Joker character in The Dark Knight is a rip off.

Alot of us had the misfortune of watching "The Dark Knight" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_(film) and thinking to ourselfs that the villian in the movie is orginal. I was surfing around the tube today and came across a 80s movie called "The Mean Season" with Kurt Russel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mean_Season

I was watching the movie and 50% of the movie you hear long tirades from the vilian on how society doesn't care, how its not fair that the hero in the film gets more attention than him. And listening to the way he talks, I could have swarn I heard this before.

Its the same way of talking that "The Joker" portrays. The only thing that was missing was that rediculious tounge twitch. Even down to stories of his childhood. The likeness is uncanny.

Total rip off.

Why so serious?... What next a brand new villian that is a fat old mush mouth gangster that strangly wants to be called "godfather"?

No orignality in movies these days.

It's not an uncommon style of character; the misunderstood, insane villian who finds that society doesn't understand.

It's just that superhero movies have never been able to really get dark and creepy with their characters until now and thus, The Joker of 2008 was born.

It's not really a big deal, he was great and the character was incredibly interesting.

The Joker was never gonna be an orginal movie idea, hell I saw him in a movie in 1989 played by some unknown actor called Jack Nicklson or something... I believe I saw him in a camp TV show long before that too.

Some unknown actor called Jack Nicholson? Are you serious?

Its not so much the joker as a orginal idea. Its how the joker was portrayed in the movie. The actors/directors style it is totaly copied from this other movie. Watch the other movie its crazy you can almost take the words from one and voice over the other. You wouldn't know a diffrence.

That would be sarcasm...

The character motives and tirades are fairly common.

What made The Dark Knight brilliant was the method in which the story was presented and the superb quality of the action, pacing, thematic elements, cinematography, and art direction.

If you want to be that pedantic, virtually every film made is a ripoff.

Oh thank god!

Do you really use the word pedantic. I didn't think anyone knew what that meant. I don't I just remember it from that episode of family guy when peter is trying to be smart and he calls Louis's food shallow and padantic.

Do you.. like guys who use big words?

i guess so as long as they arn't doing it to sound cool. I just thought it was funny cause of that episode. have you seen it. Oh and what does that word mean?

I hadn't seen the episode, no. But I'm glad I made you think of Peter from Family Guy

(pedantic, adj. marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects)

Like you I didn't love the Dark Knight - there was nothing really wrong with it, but I was a little bored for some of it. I did adore Heath Ledger's performance; I think the accolades he received were because it was his last, but also - who would ever have thought he had that kind of ability in him? I thought he was surprising & exceptional, and apart from Michael Caine, the only thing worth watching in the film.

I too would be annoyed if I felt a movie did exactly the same thing as something else I'd seen. I haven't seen the movie you mentioned, in fact I have never heard of it, despite being very aware film-wise. I'm sorry it spoilt the experience for you. I have the same 'uuuuuuuuugh' feeling sometimes when I watch a film on TV and I often think: "this has been done before! Surprise me! Delight me! You have all that money to make a movie, how hard can a little originality be?"

Obsessive film fans are hard to impress and I think they should be. Movie audiences get smarter all the time in anticipating plot-lines and script developments because of what they have already seen. Movie production studios need to respond and back films that are inventive, not 'safe' money-makers. I think that true art in film takes a refreshing look at a topic with new eyes, even if it's a film that has been made before.

I have read interviews with scriptwriters in film journals complaining about scripts that are film-worthy that just can never be 'made.' I've read about scripts on-option in the same journals that are supremely brilliant that no major film production company will touch. We have all heard that directors have had to ensure a film company executive 'understands' a film before it can be made. The best films made these days do not patronise an audience, but that's a risk that most film execs won't take.

I read somewhere that there are really only 24 possible sources of conflict for humans in their life and that script-writers work from those 24 principles. It must get harder and harder to be inventive, especially because audiences are more demanding of originality.