Hot Toys- Batman Begins:Batman Demon & Scarecrow spec and pics

[wbss21]

But he did put in some amazing performances, bottom line, whether people paid to see them or not. Period. That's not speculation, that's the truth. In the few films where he was able to show us what he could do, he proved that he was a brilliant actor. The number of films doesn't matter, and certainly a films validity as a piece of art isn't based at all on how many people went to see it.

 

[Devil_666]

I'll agree that he was amazing in TDK and Brokeback Mountain.

Was he as amazing and as memorable in 10 Things I Hate About You? Hell No.

Was he as amazing and as memorable in Monster's Ball? Hell No.

Was he as amazing and as memorable in The Patriot? Hell No.

Was he as amazing and as memorable in The Order? Hell No.

Was he as amazing and as memorable in The Four Feathers? Hell No.

Was he as amazing and as memorable in Casanova? Hell No.

etc.

Again, he didn't have an amazing run in the movies he made. I'd say he started to get some real buzz here in the states with his performance in Ned Kelly (which bombed). Then he made two so-so movies in a row and didn't get any more positive accolades until like 2 years later with his performance in Lords of Dogtown (Also bombed). That carried over to Brokeback and to a lesser degree with Candy. But the funny part is the announcement of him playing The Joker. The majority of people hated it and were like "WTF!?" i.e. he STILL wasn't at that level where just his name being attached to a film brought cheers. And that's because for the most part.. he wasn't considered anything special.

 

[DiFabio]

I'm a healthy straight heterosexual male and I find Maggie's brother, Jake more attractive than she is. Hell, if Heath Ledger were still alive to day and I was paid millions (in Hot Toys figures) I'd definitely ____ him before Maggie.

He'd have to be in character as the Joker though, make up and all. Only. Way.

Wait, weren't Jake and Heath in a movie together? The title slips my mind for some reason. Hmm.

 

[wbss21]

He proved though that he was special. Whether he was considered such by the masses beforehand doesn't matter. The point is, he was a great actor who never got to show it in more then a few films.

His performances in all those films were fine. He had mediocre material to deal with. If he'd had great material, he would have shined. He was fantastic in "Candy". Every actor needs to make a blockbuster at some point to open up avenues for themselves, and he did that with "TDK", and tragically, he just never got the chance to capitalize on it. If he had, better scripts would have been flooding in for him.

 

[SanShouXMA]

So it looks like the price of this is starting to climb again on ebay. Things aren't looking too well.

 

[DiFabio]

So it looks like the price of this is starting to climb again on ebay. Things aren't looking too well.

Hey, stay on topic will ya.

 

[Devil_666]

He proved though that he was special. Whether he was considered such by the masses beforehand doesn't matter.

Wait, what!? So then who considered him special if not "the masses"!? You? Oh ok.. since you think he was special and great it makes it fact. Ok.

 

[wbss21]

No, what I mean, clearly, is that just because a great deal of people didn't go to see him in those films, doesn't mean he didn't prove he was special. Those films, "Brokeback Mountain" and "Candy" weren't exactly blockbuster material. You keep pointing to the fact that all these films were box office bombs, as though that somehow reflects on his talent, when all it really reflects is the general, overall taste of the masses. They like action flicks with lots of CGI.

 

[DiFabio]

My keen detective skills has led me to deduce wbss21's identity.

I give to you, Mary-Kate Olsen.

Why'd you do it, wbss, why?

 

[wbss21]

Hey, I used to love watching "Full House"!

 

[karamazov80]

DiCaprio has made a lot of crappy movies too, but in the last few years he has really matured and I'd rate him as among the best half dozen actors in his generation. l

I know folks here don't agree with me on this one, but I think DiCaprio is only an average talent. He's damn good at what he does--being a straight man who can give a serious/worried look here and there, which he does in just about every movie he's in nowadays--but his success is more attributable to the directors and stories he works with than his own skills, IMO. You trade him out with 100 other male actors in Inception, or Shutter Island, or Titanic, or Departed, or Gangs of New York, and those movies wouldn't really suffer because of it, in my opinion.

Re: Ledger, yeah, he was in a bunch of ____ty movies, but he put on a fantastic performance in Dark Knight, that only knuckleheads are gonna disagree with. Jamie Foxx was in crappy WB sitcoms for years, and turned out to be a great actor when he is in the right role. Stallone was in a soft-core porno, and loads of crap movies, but put out great performances in Rocky and First Blood. Sometimes guys do good and bad. Not fair to judge a guy as an all-time great actor based on one performance, but nor is it fair to say a guy is ____ because he played in a bunch of ____ty movies. Not everyone has the chances to pick their role that guys like DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Jimmy Stewart, and Cary Grant did.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

How 'bout that Scarecrow...

 

[plasmid303]

How 'bout that Demon Batman...

 

[vodoun]

Awww! I missed all the fun. So it went tits up around page 96?

 

[fashizal1]

just over paid for a demon batman...275.00 shipped on ebay. theres been a couple split up sets for pre order on there, scarecrow alone was goin for that same price but the seller only had 1 feedback so descided to pass. hopfully they keep popping up as split up for people who want only one or cant afford 600 700 dollars at once.

there is 2 more demon bats on there last i checked!

 

[blakus939]

What amazing movies!? TDK and Brokeback Mountain? Because that's the only two movies he ever did (with a major supporting/leading role) that were both critically AND financially successfully. The majority of movies he made either bombed at the box office or were panned by critics.

I'll never understand how people can revise history to make Ledger's acting career look greater than it actually was.

You're missing some pretty weighty roles though Devil.
Ned Kelly was grossly under-rated, but he also received critical acclaim for his role in Lords of Dogtown as the cracked out surf shop owner. Knight's Tale also didn't go fair bad. Just because the movies may have been box office tanks (thank you, ____ty Australian production of NK) doesn't mean the performances weren't epic.
Not everything he touched turned to gold as some people claim (but hell, I feel the same with Johnny Depp) but the kid definitely had talent and was only getting better with age.
To me, he was also one dude that was proverbially 'kept on a leash' by
1. Majority of directors and
2. Faultful and dreary productions/general film storylines.

Only in his later stages was he truly given full creative direction and reign to put exactly what he envisaged of his characters onto the screen, something that also would have given him more notoriety, post TDK, if only it could have been.

 

[DiFabio]

I'm still not fully convinced that the person we see playing the Joker in TDK is Heath Ledger.

 

[vodoun]

I'm still not fully convinced that the person we see playing the Joker in TDK is Heath Ledger.

The forum will tear itself apart now.

 

[RJMacReady16]

I agree. They both made the characters fully real, and no one ever has. I just think the Joker was an easier job to do.

They both deserved Oscars, for what it's worth.

Oscars are a joke.

Al Gore has one.

Daniel Day Lewis doesn't have one for Bill the Butcher.

This pretty much nullifies the little gold man entirely.

You guys are crazy. I'd like to ____ a cartoon turtle I guess.

I'd hit it.

I know folks here don't agree with me on this one, but I think DiCaprio is only an average talent. He's damn good at what he does--being a straight man who can give a serious/worried look here and there, which he does in just about every movie he's in nowadays--but his success is more attributable to the directors and stories he works with than his own skills, IMO.

You are in the minority, but you're 1000% correct. He's the luckiest leading-man in Hollywood.

Basically, he's kind of like the new Tom Cruise. He doesn't suck, but he isn't brilliant by any means. In fact, he was one of the worst actors in Gangs of New York. Could barely carry his own weight with those heavy hitters (not you, Diaz).

Fortunately for him, brilliant directors are dying to work with him.

 

[blakus939]

The forum will tear itself apart now.

Hahahaha
Just bursts into flames, Homer Simpson with cornflakes-spec