This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"KKcht. Eagle one to German guys from 'Die Hard', what is your position? KKRrtch."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 02 September 2014




Tweet







July 19 2008

Nathan Fillion or Batman? The Ctrl-Alt-Del webcomic makes a daring choice between Nathan Fillion and Batman. When given two options, the answer is obvious.

Why choose when you can have both?

Ugh. I wouldn't usually make a comment like this, but I have heard some bad things about Ctrl+Alt+Del recently. I'd usually recommend wikipedia for an impartial opinion, but it's well-known the author of the comic is obsessive about editing its wikipedia page... Needless to say, there are plenty of opinions about it on the internet for those interested.
How about Nathan Fillion AS Batman? That should end any debate right there, since he wouldn't need a hammer.
The Dark Knight was fantastic. I had no idea that Keith Szarabajka (Holtz) was in it!
It was so good. Better than "Begins," which I understand the importance of as an origin story, but after watching TDK, it felt like "Begins" was just the setup for the film Nolan really wanted to make.

Plus, now I just wish Maggie Gylenhall (sp?) was in the Rachel role from the start.

[ edited by pat32082 on 2008-07-19 01:46 ]
I haven't seen it yet, but Katie Holmes utterly failed to convince me she was a serious attorney (she's far too sweet). That said, I've only ever seen one other Maggie Gyllenhaal film, so I don't really know what to expect from her either. Was she any good?

I got the impression Begins was sort of practice for Nolan. I watched it again recently, and despite it being good, it felt odd in places (the microwave thing, mostly). Not to mention the origins story has been done to death.
I think Maggie is good. She's the baker in Stranger than Fiction and she was in Sherry Baby (I think).

I always like her when I see her acting.
I gave up on reading Ctrl-Alt-Del a few months ago, and glad to see I haven't missed much. Distasteful.
Distasteful.


Really? It kinda-sorta made me laugh, actually. But maybe I have bad taste. This is a definate possibility :).

Also: ouh, Watchmen trailer. *goes off to watch*
Not going to read the dis, but I will second the love for 'The Dark Knight'.
I really only went to see Christian Bale sans shirt, but Heath Ledger is utterly mesmerizing and completely owns every scene he's in.
Two thumbs up!
Maggie Gyllenhaal is far better as Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes was (Holmes being the only real weak point in Batman Begins for me, outside of maybe not quite giving me the Ra's Al Gul I was hoping for, despite Liam Neeson doing very well and his story still coming together pretty well).

Seen Maggie in Cecil B. Demented (a John Waters flick starring Melanie Griffith and Stephen Dorff, back when they still occasionally appeared in quality roles/films), Donnie Darko (playing Jake Gyllenhaal's sister, appropriately. And she does the best crying in the film, looks absolutely miserable and destroyed at the end, but even before that their dinner table banter is fun), Secretary (her and James Spader are gold in this), 40 Days and 40 Nights (really meh Josh Hartnett film--remember him?--though I don't remember her in it), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Happy Endings (probably my favorite of her roles so far), and World Trade Center. And I keep meaning to check out Stranger Than Fiction (and yeah I used IMDB real quick for this, my memory sucks).

I rarely seek her out(just for Secretary), she just shows up in a heck of a lot. I saw Katie Holmes in a few films in the late `90s/early `00s, and while she does a passable job with a good script...there's just no comparison. Maggie's the better actor, hands down. She's a way more compelling Rachel Dawes, it's a wonder that character even stand out as well as she does despite all the other talent burning up the screen (Bale/Oldman/Freeman/Eckhart/Ledger/Caine).
Okay, Ledger's Joker ... very often (people are gonna think I'm crazy, but) ... some of the mannerisms felt like a ... (don't hit me) ... Joss Whedon impression. Sometimes lots of other folks, too (Brando at one point, etc).

But I'm not kidding. Often (not just once or twice), his delivery was almost ... Whedonesque. I mean, obviously with more makeup and scars, but ... if someone watches the film after reading this and keeps that in mind, can you check me on this? I think I may need to lie down.
I would like to point out that I haven't watched Dr. Horrible, but I am not dumb. I'm just waiting for the DVD. Same is true for The Guild. (Although I did watch the first episode of that before deciding to buy the DVD.)
If this is "distasteful," I am vehemently proud of not having taste.
If this is "distasteful," I am vehemently proud of not having taste.

Ditto. I'm disinterested in the politics, I like to be able to appreciate the artist, but I can always appreciate art regardless.
I am having this incredibly profound moment of joy right now knowing that my other (and first) favorite superhero (Buffy being second, of course) is being discussed on this site...

Two of the greatest joys of my life together in one place. Heaven.
Apparently I have no taste as well.
Not only is it funny, it's a solid concept, too. Nathan would make a pretty excellent Batman. Maybe not in the Nolan versions, though, since they are just so unrelentingly DARK, and I think Nathan has a warmth and gentleness to him that would be kind of out of place with where Nolan and Bale are taking the character. But in the hands of another writer/director, I could see it.
Nathan can pull off Batman but not really Bruce Wayne. You know who he could rock? Green Arrow/Oliver Queen. Oh yeah.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home