Nice one chee

Also, how could Bane top Joker? It's ridiculous. I want him to be different and interesting enough, now everyone will have their own interpretation of who's THE BEST in Nolan's Batman trilogy.

i might be coming off as a bit interrogative (apologies for that) but in my opinion acting is never comparable
.. sure we can hand out awards to people who "look better" on screen.. but there is no set caliber for acting
(however there is a caliber for effort and research.. and actors usually keep that info to themselves)

acting (specifically method acting) is simply an actor's genuine depiction of his physical and mental self given an imaginary
circumstance..

the Joker and Bane are 2 different characters with 2 different psychological mindsets..
and same goes for the actors playing them.. their versions of reality are different, hence their truthful depictions of the characters (in the context of the plot) will vary. (Nolan has actually franchised on the idea of different vantage points of
the different characters within his script)

truth be told: comparing method acting is like comparing real life actions..
and sadly only the actor has complete knowledge regarding how honest he/she is at his/her art...

Viral114...Amen bro

Bane and the joker are totally diffrent villians,but maybe Tom's acting will top the one from heath thats possible.

Only a year and 4 months away people...one thing that I learned to help cope with a seemingly eternal wait (doesn't really matter how long its...if you're waiting to go on a vacation in a week, it can seem like years) is to say, "If this is gonna take fucking forever...then at least I won't be growing older much this entire time...a year and 4 months that's nothing." It's like to help wait that long, think of something that you'll be glad to wait a long time for (if you're at an age where you really don't want to be getting any older, you'll be glad to wait a year and 4 months you know what I mean?). I hope I'm clear otherwise it'll sound stupid.

Tom Hardy was great in Inception, and I'm positive Nolan will get an amazing performance out of him. But to say you can't compare the caliber of performances to one another is no different from comparing anything else. Simply, certain individuals can accomplish the feat better than others, and appear larger than life while doing it.

Heath's performance is one in a million. It's one of the few performances I've ever seen where he literally became the character he was playing on screen. However good Hardy may be, it's simply improbably to think Nolan can get two such performances out of his formidable cast in such a short amount of time. I'd be thrilled if he did, but it's just not that likely, logically speaking.

I believe if Nolan gets a Heath Ledger oscar winning performance level out of Hardy..one where people are like "you don't get much better than THAT"..Nolan will get MAJOR kudos and even more respect for pulling off such a feat like that along with the other things he's done. Like officially be known by everyone as the next great, original director on the levels of popularity as james cameron, kubrick and speilberg

infamous wrote:U guys aint getting it. He doesnt have to top the Joker.

This is what I think too, as a lot of you seem to think, I also think that Heath became the Joker and that is why the Joker is such an amazing character in TDK. I even know someone who told me she coudn't watch TDK entirely because she was scared of "the Joker" and this shows how much his performance was excellent IMO. So I don't see why Hardy has to top Heath's Joker, as long as he does something as good as what Heath did, as long as he becomes Bane then it will be fantastic, no need to say if he will top or not Heath, because what Heath did with the Joker is just what every actor should do with their roles.

LexLuthor wrote: In short, Hardy might top Heath, but the real question is: “will people care?”

I don’t think moviegoers will. They’ll invest as much as they did with Ra’s al Ghul another universally obscure bat villain; who is arguable the biggest threat in Bat’s rogue gallery, but people just don’t care about that character.

In DKR, the casual moviegoer and comic aficionado is going to go check out Catwoman. If there is an actor, in this case actress, that people are going to be watching for its Anne Hathaway not Hardy.

I agree with that too. I think the biggest challenge for Nolan and Hardy will be to show Bane like a real threat to Batman, as much as Joker and more than Ra's if possible. The goal should be to make the audience remember who Bane is and it will be hard but I'm sure Nolan can do it. The fact is that most of the audience won't know Bane as one of Batman's villain, so yeah, I guess we'll see.

I don't know if people will go to watch for Catwoman as they might not know she's in the movie before seeing it, but I also think that Catwoman will be a big challenge because the casual moviegoer know her, just like they knew the Joker or Two-face. A lot of the audience loved Pfeiffer's work and think no one can top her. So the challenge will be to make a Catwoman everyone will remember and a realistic one. And this is going to be really, really hard but it's possible

And finally I wish Nolan could re-create a lot more of Batman villains, I will always regret not knowing what his riddler would have been like and I think he could have done an awesome and terrific work with "The ventriloquist" which is a known villain but has never been done before, I think (well, I can't remember seeing him in a movie before)

I don't think he needs to top The Joker, because it will be a totally different situation. I mean, Bane will be very different, just like The Joker was different from Scarecrow or Ghul. I'm hoping from a strong performance from Tom (and Anne), but it doesn't really need to top Heath's performance in The Dark Knight. I want it to be a unique performance.

Viral114 wrote:i might be coming off as a bit interrogative (apologies for that) but in my opinion acting is never comparable
.. sure we can hand out awards to people who "look better" on screen.. but there is no set caliber for acting
(however there is a caliber for effort and research.. and actors usually keep that info to themselves)

acting (specifically method acting) is simply an actor's genuine depiction of his physical and mental self given an imaginary
circumstance..

the Joker and Bane are 2 different characters with 2 different psychological mindsets..
and same goes for the actors playing them.. their versions of reality are different, hence their truthful depictions of the characters (in the context of the plot) will vary. (Nolan has actually franchised on the idea of different vantage points of
the different characters within his script)

truth be told: comparing method acting is like comparing real life actions..
and sadly only the actor has complete knowledge regarding how honest he/she is at his/her art...

but neither Heath nor Tom were/are Method actors


the thing Heath did was IDEAL inspired acting...its what any actor who takes acting seriously strives to achieve every time

once you enter that realm of acting, there's no better....there's no lesser, its a matter of different

So Tom's performance, technically speaking, cannot be better...there is no higher plateau for acting....he can be different, but just as captivating if Tom achieves complete inspired acting


for example...Bale achieved it in The Fighter....he did what Heath did. The result is different, but it is impossible to truly say which is better....they exist at the surface of the fish tank and there's no higher level


Stanislavsky said that in every great performance the actor captures the audience's attention with the physicality and the voice, and then reveals the soul through the eyes. In my opinion, thats what made Heath's performance so good. That's what made Bale's performance so good. That's what will make Tom's performance.