I still say we'll never know. Saying that Ledger deserved it is conjecture. Even if I agree it's still just that. Lots of performances which a majority of people feel are nomination worthy are over looked I'm sure. How do we know had he lived it wouldn't have also fallen to the way side of the Academy?

Been a little too busy to follow the Blu-Ray/DVD news the past few weeks, are there any good bonus items that are exclusive to any retailers?... Not so much interested in things like statues or comics, my interest falls more to bonus discs and that sort of thing...

I will not be picking this up, just like I didn't pick up Batman Begins. I just didn't care for it all that much, especially the ending. Bruce would never quit.

Ever.

That being said, The Dark Knight is the best Batman film ever made. So, as with Star Wars, the second movie was the best of the trilogy.

Still, I hope to see a different, more superheroic take on Batman the next time a Batman movie gets greenlit.

Not really. You have to remember that the perception of Jackson's win at the time was that it was in recognition of the cumulative effort of the trilogy; not so much for ROTK itself.

I agree with the assessment of the article though, despite my personal feelings that Nolan's trilogy transcends the genre. But who gives a hoot about Oscars anyway? It's a joke.

None of the media based awards mean anything. They are just an opportunity for certain people to dress up fancy and go out and say "Look at me, I still got it, now give me a job."

CCC.

I don't buy that for a second. Yeah, ROTK probably won the Oscar on all three films' behalf but the Dark Knight Trilogy is not in the same ballpark quality-wise. Also, Return Of The King WAS the best LOTR movie by far. The same cannot be said of TDKR.

Besides, I'm merely talking Oscar NOMINATIONS. Nobody thinks that had The Dark Knight been nominated that it would have won.

People trying to downplay Oscar expectations for Rises by using LOTR as an example are grasping at straws.

That is your opinion and that's okay. It doesn't make opposing opinions invalid. It's not like we're talking about something quantifiable here.

If we want to talk about trilogies that did great business and transcended their built in genre fanbases, then why not compare the two? It shouldn't offend anyone either way though maybe I'm too rational for this sort of thing.

Once again that is also opinion-

as I believe the Dark Knight was a horrible movie- and Heath Ledgers Joker was horrible (even Nicholsons was better)-- Although sure the "academy" says it was a great movie-- they also said Black Swan was as well-- and that is my go to movie now as the worst movie every made by a real studio.

Wow... Nicholson better than Ledger... That really shows what side of the fan base fence Stew here is on.
If you want to be really analytical about it none of them are great.
Nicholson is like that imposter from Batman 450 and 451 who was running around pretending to be the Joker.
And
Ledger is what Ultimate DC would have made the Joker like.

I think some of us forget that we may not like how these Jokers are written... which writing and acting can be two different things. If you compared two, Ledger is actually acting while Nicholson is just showing up and reading lines.

I agree that Nicholson was better, but feel Cesar Romero was better than both, even doing it campy. The only problem was both of them were too fat. Joker is supposed to be thin as a rail.

CCC.

Actually, I think Andrew Koenig was a great Joker in this demo real...



...too bad he didn't get a shot at playing the part for real...

I know writing and acting are two different things-- I wish they would just turn B:TAS into a real movie- that is the quintissential Batman and Joker to me- writing, directing, acting-- (although I also like Romero's Joker as well). Joker to me is supposed to be a murdering psycopath, cold, smart and calculating, however subject to whims of insanity and the spontinaitey of doing something just to do it-- not to mention knowing that Batman would never kill him--to completely push his buttons.. I just didnt get that in Nolans Joker- yes he was cold and calculating -he was more just a criminal mastermind that liked to wear makeup- but not really subject to the insanity or goofiness that makes Joker

Yes I hated the way Nolans Joker was written-but I didnt like Ledger as well-- and that god awful lip licking tongue thing was stolen from Tolkien's Grimer Wormtongue and it just didnt fit the character-- and completely took me out of the movie the entire time (It might have been Nolans choice but I put it on Ledger.)- not that I didnt like ledger in some of his other movies- but really he is more of a light comedy kind of guy-- and was tough to buy in any dramatic role-- he was fine in 10 things I Hate about you and Knights Tale-- but could have been replaced with a cardboard cutout in the Patriot..

Even Nicholson's joker was more to character- like the insane romp through the art museum, the oversized gun, and the cosmetics interaction jokers toxin.. (Cold calculating and psycopath- but with that insane tilt to the entire plot- including the commercial)

Now that... while I don't agree with it... I can respect. If someone doesn't care for something I always like to know why. So thank you for elaborating on your opinion, Stew!

I agree with the lack of goofiness on Nolan's part but I thought he tried to push his no killing motto.

I also agree with this

I can tell you with absolute certainty that Ledger's Joker is more like what a crazy psychopath actually is than Romero or Nicholson. Yes, the non-threatening cartoon clown bad guy from 66 & 89 were fun and spirited and I won't argue made a little more sense toting around guns with bang flags hanging out of them and going "whoo-hoo-hoo!" and spraying green gas that makes you smile to death, but real vigilantes don't typically carry shark repellent either. if what you want to remember about batman is the fun light hearted biff pow and climbing up a sideways wall on batropes or having a batmobile with giant edward scissorhands fins on the back, that is all good. enjoy it. i enjoyed those movies immensely. but in the universe that nolan set up for the trilogy, ledger played an homicidal psychopath better than just about anyone I've ever seen do it. everytime he explained something to someone in a whoo whoo goofy joker voice, you could see in his body language that what HE REALLY WANTED TO DO WAS RIP THEIR THROATS OUT AND SCREAM THE INSTRUCTIONS INTO THEIR MINDS VIA THE TREACH TO MAKE THE PITIFUL MONGRELS JUST UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE EXPLANATION!!! see, there's a thing non-crazy people will never know. and i believe that's something ledger tapped into for the character and actually came to understand and ultimately what led to his death. you cant just suddenly figure crazy out. it's like if you spend your life living on the couch eating potato chips in sweat pants and suddenly someone buys you a tuxedo, feeds you some acid and puts you on a merry go round. you couldnt handle it. it might be fun for a minute, but for most people, the terror would creep in and you'd need your couch back fast. there are some people who are dying for a 24 hour hallucanogenic merry go round and a self cleaning tuxedo. jack nicholson is not one of those people and looking cool in a purple suit doesnt change that.

This is an awesome post. BTAS' Joker was the best but there is no way that kind of performance would be believable in live-action to modern audiences. The fact that Nicholson was able to take it as far as he did without the first Batman movie seeming as big of a joke as the Schumacher ones is a minor miracle.