have a character, particularly a major villain, whose existence in the world is an end unto itself, who nobody is allowed to kill throughout the bulk of the movie, that makes no fatal mistakes, that has an unexplainable power to set up ludicrous situations at the drop of a hat, and in the end fails miserably (as he must), yet he simply does not die (not externally or internally) it comes off as contrived. I guess that's fine for a serial like comic books or TV shows, but this is neither. At least when you have superhero movies like The Hulk the characters are actually developed with absurd dynamics, so it's still a character story, and even then the villain got what he wanted which turned into the key of his demise. And I'm not saying that all villains should die simply because they're villains, I just think that the resolution here was weak and I want some reassurance that they're not going to bring him back: a character that's limited to "wanton destruction" is only good for one show.
Another thing that's bugging me is that time when Joker figured out that Batman was hot for Barbara, which implies forethought when setting up the dual time bomb scenario, while his actual dialog was the subtext of the scene (about how people are only as good as society allows, etc). This is why I said his conflict with Batman was phoned in: they're glazing over the sequences that should have been shown to build tension while the character is saying the things that don't need to be said because the action should convey it. It was bad enough that it happened once, but then at the end when Joker starts ranting subtext again it really sucked the energy out of the finale. I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart made a point about this during one of the times he was complaining about President Bush's speeches. It's just lazy writing.
I have a number of issues with the character, though. Characters should be characters; I'm just old school that way. When you have a character, particularly a major villain, whose existence in the world is an end unto itself, who nobody is allowed to kill throughout the bulk of the movie, that makes no fatal mistakes, that has an unexplainable power to set up ludicrous situations at the drop of a hat, and in the end fails miserably (as he must), yet he simply does not die (not externally or internally) it comes off as contrived. I guess that's fine for a serial like comic books or TV shows, but this is neither. At least when you have superhero movies like The Hulk the characters are actually developed with absurd dynamics, so it's still a character story, and even then the villain got what he wanted which turned into the key of his demise. And I'm not saying that all villains should die simply because they're villains, I just think that the resolution here was weak and I want some reassurance that they're not going to bring him back: a character that's limited to "wanton destruction" is only good for one show.
Another thing that's bugging me is that time when Joker figured out that Batman was hot for Barbara, which implies forethought when setting up the dual time bomb scenario, while his actual dialog was the subtext of the scene (about how people are only as good as society allows, etc). This is why I said his conflict with Batman was phoned in: they're glazing over the sequences that should have been shown to build tension while the character is saying the things that don't need to be said because the action should convey it. It was bad enough that it happened once, but then at the end when Joker starts ranting subtext again it really sucked the energy out of the finale. I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart made a point about this during one of the times he was complaining about President Bush's speeches. It's just lazy writing.