Originally Posted by Doctor Who
To me, EVERY villain is shares the same views being the villains they are and racketing up to destroy Gotham and Batman. Take the joker for example:
"Got a statement from one who survived, said it was this Joker character for sure...said he didn't even look at them, like killing them wasn't even important." -Man Who Laughs
We can't deny sociophath archetypes can sound the same or as you say "watered down versions of the Joker," but when comparing to Bane taking another life to this bulky brute was just another step closer to defeating Batman; both may seem joyous as well to them, but Bane is tactical and will strategize a flawless and un-time consuming plan. Joker is random and will do anything that would comes to mind; once he captures the car, he doesn't know what to do with it next. LOL
So you could say Joker is free-willed and random while the other is far more organized and objective driven. This argument can go on eons at a time, but it's all just a matter of opinion really. What I can't get past is that after Heath Ledger's Joker, every other villain is considered just a knock off or more less fascinating version of this. He did a TREMENDOUS job and no one's a bigger fan of the Joker or Heath Ledger like myself, but just because he set the bar doesn't mean he's the only who can do it.
I actually don't think the Joker is all that random. He was lying about being a dog chasing cars to manipulate Dent. He does have an objective for everything he does (from prologue to the boat scene): point out how everybody is evil/crazy on the inside and that civilization is just a big joke.