NationStates Jolt Archive

So... Dead Actor Heath Ledger has won a Golden Globe for his last performance as the Joker in Dark Knight, receiving a standing ovation as the director of that movie received the honour on the behalf of the dead Actor.

I think it should of been his dad up there instead.

Anyone else have anything to say on this topic?

Heath Ledger wins a Gold Globe?

*dies of shock*

at least he did a good job.

i hate it when they give out a pity award to a mediocre performance because they skipped all the years when the guy did a great job but didnt win.

at least he did a good job.

i hate it when they give out a pity award to a mediocre performance because they skipped all the years when the guy did a great job but didnt win.

like denzel washington in training day?

Well, I think he full well deserved it, and wouldve gotten it anyway...

Its just sad he couldnt accept it in person, RIP...

When I die, I hope they put something humorous in my pot.

I dig as the evening went on that 3-second delay suddenly got more use as sauced winners forgot they were on tv...

Uhhh... the movie wasn't all that good to be honest. The fantastic performances of Heath Ledger as the Joker and and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face were let down by the PG-13 rating. The film pretty much went up to that line that has to be crossed, where too much is too much, and a good film becomes a great film; then took a step back to appeal to an overly sensitive society. Harvey Dent should have shot that kid and the Joker should have blown up more people than just cute little Maggie.

Uhhh... the movie wasn't all that good to be honest. The fantastic performances of Heath Ledger as the Joker and and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face were let down by the PG-13 rating. The film pretty much went up to that line that has to be crossed, where too much is too much, and a good film becomes a great film; then took a step back to appeal to an overly sensitive society. Harvey Dent should have shot that kid and the Joker should have blown up more people than just cute little Maggie.

Would any narrative, thematic, or dramatic purpose have been served by having Dent kill the kid, besides being more "hardcore?":rolleyes:

Either way, Ledger gave a pretty strong performance.

Would any narrative, thematic, or dramatic purpose have been served by having Dent kill the kid, besides being more "hardcore?":rolleyes:

Yes.

like denzel washington in training day?
he got an award for that piece of shit?

Yes.

Explain.

at least he did a good job.

i hate it when they give out a pity award to a mediocre performance because they skipped all the years when the guy did a great job but didnt win.What about when they pass up great performances even after the actor is dead a la James Dean? The man got a posthumous Oscar Nod in 1956 and another in 1957, winning neither.

This win almost assures that Heath will get the Oscar.

Explain.

Maybe he shouldn't have killed the kid, I dunno. The guy went off the deep end to become a psychotic somewhere near the level of the Joker (albeit one whose head is wired for revenge and not chaos) and the movie doesn't do either character justice. But if you want me to believe either one of these fellows is near 'evil' incarnate then a few innocents have to undeservedly die.

Maybe he shouldn't have killed the kid, I dunno. The guy went off the deep end to become a psychotic somewhere near the level of the Joker (albeit one whose head is wired for revenge and not chaos) and the movie doesn't do either character justice. But if you want me to believe either one of these fellows is near 'evil' incarnate then a few innocents have to undeservedly die.

No offense, but nobody of much importance cares what a run of the mill nitpicker thinks.

But if you want me to believe either one of these fellows is near 'evil' incarnate then a few innocents have to undeservedly die.

What about all those people on the Ferries, and the numerous people Joker just killed randomly....

And Two-Face was always motivated by revenge for his Wife, and Disfigurement, it was very close to the source...

What about all those people on the Ferries, and the numerous people Joker just killed randomly....

That's just it though. Neither of the ferries wound up being blown sky high. The hospitals were evacuated in the nick of time. How many of those people the Joker actually did kill had it coming? All but Rachel Dawes.

And Two-Face was always motivated by revenge for his Wife, and Disfigurement, it was very close to the source...

Never disagreed there.

I thought he was good, even very good, but probably not that good.

But if you want me to believe either one of these fellows is near 'evil' incarnate then a few innocents have to undeservedly die.
The point is that they're not; in many respects, they're Batmen gone too far. Two-face was out for vengeance - the coin toss allowed him to rationalise an escape from due process - and the Joker's entire raison d'etre is to make things interesting (albeit with a sort of dispassion for the humans that get caught up in it). They were Chaotic, but not necessarily totally evil. What defines them was that they were prepared to defy Order and convention to do what they thought was necessary. The only thing preventing Batman from being just like them is his refusal to stoop to murder in pursuit of his aims - that's kind of a key idea to the whole movie.

Oh, and just for the record, the Joker's death record includes several of the mob, the Judge for the mob case, the Police commissioner, the fake Batman, the News Reporter from the hospital, all of the police caught in the mobile phone explosion at the station and god knows how many people in that car chase.

What about when they pass up great performances even after the actor is dead a la James Dean? The man got a posthumous Oscar Nod in 1956 and another in 1957, winning neither.

This win almost assures that Heath will get the Oscar.
you have to consider who he was up against.

jack lemmon deserved best supporting actor for mr roberts.

**edit**

ohmygod he was up for leading actor in giant.

weird.

anyway he received a couple of posthumous awards

The point of the Joker doesn't lie in how many people he killed. He could have served the exact same role even if he didn't kill a single soul. He was a terrorist, in the purest sense of the word. He was out to inspire fear and terror and panic in people. His death count is irrelevant.

The point of the Joker doesn't lie in how many people he killed. He could have served the exact same role even if he didn't kill a single soul. He was a terrorist, in the purest sense of the word. He was out to inspire fear and terror and panic in people. His death count is irrelevant.

there were many versions of the Joker in DC Comics. Ledger's Joker was cold and calculating. Nicklson's joker was just plain crazy. I wouldn't fear Ledger's joker because he only targeted members of Law Enforcement. Cops, Judges, Lawyers, etc.. sure a couple of innocents were killed, but that was done personally. not by the random 'combination chemicals' that Nickelson's joker did.

there were many versions of the Joker in DC Comics. Ledger's Joker was cold and calculating. Nicklson's joker was just plain crazy. I wouldn't fear Ledger's joker because he only targeted members of Law Enforcement. Cops, Judges, Lawyers, etc.. sure a couple of innocents were killed, but that was done personally. not by the random 'combination chemicals' that Nickelson's joker did.

He blew up a hospital, robbed a bank, threatened to blow up bridges and barges, and kidnapped people. He certainly didn't just target law enforcement.

Um...if I recall correctly the Joker killed a judge, the police commissioner, took a shot at the mayor (his failure to kill him didn't mean he didn't try) as well as several innocent people (including the one guy on camera) just to make a point. Counting all the criminals he killed, people stuck in the tunnel, the bank robbers, and the dude he stuck a bomb in, his death count was well over a dozen.

there were many versions of the Joker in DC Comics. Ledger's Joker was cold and calculating. Nicklson's joker was just plain crazy. I wouldn't fear Ledger's joker because he only targeted members of Law Enforcement. Cops, Judges, Lawyers, etc.. sure a couple of innocents were killed, but that was done personally. not by the random 'combination chemicals' that Nickelson's joker did.

The original joker in th DC comics is Ledger's joker. Not the insane, comical one Nicklson portrayed.

Break it down and examine it...
He blew up a hospital, after giving them warning. they managed to clear out the main hospital after all.
robbed a bank, where he killed... a bank robber and shot the manager for a mob bank.
threatened to blow up bridges and barges, Threatened... nothing more than threatened. no evidence that the bridges were wired to blow.
and kidnapped people. He certainly didn't just target law enforcement.outside of a truck driver and a vigelante-wanna-be who else did he kidnap? Racheal Dawes? the Assistant District Attorney?

He set things up so that if any innocents were killed, they would be done either by their own hands or by law enforcement.

The original joker in th DC comics is Ledger's joker. Not the insane, comical one Nicklson portrayed.
the Original joker was not a killer, but a crook.
Ledger's joker was cold and calculating,
Nicklson's Joker was insane.
Romero's Joker was comical.
all three actors had good portrayals of the various incarnations of the Joker.

They should dig up Ledger and have his corpse pose with the award, then re-bury him with it.

Break it down and examine it...
after giving them warning. they managed to clear out the main hospital after all.
where he killed... a bank robber and shot the manager for a mob bank.
Threatened... nothing more than threatened. no evidence that the bridges were wired to blow.
outside of a truck driver and a vigelante-wanna-be who else did he kidnap? Racheal Dawes? the Assistant District Attorney?

He set things up so that if any innocents were killed, they would be done either by their own hands or by law enforcement.

I'm not sure what your point is. Because no one died in the hospital, blowing it up isn't frightening to the common person? Because he only threatened to blow up the bridges, that isn't frightening to the common person? Because the people on the barges didn't blow each other up, that isn't frightening to the common person? I'm sure you're a big tough guy, but for the regular person, threats of bombs under bridges and in boats and hospitals is a frightening prospect.

And he kidnapped the entire busload of hospital evacuees, who he then strapped bombs to and used as hostages, setting them up to be nearly gunned down by SWAT's snipers.

They should dig up Ledger and have his corpse pose with the award, then re-bury him with it.

I possess the Necronomicon. Neither digging nor reburying will be neccessary.

outside of a truck driver and a vigelante-wanna-be who else did he kidnap? Racheal Dawes? the Assistant District Attorney?

He set things up so that if any innocents were killed, they would be done either by their own hands or by law enforcement.
He got all those coppers who were in the honour guard and nabbed their weapons and uniforms.

He also shot the two coppers (I think, I can't remember) who had the surnames "Harvey" and "Dent".

I possess the Necronomicon. Neither digging nor reburying will be neccessary.

Excellent! I'll call the body guards and tell them to expect nuts with shotguns.

he got an award for that piece of shit?The Best Actor Oscar, yes.

I'm not sure what your point is. Because no one died in the hospital, blowing it up isn't frightening to the common person? Because he only threatened to blow up the bridges, that isn't frightening to the common person? Because the people on the barges didn't blow each other up, that isn't frightening to the common person? I'm sure you're a big tough guy, but for the regular person, threats of bombs under bridges and in boats and hospitals is a frightening prospect.which is why I didn't say he wasn't a terrorist. My point is that Legder's Joker was different, not necessarily better, than the other joker's portrayed.

By examining the victims of both movies, Ledger's joker would be less terrorising than Nicklson's joker. Because the Joker would kill you just because you used deoderant with aftershave.

And he kidnapped the entire busload of hospital evacuees, who he then strapped bombs to and used as hostages, setting them up to be nearly gunned down by SWAT's snipers.True, forgot about those doctors and so forth. However watch it again, they were not Strapped to bombs they had empty guns strapped to their hands. The whole purpose was to make the cops kill the hostages.

the fact that he's got them standing by big open windows would be a tip-off that something's wrong with the setup.

He got all those coppers who were in the honour guard and nabbed their weapons and uniforms.

He also shot the two coppers (I think, I can't remember) who had the surnames "Harvey" and "Dent".

as I said, he targetted those in "Law Enforcement".

as I said, he targetted those in "Law Enforcement".
Sorry, missed that bit of your post.

the Original joker was not a killer, but a crook.
Ledger's joker was cold and calculating,
Nicklson's Joker was insane.
Romero's Joker was comical.
all three actors had good portrayals of the various incarnations of the Joker.
The first appearance of the Joker, he's announcing his crimes over the radio 24 hours in advance and killing the people he steals from-he also guns down a mob boss who calls him out, all to establish his street creds. Given the story's about five pages, he accomplishes quite a bit. The Joker always pulled out a death or two every time he ventured out until the Comics Code Authority made murder forbidden to comic book characters, when he becomes a crook with a plethora of gadgets based on pranks and practical jokes. Initially, he was a disfigured genius with his lethal Joker Venom.
Ledger's Joker was the first portrayal that met the standard set by the original concept, just given a little more depth because the movies had more than the limitations of the original comic books.

The first appearance of the Joker, he's announcing his crimes over the radio 24 hours in advance and killing the people he steals from-he also guns down a mob boss who calls him out, all to establish his street creds. Given the story's about five pages, he accomplishes quite a bit. The Joker always pulled out a death or two every time he ventured out until the Comics Code Authority made murder forbidden to comic book characters, when he becomes a crook with a plethora of gadgets based on pranks and practical jokes. Initially, he was a disfigured genius with his lethal Joker Venom.
Ledger's Joker was the first portrayal that met the standard set by the original concept, just given a little more depth because the movies had more than the limitations of the original comic books.

Yep, this.

The point of the Joker doesn't lie in how many people he killed. He could have served the exact same role even if he didn't kill a single soul. He was a terrorist, in the purest sense of the word. He was out to inspire fear and terror and panic in people. His death count is irrelevant.
I'm not so sure. I think the fact that the Joker does kill (almost entirely after the arrest of the mob bosses, you'll notice), in addition to the fact that he can and might, shows a sense of radical urgency to his actions; that he's not just aware that the age of the mob might be coming to an end, but that it definitively has. He's not fighting to maintain mob rule, but against the peace they leave behind; an important thematic difference.

I wouldn't call the Joker a terrorist. He's not doing killing or threatening to manipulate people to some end. It's the chaos, the unpredictability, the surprise - he's doing it because he wants to be amused by their reactions. He takes the status quo and shakes it up, and people can respond however they want as long as they make it a good show. The fear and panic are interesting to him because frightened and panicky people are interesting to observe, but they are neither the end goal nor a necessary means - anger, grief, even relief, joy or vindication could (and did, in the case of Dent and his colleagues) have similarly interesting consequences.

The first appearance of the Joker, he's announcing his crimes over the radio 24 hours in advance and killing the people he steals from-he also guns down a mob boss who calls him out, all to establish his street creds. Given the story's about five pages, he accomplishes quite a bit. The Joker always pulled out a death or two every time he ventured out until the Comics Code Authority made murder forbidden to comic book characters, when he becomes a crook with a plethora of gadgets based on pranks and practical jokes. Initially, he was a disfigured genius with his lethal Joker Venom.
Ledger's Joker was the first portrayal that met the standard set by the original concept, just given a little more depth because the movies had more than the limitations of the original comic books.

Partially correct. The first appearance of the Joker (Comic) was that of a Mass Murderer.

I forgot about those appearances. :p

Ledger's Joker seems to have been written by the storyline of "The Killing Joke" where he tries to show how anyone can go nuts after a 'Really Bad Day.'

Maybe he shouldn't have killed the kid, I dunno. The guy went off the deep end to become a psychotic somewhere near the level of the Joker (albeit one whose head is wired for revenge and not chaos) and the movie doesn't do either character justice. But if you want me to believe either one of these fellows is near 'evil' incarnate then a few innocents have to undeservedly die.

I don't think anyone doubted Dent was going to shoot somebody (I think at the end he was going to shoot Gordon and not his kid), but since it was obvious that he was nuts, I don't think he needed to actually kill the kid to make the point.

As for the Joker, he killed lots of innocent people. I did have a problem with how the character seems to plan for things with no way of knowing they would happen or that the plan would succeed, but I guess he could just be really lucky.:confused:

Either way, I think killing the gangsters (including his version of "tryouts"), invading Wayne's party and tossing Rachel out a window, killing a vigilante and various officials just to get Batman to show himself, blowing up cars on the street (including machine-gunning an innocent bystander's car), killing Rachel, blowing up a police station and then a hospital (in supposed retaliation for the city not killing the lawyer), driving Dent mad, taking a busload of hostages and setting it up so the police will kill them by mistake, and finally playing his little game with the ferries, should be enough to get the point across.:)

So... Dead Actor Heath Ledger has won a Golden Globe for his last performance as the Joker in Dark Knight, receiving a standing ovation as the director of that movie received the honour on the behalf of the dead Actor.

I think it should of been his dad up there instead.

Anyone else have anything to say on this topic?

I think it should have been his daughter.

People think she was too young, but I believe that if she'd been guided and was able to do a run through beforehand she would have been capable. Children aren't as stupid as people like to think. That being said, if she had done a run through and Heath didn't win it, it would have been difficult to explain to her what had happened.

I'm not so sure. I think the fact that the Joker does kill (almost entirely after the arrest of the mob bosses, you'll notice), in addition to the fact that he can and might, shows a sense of radical urgency to his actions; that he's not just aware that the age of the mob might be coming to an end, but that it definitively has. He's not fighting to maintain mob rule, but against the peace they leave behind; an important thematic difference.

I wouldn't call the Joker a terrorist. He's not doing killing or threatening to manipulate people to some end. It's the chaos, the unpredictability, the surprise - he's doing it because he wants to be amused by their reactions. He takes the status quo and shakes it up, and people can respond however they want as long as they make it a good show. The fear and panic are interesting to him because frightened and panicky people are interesting to observe, but they are neither the end goal nor a necessary means - anger, grief, even relief, joy or vindication could (and did, in the case of Dent and his colleagues) have similarly interesting consequences.

Pretty much this. However for me, he didn't shake it up enough. His character, the Joker had so much potential to cause even more chaos yet the desire to maintain a PG13 rating kept it from happening.

I don't think anyone doubted Dent was going to shoot somebody (I think at the end he was going to shoot Gordon and not his kid), but since it was obvious that he was nuts, I don't think he needed to actually kill the kid to make the point.

I suppose.

As for the Joker, he killed lots of innocent people.

Not really. He kills bank robbers, mobsters, crooked politicians and law enforcement. Maybe some didn't actually deserve to die in the manner they did, but none were true innocents like Gordon's kid. Harvey Dent was the good, the best Gotham city could come up with. Beyond him were the innocents, and although many of them wound up in nearly getting it, none honestly did.

I did have a problem with how the character seems to plan for things with no way of knowing they would happen or that the plan would succeed, but I guess he could just be really lucky.

Agreed on this part. Though I suppose his chaotic nature kinda suited the chaotic (and rather slow:confused:) pace of the film

Klaatu. .. Verada. .. Necktie...Nectar...Nickel...It's an "N" word

There I said it.

He nailed the Joker very, very, very close to the comic book.