scorpion king, nuff said, they can make his skin lighter, look at Jessica alba in fantastic four. batista? i dont think he can act, but then again nether did Arnold, but i think the rock could do better than that dude they got casted as conan

i guess, i havent seen the Wrestler but i heard Rourke was really good. Regardless of the Academy's motives, Penn did give a great performance.

hello.

Because your post was one long sentence with no capitalized letters or periods or commas. Also, it was one gigantic paragraph so I couldn't get through reading it without losing my place.

Sorry, I'm a grammar Nazi.

I wasn't being serious about the keeping the black man down comment. I was really hoping the John Stewart story would have put out a good superhero movie light for the black superhero's. There are plently of superhero's that need to be put out there though, so I agree. Especially one's that are not stereotypical.

Howdy,

I saw both of Burton's Batman movies when they were released, aside from the many, many, many diversions from the comics the biggest issues with these movies is that they are not Batman.

Keaton did a good performance, but no-one in their right mind would think he was perfect for the role of Batman he's just too small. Bale has the psychology and the physicality and he had much better material. He is to Batman what Christopher Reeves is to Superman.

Nicholson never played Joker, he played mob boss who fell into a vat of chemicals. He had none of the Joker's mental aspects (go read Killing Joke by Alan Moore). Worse yet Nicholson ruined a prestigious career with his over the top performance, contrasting with the underplayed performance from Keaton and the script even involved aspects of the comics that only work in cartoons, giant birthday cake!

The mistake that you're making is that you're not looking beyond the surface.

Nicholson > Man falls into vat of chemicals = Comics

Ledger > Man with make up ≠ Comics

But there's so much more to it than that, Ledger (thanks to the material and a lot of prep) portrays the Joker as a human vessel but instead of a soul inside he has the essence of chaos.

Cosmetic changes do not change character, there's a difference between character and characterization. Spider-Man's web shooters becoming part of his body are characterization and it makes more sense for the character, do you expect me to believe that a poor boy growing up in Queens could invent the ultra versatile squirtable glue formula?

Wolverine's costume changing from yellow spandex to black leather makes so much more sense but it doesn't change the character, only a cosmetic change to the surface, which makes more sense in live action.

Nolan and Ledger's Joker goes beyond perfect because he's the best of both worlds, in a real world setting where there are no such chemicals that would bleach skin and yet let you live, he puts on make up and the end result looks cosmetically just like the comics but in terms of plot logic it makes sense within context and in terms of character he's just like the comics.

Since Burton's films were released I have been explaining to people that they were flawed, slowly friends and family have been coming around to how I see the characters. When Begins was released I no longer had to explain why Bale and Nolan had brought Batman to the screen for the first time (technically true as Burton made 2 films about some guy who was obviously not Batman) but friends still said Burton made a good Joker film. They changed their tune when they saw Ledger and argument of how the Joker should be portrayed was finally settled.

I never thought I would need to explain this to anyone but apparently there are some people in the world who actually like the originals.

whats up

hi ya welcome to spilll

Welcome to Spill.