am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by Cain

I don't even know why I even posted in this thread with such an elaborate comment in the first place. It's clear as day to me now that most people here would never bother to understand the evolution of cinematic acting. I feel like an idiot for wasting my time lol. **** this thread.

Um. Okay?
You had the Raging Bull post, right?
I for one thoroughly agreed with it and thought you were right on the money that DeNiro was one of the first to truly transform into a character. He also does it in Taxi Driver, though alebit a bit less obvious.
And I also agreed with your comparison of the different acting styles.

But I don't know why you're upset.
Did not enough people reply to your post or something?
Because I don't know about you but I've written plenty of well written, good point posts that have gotten ignored.
That doesn't mean I go and start insulting the people in the thread though.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Um. Okay?
You had the Raging Bull post, right?
I for one thoroughly agreed with it and thought you were right on the money that DeNiro was one of the first to truly transform into a character. He also does it in Taxi Driver, though alebit a bit less obvious.
And I also agreed with your comparison of the different acting styles.

But I don't know why you're upset.
Did not enough people reply to your post or something?
Because I don't know about you but I've written plenty of well written, good point posts that have gotten ignored.
That doesn't mean I go and start insulting the people in the thread though.

No no no it's not because of that. That post wasn't even hard to miss I'm sure most read it & understood the point I was making. Which is far more important to me than ever getting a reply. It's because shedding some light on the reality of the subject is obviously not going to make a difference. Since people are too set in their own subjective opinions to even be objective and understand why both approaches are deliberately night & day.

[elgaz]

Originally Posted by Cain

No no no it's not because of that. That post wasn't even hard to miss I'm sure most read it & understood the point I was making. Which is far more important to me than ever getting a reply. It's because shedding some light on the reality of the subject is obviously not going to make a difference. Since people are too set in their own subjective opinions to even be objective and understand why both approaches are deliberately night & day.

Welcome to the joy of internet forums.

[MrWayne]

I think for the time, yea, Nicholsons Joker was great. He played the character well imo. They messed up by killing him off though. Like... Why???

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Originally Posted by MrWayne

I think for the time, yea, Nicholsons Joker was great. He played the character well imo. They messed up by killing him off though. Like... Why???

I'm certain Burton wanted Batman to overcome the greatest trauma of his life, so the Joker had to die for that to work. That's an instance of a director's input coming from his own emotional reasons. Burton is the one who wanted the Joker to die, not Sam Hamm.

[GothamAlleys]

I think the reason is pretty much the same as for 99.9% of the movies - villains always die at the end

[MrWayne]

Well at the same time, back in the late 80's there weren't as many fan boys and fanatics or websites with hordes of people who go ape ish for continuity so there was no back lash to deal with. So much has changed since '89 obviously. But I mean jeez, even then, to kill off the MAIN archenemy like that? And I still think its a crime that Burton didn't do a third.

[GothamAlleys]

Again, I dont think its any different than in any other movies at the time when villains AWAYS die at the end. Even in comic book movies, for example in TMNT Shredder gets killed. Hes miraculously brought back for the sequel (even tho crushed in a garbage truck), but still killed off at the end. Another example is He-Man where Skeletor gets killed. Or in 1990's Captain America where Red Skull gets killed

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg Bop

I'm certain Burton wanted Batman to overcome the greatest trauma of his life, so the Joker had to die for that to work. That's an instance of a director's input coming from his own emotional reasons. Burton is the one who wanted the Joker to die, not Sam Hamm.

I think Burton's commentary for Batman confirms this.

Originally Posted by MrWayne

Well at the same time, back in the late 80's there weren't as many fan boys and fanatics or websites with hordes of people who go ape ish for continuity so there was no back lash to deal with. So much has changed since '89 obviously. But I mean jeez, even then, to kill off the MAIN archenemy like that? And I still think its a crime that Burton didn't do a third.

Agreed.

[GothamAlleys]

Well, before the movie's release in 89 WB received close to 50 000 letters protesting against a comic playing Batman in fear its going to be like the TV show again, so the voices were still very loud. The criticism of Vicky in the cave was also heard loud and clear

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by GothamAlleys

Well, before the movie's release in 89 WB received close to 50 000 letters protesting against a comic playing Batman in fear its going to be like the TV show again, so the voices were still very loud.

Yet no one complained when Jim Carrey (a most obvious comic actor at the time) was cast as Riddler.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Yet no one complained when Jim Carrey (a most obvious comic actor at the time) was cast as Riddler.

The Riddler has been written as a goofy character plenty of times, so Carrey somewhat fits.

Batman however is never goofy (not how fans wanted to see him, anyway), so Keaton was a shock at first.

But on the subject, I thought Jim Carrey made a terrific Edward Nigma.

[nkumar101]

No, But In the sense of that time he do his best as a sadistic maniac.

[Lead Cenobite]

What is the true Joker exactly? Is he a killer or a harmless prankster? Is he both? Or is he an anarchist who's determined to show the world the pointlessness of rules? Was he a career criminal prior to the accident or was he a meek, harmless man only trying to support his wife and unborn child?

If the Joker had one constant unchanging depiction, I could understand all this talk about how Jack didn't get it right, but as it is, there are multiple interpretations that are vastly different from one another, in the comics alone.

That goes for a good number of comic book characters too. Look at Mr. Freeze. He started out as a mad scientist working on a freeze gun when he had his accident, then he was changed so that he was in the process of trying to cryogenically freeze his terminally ill wife to keep her alive long enough to find a cure.. does that mean the revision of the character isn't really Mr. Freeze? Is Lexcorp Lex not really Lex because he originated as a mad scientist? Is the silver age boyscout Superman not the real Superman because he was originally written as a law breaking bruiser?

These long running characters who have endured retcon after retcon and reboot after reboot simply do not have a single, constant interpretation. There are the basic traits that have been there from the start though. Jack's Joker has the basic traits and more.

[Slushy]

Heath did an AMAZING job! However, I still prefer Nicholson's version. He was just more fun to watch.

[TheHeatKitchen]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Heath did an AMAZING job! However, I still prefer Nicholson's version. He was just more fun to watch.

Yeah, Jack was fun, but Heath's was much more complex and a better performance overall IMO.

Jack wad perfect for Tim Burton's Batman, Heath did an unbelievable job as Nolan's Batman. While I prefer the Nolan version, Jack "nailed" what Burton was going for.... Creepy and FUN.

[shauner111]

Haven't read the thread or what people think of the main question. But here we go..

I think for its time, Nicholson was the perfect choice to play him. I think he was great for how the Joker was written for that movie. But i dont think he NAILED the character completely. It's hard to describe because everyone loved him at the time and it was the darkest Joker the general audience (and much of the fanboys) had ever seen up to that point. For the 80's it was pretty damn cool. But it hasn't aged well. It's been close to 25 years and it comes off goofy now. Maybe thats why i dont think he's nailed it because i have a different Joker in my head. Dancing to Prince, etc is very 80's pop culture but i guess i can see the old school Joker dancing like a nut to Prince..but again...my Joker isn't so happy all the time. Even if he's labelled as a clown.

A lot of it has to do with Burton and him portraying Joker as this 50 year old mob boss type with a name (Jack Napier) that sounds like the actors real name. Not Nicholsons fault there.

Making him kill the Waynes felt more like a desperate move to help Burtons version of Joker seem more important as an enemy to Batman. Because up until the scene where he falls into the chemicals, he's just not the Joker at all. As for Nicholson personally? His laugh is overrated. A couple of scenes? He was on point. But most of the time Mark Hamill owned him. Ledger owned him as well IMO.

For me he did well but he didn't nail it. He was still far off. Ledger nailed it in live-action. Hamill nails it in animation.

[Lead Cenobite]

Originally Posted by shauner111

For me he did well but he didn't nail it. He was still far off. Ledger nailed it in live-action. Hamill nails it in animation.

As different as Hamill's and Ledger's interpretations are from each other, how can you say they nailed it and Jack Nicholson didn't?

And stevehawkins, what was the point in making two separate posts just to bash a movie you've never seen?

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by shauner111

Haven't read the thread or what people think of the main question. But here we go..

I think for its time, Nicholson was the perfect choice to play him. I think he was great for how the Joker was written for that movie. But i dont think he NAILED the character completely. It's hard to describe because everyone loved him at the time and it was the darkest Joker the general audience (and much of the fanboys) had ever seen up to that point. For the 80's it was pretty damn cool. But it hasn't aged well. It's been close to 25 years and it comes off goofy now. Maybe thats why i dont think he's nailed it because i have a different Joker in my head. Dancing to Prince, etc is very 80's pop culture but i guess i can see the old school Joker dancing like a nut to Prince..but again...my Joker isn't so happy all the time. Even if he's labelled as a clown.

A lot of it has to do with Burton and him portraying Joker as this 50 year old mob boss type with a name (Jack Napier) that sounds like the actors real name. Not Nicholsons fault there.

Making him kill the Waynes felt more like a desperate move to help Burtons version of Joker seem more important as an enemy to Batman. Because up until the scene where he falls into the chemicals, he's just not the Joker at all. As for Nicholson personally? His laugh is overrated. A couple of scenes? He was on point. But most of the time Mark Hamill owned him. Ledger owned him as well IMO.

For me he did well but he didn't nail it. He was still far off. Ledger nailed it in live-action. Hamill nails it in animation.

Good post

[Human Torch]

Mark Hamill is the only actor to nail the Joker,IMO.

[BlueLightning]

At least his voice. I still wonder how Mark Hamill would do as a live action Joker.

[gwynplaine]

Yeah, Nicholson Joker wasn't that great.

[theman]

wow, what a bunch of friggin WHINERS. of course nicholson nailed it! hes exactly the comic book cometo life, dark yet funny, charming, artistic, and throughly sadistic and twisted. ledgers didnt impress me, its more of an elseworlds joker. burtons joker not only got the origin right but the character was completely perfect. he WAS the joker. when i look at ledger i just see a greasyass normal guy in crappily applied makeup playin your typical movie serial killer type with almost no jokes and a pathetic laugh. sorry thats not joker. and cmon noone gets better then jack friggin nicholson. the role was virtually made for the man when he was born. nicholsons joker killed and messed with people all for the lols, not some cliche ideal of wanting people to accept the evil inside themselves. jack was just classic and the standard for live action jokers.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by theman

wow, what a bunch of friggin WHINERS. of course nicholson nailed it! hes exactly the comic book cometo life, dark yet funny, charming, artistic, and throughly sadistic and twisted. ledgers didnt impress me, its more of an elseworlds joker. burtons joker not only got the origin right but the character was completely perfect. he WAS the joker. when i look at ledger i just see a greasyass normal guy in crappily applied makeup playin your typical movie serial killer type with almost no jokes and a pathetic laugh. sorry thats not joker. and cmon noone gets better then jack friggin nicholson. the role was virtually made for the man when he was born. nicholsons joker killed and messed with people all for the lols, not some cliche ideal of wanting people to accept the evil inside themselves. jack was just classic and the standard for live action jokers.

The irony in this statement is literally making my brain hurt.

[The Joker]

http://www.jokerfans.blogspot.ie/

I see more comic book Joker in Heath's Joker than Jack's.