Yes, the assistant did, Matt.

And yes Frank, the slash was intentional, but I sort of felt the symbol was a little flippant in this instance.

John Noble has a wonderfully distinctive voice, I think. As does Sean Bean. I remember when FOtR first came out I hated Viggo's voice so much--thin, whiny, no authority, no solidity. I felt Bean would have made a much better Aragorn on voice alone. Viggo did a lot of work on his voice, and by RotK, he had a more commanding voice worthy of following, I thought.

Brendan Fraser has a definitely recognizable voice, as does McKellan. And if we're going for impressiveness plus recognition factor--Bob Newhart, Richard Boone, a second vote for Roscoe Lee Browne, Brock Peters, Alec Guinness, Harrison Ford, Denholm Elliot, Anthony Quayle, Streep, Christine Lahti, Linda Hunt, Lawrence Fishburne, Jerry Orbach, Gina Torres, James Spader, to name a few.

ETA: I think TDK is called "Ledger's movie" because the Joker overshadows everyone else in it and everything. Ledger did a wonderful job with the role, but it's the role itself that took over the movie.

I was reading Prisoner of Azkaban and having a really hard time visualizing Sirius as a real person when the casting announcement was made for the movie. Suddenly Sirius was inhabited by Gary Oldman and the character became real for me.

I've said before that I think that Batman Begins is as much Jim Gordon's movie as it is Bruce Wayne's movie.

I wish it had been just a little bit more his. I know why it wasn't, and there was already too much going on in the move (as with TDK). But his Batmobile ride was so...sublime? Perfect? In any case, I wanted a little more of that.

I could be conflating Batman Begins with Frank Miller's Batman: Year One, which might as well be called Jim Gordon: Year One.

I think TDK is called "Ledger's movie" because the Joker overshadows everyone else in it and everything. Ledger did a wonderful job with the role, but it's the role itself that took over the movie.

I get that that's the reason many people feel the Joker/Ledger overshadowed everything else in the movie. Certainly, the notoriety around Ledger's death added to that. And the Joker is probably Batman's most well-known villain.

I understand that the Joker ended up overshadowing the movie for many people. He didn't *for me,* and I have no idea why. My brain just grabs onto things and minimizes/maximizes them as it will.

(Er, I just typed all that because I wasn't sure if you were replying specifically to me, if I came across as saying "No, by all objective, empirical, narrative, and cinematic standards, the Joker in no way overshadowed the movie and I am positive that everyone who saw the movie experienced it the exact same way that I did."

That's not at all what I meant. All I meant was, "Huh, I didn't experience the movie the same way as many people did; I sure have a weird brain.")

Tep, for whatever it's worth, I didn't think Joker overshadowed the film. For me TDK was a movie of mirrors and reflection. Each character seeing things in others that they didn't want to acknowledge in themselves. Even with more minor characters like Lucius and Jim's partner (whose name I'm blanking on at the moment). About the only character that doesn't hold for is Alfred because he's just so completely serene and secure in who he is and his place in the world.

I like your brain, it's very thinky, and very individual.

My experience of a movie is always dependent on how I feel about the actors involved. I try very hard to be objective about character, but a fondness for or a prejudice against an actor for whatever reason will color my reception of his role in the present movie.

I went into TDK fairly evenly disposed toward Oldman, Bale, and Ledger, even while I was aware this was the last big role Ledger would ever be seen in. Maybe it was all the notoriety surrounding his death, but *to me* it felt as though the whole movie, the whole screen, was steeped in the deadly absurdity of the Joker's mind. That may be because, to a degree, Wayne shares that frame of mind, and in this instance they both fed into that atmosphere.

I did feel that Gordon anchored the film, as the only sane tether for the audience. And the storyline attacked his sanity as his family was threatened. Again, *to me*, the entire film, and the whole cast, was steeped in brilliant dark insanity. And that's a definition that is awfully close to both Wayne and the Joker--the Joker has just fallen, or leapt, or run flat out, farther into it than Bruce, at this point.

And that's purely from *my* POV.

And that's a definition that is awfully close to both Wayne and the Joker--the Joker has just fallen, or leapt, or run flat out, farther into it than Bruce, at this point.

Oh, totally. Batman -- and I'm honestly thinking of him from the comics, not the 2 most recent (Bale et al.) movies -- is a lunatic. He dresses like a giant flying rodent and his entire life is centered on stopping crime in a major city (almost) single-handedly, without any superpowers.

When I say that, people tend to bust out the argument of "he has buckets of money, he's brilliant, trained for years with the best of the best, etc., etc." That's true. He does and did.

Again, I say that to do ALL THAT in order to train/prepare oneself to operate outside the law and beat up criminals makes him a LUNATIC.

Which is why I dig him so much. He is fucked up beyond fucked up. The difference between Batman and the Joker is, essentially, that Batman is on the side of Good and the Joker is on the side of Chaos. That's about it, when you honestly look at it.

That makes me think of Batman as Giles and the Joker as Ethan Rayne.

::points at Sophia::

There you go.

Oh, yeah - love that.

Don't you mean, Ripper instead.