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

[OutRiddled]

I thought Jack was like a mix of all eras of Joker up to that point (late 80s). There's a bit of Cesar Romero, a bit of the early 1940s mobster Joker, and some of the more darker Joker from comics like The Killing Joke. And of course, a bit of Jack Nicholson's own style thrown in there.

I still think, the 1989 movie gives us way more iconic Joker moments.. like the "Mirror, Mirror!" scene, the first reveal, the final confrontation, etc.. way more memorable lines too.

Jack didn't have the physicality of Heath, but he has way more acting talent. He really commands the screen. While Ledger had a great method style of acting, he didn't have the same charisma as Jack.

I can still watch Jack's performances over and over, while Ledger's just don't have the same re-watchability factor. There are only a few scenes I like of his Joker. If he had as many iconic and memorable scenes as Jack, then he would've been the best Joker ever.

[Brain Damage]

The magic trick?
Ah-ta-ta-ta, let's not blow this out of proportion?
LOOK AT ME?
You remind me of my father, I hated my father?
I had a wife who was beautiful, like you?
Very poor choice of words?
HIT ME?
Well, depending on the time, he may be in one spot or several?
You're just a freak - like me?
You'll just have to play my little game if you want to save one of them?
You have nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength?
Do you wanna know why I use a knife?
I just want my phone call?
I'm an agent of chaos?
It's not about money, it's about sending a message. Everything burns?
You and I are destined to do this forever?

Those aren't iconic enough for you?
I love Jack's Joker too, but you are waaay off base about Ledger.

[The Joker]

Yeah, I don't associate Joker much with following Vicki Vale around because he fancies her, or thinking of himself as an artist, or being the killer of the Waynes. I liked Jack but he didn't nail Joker as much as Ledger did, IMO. Ledger vanished into the role. From the voice to the facial mannerisms to body language. Not a trace of Ledger. Whereas I always knew I was watching Jack. That's one reason why I don't think Nicholson had more talent with the role.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

The magic trick?
Ah-ta-ta-ta, let's not blow this out of proportion?
LOOK AT ME?
You remind me of my father, I hated my father?
I had a wife who was beautiful, like you?
Very poor choice of words?
HIT ME?
Well, depending on the time, he may be in one spot or several?
You're just a freak - like me?
You'll just have to play my little game if you want to save one of them?
You have nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength?
Do you wanna know why I use a knife?
I just want my phone call?
I'm an agent of chaos?
It's not about money, it's about sending a message. Everything burns?
You and I are destined to do this forever?

Those aren't iconic enough for you?
I love Jack's Joker too, but you are waaay off base about Ledger.

If I didn't know those lines were from The Dark Knight, I'd say that's like a mix of Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange, Top Dollar from The Crow, Toecutter from Mad Max..... there's plenty of villains that had really cool dialogue, but none of it screams 'JOKER' to me. Like Jack pulling a ridiculously long pistol out of his pants and shooting down the Batwing. Those kind of moments that really live up to the name "Joker".

Originally Posted by The Joker

Yeah, I don't associate Joker much with following Vicki Vale around because he fancies her, or thinking of himself as an artist, or being the killer of the Waynes. I liked Jack but he didn't nail Joker as much as Ledger did, IMO. Ledger vanished into the role. From the voice to the facial mannerisms to body language. Not a trace of Ledger. Whereas I always knew I was watching Jack. That's one reason why I don't think Nicholson had more talent with the role.

Yeah, and he also tried to throw Vicki Vale off of a building ("let me lend you a hand")... He's a "homicidal artist" that defaces artwork I guess the joke's on you...

And it doesn't really matter that he killed the Waynes in that film, it was only to set up the final confrontation. It made perfect sense in the context of the film.

Jack nailed it, even Bob Kane agrees. But as I said, Ledger had a certain physicality that was perfect for Joker.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

If I didn't know those lines were from The Dark Knight, I'd say that's like a mix of Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange, Top Dollar from The Crow, Toecutter from Mad Max..... there's plenty of villains that had really cool dialogue, but none of it screams 'JOKER' to me. Like Jack pulling a ridiculously long pistol out of his pants and shooting down the Batwing. Those kind of moments that really live up to the name "Joker".

Then you and I have very different understandings of the Joker character.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

If I didn't know those lines were from The Dark Knight, I'd say that's like a mix of Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange, Top Dollar from The Crow, Toecutter from Mad Max..... there's plenty of villains that had really cool dialogue, but none of it screams 'JOKER' to me. Like Jack pulling a ridiculously long pistol out of his pants and shooting down the Batwing. Those kind of moments that really live up to the name "Joker".

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

Yeah, and he also tried to throw Vicki Vale off of a building ("let me lend you a hand")...

After spending half the movie stalking her like some love sick weirdo. Not the Joker's style at all. He doesn't just become infatuated with random women like that.

He's a "homicidal artist" that defaces artwork. I guess the joke's on you...

Yeah ok. Great comeback. I've never known the Joker to give two hoots about art work that much or consider himself to be an artist of any kind.

And it doesn't really matter that he killed the Waynes in that film, it was only to set up the final confrontation. It made perfect sense in the context of the film.

It matters to me. It really altered the nature of the Batman/Joker dynamic because when they finally come face to face it's just Batman beating up Joker for killing his parents. That's not like any Batman and Joker feud I've ever read. I heard it annoyed a lot of Batman fans back then, too. Even Sam Hamm, the writer of the movie, disliked it:

"Many observed that Burton was more interested in the Joker rather than Batman in terms of characterization and screen time. Comic book fans reacted negatively over the Joker murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne. In the comic book, Joe Chill is responsible. Writer Sam Hamm, who is a comic book fan, said it was Burton's idea to have the Joker murder Wayne's parents. "The Writer's Strike was going on," Hamm continued, "and Tim had the other writers do that. I also hold innocent to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave," he reasoned. "Fans were ticked off with that, and I agree. That would have been Alfred's last day of employment at Wayne Manor."

http://destinyosbourne.hubpages.com/hub/the-batman

Jack nailed it, even Bob Kane agrees.

You mean Bob Kane the plagiarist who stole all the creative credit from Bill Finger? The Bob Kane who thought Val Kilmer was the best Batman?

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by The Joker

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

Always brings a smile to my face.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

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

You know how many comics they've made with Joker in it alone? He's been around since 1940. You could come up with so many different interpretations based on that long history. At his essence he is just another 'gimmick' villain - like all Batman villains started out as. Some peculiar trademark to set them apart from ordinary mobsters or regular villains. Only after decades of development did he obtain all the complexities to his character many people know of today.

With Nicholson, I could tell the main influence was the original 1940 comic (Batman #1), which was Joker's first appearance. And pretty much everything else followed from that.

After spending half the movie stalking her like some love sick weirdo. Not the Joker's style at all. He doesn't just become infatuated with random women like that.

It doesn't really matter, though. Every Batman movie has a damsel in distress, that the villain puts in danger so Batman has to rescue. Vicki's purpose was to string together the narrative, because after all, this is a movie not a comic book.

Yeah ok. Great comeback. I've never known the Joker to give two hoots about art work that much or consider himself to be an artist of any kind.

Well he only mentions that in the museum, after killing everyone there and defacing all the artwork, so I assume it was all a sick joke to him.

It matters to me. It really altered the nature of the Batman/Joker dynamic because when they finally come face to face it's just Batman beating up Joker for killing his parents. That's not like any Batman and Joker feud I've ever read. I heard it annoyed a lot of Batman fans back then, too. Even Sam Hamm, the writer of the movie, disliked it:

"Many observed that Burton was more interested in the Joker rather than Batman in terms of characterization and screen time. Comic book fans reacted negatively over the Joker murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne. In the comic book, Joe Chill is responsible. Writer Sam Hamm, who is a comic book fan, said it was Burton's idea to have the Joker murder Wayne's parents. "The Writer's Strike was going on," Hamm continued, "and Tim had the other writers do that. I also hold innocent to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave," he reasoned. "Fans were ticked off with that, and I agree. That would have been Alfred's last day of employment at Wayne Manor."

http://destinyosbourne.hubpages.com/hub/the-batman

It's all grand guignol, you don't have to take it literally. You notice the flashback scene was shot almost like a dream or nightmare. It has a supernatural element to it. Because it was Bruce Wayne trying to remember the events, not an actual literal interpretation of what happened. It's all rooted in the psychological, unlike Nolan's version which has to be rooted in realism.

You mean Bob Kane the plagiarist who stole all the creative credit from Bill Finger? The Bob Kane who thought Val Kilmer was the best Batman?

Everybody is probably a plagiarist in the creative industry. I don't really pay much attention to all of the politics.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

You know how many comics they've made with Joker in it alone? He's been around since 1940. You could come up with so many different interpretations based on that long history. At his essence he is just another 'gimmick' villain - like all Batman villains started out as. Some peculiar trademark to set them apart from ordinary mobsters or regular villains. Only after decades of development did he obtain all the complexities to his character many people know of today.

I'm well aware of the history of Joker's characterization in the comics. I was shooting down your assertion that Ledger's Joker was not something you associate with the Joker from the comics when he is deeply rooted in the comic books.

I can also show you some quotes from DC Batman writers about the likeness of Ledger's Joker to the comics, too, if you like.

With Nicholson, I could tell the main influence was the original 1940 comic (Batman #1), which was Joker's first appearance. And pretty much everything else followed from that.

Funny the original appearance of the Joker was also an influence on Heath's as well. In the original Joker just appears as the Joker with no back story and no name just the Joker, announces he will kill people to Gotham, leaves Joker cards at the scene of his crimes, disguises himself as a Cop to get close to one of his victims, has some fisticuffs with Batman in one of their confrontations, and is captured at the end.

All things I saw in TDK. I didn't see any of that in Batman '89.

It doesn't really matter, though.

To you.

Every Batman movie has a damsel in distress, that the villain puts in danger so Batman has to rescue. Vicki's purpose was to string together the narrative, because after all, this is a movie not a comic book.

Vicki could easily have been a damsel in distress without the Joker taking a fancy to her. She was a photo journalist for the press sticking her nose into sightings of the Batman. A tailor made role to get into trouble.

Well he only mentions that in the museum, after killing everyone there and defacing all the artwork, so I assume it was all a sick joke to him.

No, he mentions it on TV as well. Napier's file also said one of his aptitudes was art.

It's all grand guignol, you don't have to take it literally.

Yes you do because that's the way it was. It wasn't a dream and it wasn't a case of mistaken identity. The movie makes no implications otherwise.

You notice the flashback scene was shot almost like a dream or nightmare.

Of course because it was a memory flashback to a horrible event.

It has a supernatural element to it. Because it was Bruce Wayne trying to remember the events, not an actual literal interpretation of what happened. It's all rooted in the psychological, unlike Nolan's version which has to be rooted in realism.

Rubbish! You're making things up. The dance with the devil line is what triggered Bruce's memory of his parents' killer. One hell of a coincidence that the killer was named Jack and liked to use that line, too lol.

You won't find one shred of evidence to suggest it was the intention to show Bruce may have been wrong about Joker killing his parents. It was very clear cut.

Everybody is probably a plagiarist in the creative industry.

And you're basing that unfounded assumption on.....?

I don't really pay much attention to all of the politics.

It's not politics. It's an infamous scandal surrounding Bob Kane. Well documented.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I'm well aware of the history of Joker's characterization in the comics. I was shooting down your assertion that Ledger's Joker was not something you associate with the Joker from the comics when he is deeply rooted in the comic books.

I can also show you some quotes from DC Batman writers about the likeness of Ledger's Joker to the comics, too, if you like.

You changed my words around to suit your argument, but I otherwise I agree with what you're saying. The Joker from the comics has a 70+ years history, though, so you have a lot of leeway with whatever interpretation your going for.

Funny the original appearance of the Joker was also an influence on Heath's as well. In the original Joker just appears as the Joker with no back story and no name just the Joker, announces he will kill people to Gotham, leaves Joker cards at the scene of his crimes, disguises himself as a Cop to get close to one of his victims, has some fisticuffs with Batman in one of their confrontations, and is captured at the end.

All things I saw in TDK. I didn't see any of that in Batman '89.

You're cherry-picking, of course. I don't remember from Batman #1 the Joker's motive being to cause anarchy and make this big point that everyone deep down is really like him.

He does though announce that his poisoning Gotham with cosmetic products and announces the Gotham parade (where he kills people), he still has his trademark Joker card:



He leaves his victims with a hideous grin like in Batman #1, unlike Ledger's Joker:

Vicki could easily have been a damsel in distress without the Joker taking a fancy to her. She was a photo journalist for the press sticking her nose into sightings of the Batman. A tailor made role to get into trouble.

I still don't get why it's such a big deal. He was going after Vicki. So what? He was also trying to poison Gotham and kill Batman. He was also banging Grissom's moll. Joker has always been a man for the ladies, until he throws acid on their face or kills them.

No, he mentions it on TV as well. Napier's file also said one of his aptitudes was art.

Ok, that's a very small detail though and it isn't a big part of the film.

Yes you do because that's the way it was. It wasn't a dream and it wasn't a case of mistaken identity. The movie makes no implications otherwise.

I wasn't trying to say it was.

Of course because it was a memory flashback to a horrible event.

Quite clearly, yes.

Rubbish! You're making things up. The dance with the devil line is what triggered Bruce's memory of his parents' killer. One hell of a coincidence that the killer was named Jack and liked to use that line, too lol.

You won't find one shred of evidence to suggest it was the intention to show Bruce may have been wrong about Joker killing his parents. It was very clear cut.

I'm not saying it was wrong. Just compare it with the scene (of the Waynes murder) in Batman Begins, the way it was shot.

And you're basing that unfounded assumption on.....?

It's not politics. It's an infamous scandal surrounding Bob Kane. Well documented.

Ok, but I really don't want to get into that debate.

[RustyCage]

Can I just...

Both versions of the Joker were good in different ways (depending on your preferences), both had their own invented quirks that were new, and both were steeped in comic influence.

That is all. Thank you for your attention.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

You changed my words around to suit your argument

In what way did I do that?

You're cherry-picking, of course.

I doubt that, but lets see how you try and validate that false accusation...

I don't remember from Batman #1 the Joker's motive being to cause anarchy and make this big point that everyone deep down is really like him.

Of course not, because Batman #1 wasn't the only comic used to inspire Ledger's Joker. I never said it was either. I said it was used an influence. Not THE influence. The link I showed you above should prove that given the plethora of comics from different eras in it. So where is this cherry picking?

He does though announce that his poisoning Gotham with cosmetic products

He announces it as a product commercial. Not as a mass murder plot. Unlike in Batman #1 Joker announces that he will straight up kill people, like Ledger's Joker did. One of his victims in Batman #1 included a Judge, just like in TDK. Not promoting some great new product called Smilex that leaves you looking happy.

and announces the Gotham parade (where he kills people)

Again he doesn't announce it as his intention to kill people. He announces it as a invitation to Gotham to get free money.

he still has his trademark Joker card

The only time you see it in the whole movie and it was Jack Napier just holding it up for a moment. You never see him hold a Joker card when he becomes the Joker. Compare that to Ledger's Joker who uses it all the time, especially at scenes of his crimes, like in Batman #1.

So lets sum up. Your only claim to the Batman #1 influence is the use of Joker toxin, which he's used in a million different stories, and Napier holding up a Joker card once.

Is that it?

He leaves his victims with a hideous grin like in Batman #1, unlike Ledger's Joker

I still don't get why it's such a big deal. He was going after Vicki. So what?

So Joker doesn't just go chasing skirts. Unless you can list a bunch of comic book stories where he does this.

He was also banging Grissom's moll. Joker has always been a man for the ladies, until he throws acid on their face or kills them.

When has Joker ever been a ladies man? Name three infamous Joker stories where he shows a keen interest in the opposite sex.

Ok, that's a very small detail though and it isn't a big part of the film.

If you want to ignore the museum scene, his conversation with Vicki, his tele broadcast sure. The point is he saw himself as an artist.

I wasn't trying to say it was. Quite clearly, yes. I'm not saying it was wrong. Just compare it with the scene (of the Waynes murder) in Batman Begins, the way it was shot.

Yeah so what? What point are you trying to make? That two different directors choose two different style to showing a flashback?

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

In what way did I do that?

I never said Ledger's Joker was "not something you associate with the Joker from the comics".

I doubt that, but lets see how you try and validate that false accusation...

Well I have to go read Batman #1 again, but Nicholson's is definitely closer to that original concept than Ledger's.

Of course not, because Batman #1 wasn't the only comic used to inspire Ledger's Joker. I never said it was either. I said it was used an influence. Not THE influence. The link I showed you above should prove that given the plethora of comics from different eras in it. So where is this cherry picking?

The same with Nicholson. But Ledger is much more faithful to the later comics.

He announces it as a product commercial. Not as a mass murder plot. Unlike in Batman #1 Joker announces that he will straight up kill people, like Ledger's Joker did. One of his victims in Batman #1 included a Judge, just like in TDK. Not promoting some great new product called Smilex that leaves you looking happy.

Smilex kills you, just like how Joker used venom that left a permanent grin on your corpse in the comic. So he was announcing that he's going to kill people on television. Not specific people, as I believe he did in the comic, but he didn't in TDK either.

Again he doesn't announce it as his intention to kill people. He announces it as a invitation to Gotham to get free money.

Well if you want to get hung up on specific details, Ledger merely made general threats "People will die" "I will blow up a hospital" and not specific threats against specific individuals like in the comic.

The only time you see it in the whole movie and it was Jack Napier just holding it up for a moment. You never see him hold a Joker card when he becomes the Joker. Compare that to Ledger's Joker who uses it all the time, especially at scenes of his crimes, like in Batman #1.

Did they use the classic design for the Joker card, though?

So lets sum up. Your only claim to the Batman #1 influence is the use of Joker toxin, which he's used in a million different stories, and Napier holding up a Joker card once.

Is that it?

No, there's plenty more. I have to get a hold of Batman #1 again, though (which I have read before). Off the top of my head: Joker's look, grinning after death, using venom, the smile on victim's faces, talking to corpses......

That's a painted on grin..... and no Joker venom, but ok, I see your point.

So Joker doesn't just go chasing skirts. Unless you can list a bunch of comic book stories where he does this.

I'm sure there are in this 70+ year history. There's Harley Quinn, although she was after Batman '89. But I always thought Alicia inspired Harley Quinn.

When has Joker ever been a ladies man? Name three infamous Joker stories where he shows a keen interest in the opposite sex.

That's a hard task, but there's the aforementioned Harley Quinn and:

If you want to ignore the museum scene, his conversation with Vicki, his tele broadcast sure. The point is he saw himself as an artist.

Thanks to GothamAlleys yet again:

Yeah so what? What point are you trying to make? That two different directors choose two different style to showing a flashback?

I'm saying it sets up the big psychological payoff, rather than just be a plot device.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I never said Ledger's Joker was "not something you associate with the Joker from the comics".

"but none of it screams 'JOKER' to me. Like Jack pulling a ridiculously long pistol out of his pants and shooting down the Batwing. Those kind of moments that really live up to the name "Joker"."

Well I have to go read Batman #1 again, but Nicholson's is definitely closer to that original concept than Ledger's.

No, he's not. I'll be here waiting for you to prove otherwise though.

The same with Nicholson.

I'm still waiting to hear the Batman #1 inspiration he has.

But Ledger is much more faithful to the later comics.

Is faithful to many eras of the comics. That's the beauty of his interpretation of the character. There's a good mix in there.

Smilex kills you, just like how Joker used venom that left a permanent grin on your corpse in the comic.

Yes, but he didn't announce it as a death threat, but as a great product that he was giving away. That's the major difference. Joker in Batman #1 was cut throat in saying out right he was intending to murder people, like Heath's Joker did.

Well if you want to get hung up on specific details, Ledger merely made general threats "People will die" "I will blow up a hospital" and not specific threats against specific individuals like in the comic.

Yes but that doesn't negate the point you keep dodging. He made his announcements in Batman #1 as murder announcements just like Heath's did. Jack did not.

Did they use the classic design for the Joker card, though?

You're really reaching now. What difference does it make what design was on the cards? They were Joker cards. He used Joker cards the same way he did in Batman #1.

No, there's plenty more. I have to get a hold of Batman #1 again, though (which I have read before). Off the top of my head: Joker's look

His look was no different to any of his others. Same design, different artists.

grinning after death

No different to a million other Joker stories.

using venom, the smile on victim's faces

No different to a million other Joker stories.

talking to corpses......

No different to a million other Joker stories. He even did that in The Killing Joke, too.

That's a painted on grin..... and no Joker venom, but ok, I see your point.

Yes, leaving dead victims with a smile is leaving dead victims with a smile.

I'm sure there are in this 70+ year history. There's Harley Quinn, although she was after Batman '89.

Harley wasn't someone he took a fancy to. He manipulated and used her in Arkham to help him escape. She fell for him and became obsessed with him.

But I always thought Alicia inspired Harley Quinn.

Paul Dini created Harley Quinn and he never ever mentioned Alicia or anything from Burton's Batman as an inspiration for her. The two characters couldn't be more different.

That's a hard task

Since you called Joker a well known ladies man I thought you'd find it easy.

but there's the aforementioned Harley Quinn

Harley doesn't count as we've already established.

and:

That's about as valid to Joker's persona as this is to Batman's:



I asked you to name three INFAMOUS Joker stories where this was a key trait since you claimed Joker is a notorious ladies man. You give me some obscure Brave and the Bold story panel.

Thanks to GothamAlleys yet again:

Really? You're using a one off campy Batman comic from the 60's as your example that the Joker sees himself as an artist? Do you consider the Rainbow Batman costumes I posted above a key trait to Batman's character, too? The campy comics did one off silly gimmicky stuff like that all the time with the villains. Do you think a key trait to the Penguin is being a pirate?

I'm saying it sets up the big psychological payoff, rather than just be a plot device.

Ok two things:

1. There is no big psychological payoff. It leads to a scene where Batman beats up the Joker for killing his parents. No big psychological payoff there. It was added in last minute by Burton during the writers strike.

2. If you consider the death of Batman's parents, the entire foundation of him being Batman, as a plot device, then you must not know Batman well at all. It weighs heavily on Bruce's arc in Batman Begins.

[gwynplaine]

Also in TDK Heath uses knives and dresses like a cop, both nods to B#1 and #2. Also unlike Nicholson who was stuck with the ridiculous perma-smile make-up, Ledger's Joker was not always smiling (contrary to one of his "stories". Just like Joker in B#1 or TKJ was not always smiling either) and able to convey a much wider range of emotions.
Nicholson was actually pretty close to Romero's take on the character and even in a way to Hackman's Luthor, where back thyen playing a supervillain wasn't really taken seriously and meant acting way over the top like some kind of commedia del'arte buffoon or something.
Heath represents the spirit and the essence of the character.
Bottom line, the writing and the Joker in B89 simply aren't in the same league as what was done with TDK.
But to be fair, B89 did pave the way and prepared the audience for a darker take on the mythos.

[Brain Damage]

I think Jack's performance in '89 is so freaking fun to watch, but everything The Joker and gwynplaine have said is spot on

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Like Jack pulling a ridiculously long pistol out of his pants and shooting down the Batwing. Those kind of moments that really live up to the name "Joker".

That is a cringeworthy moment.

[milost]

Long time lurker, finally joined up. This thread has always caught my eye (I like seeing some of the posts in here, great stuff) so I thought it would be appropriate to make my first post here.


I don't see how anyone could hate/dislike the Nicholson Joker, or the Ledger Joker for that matter. I find it hard to believe that anyone that's a Batman fan would have any faults with either of them. The two characters are arguably the best villains out of the 7 films (atleast for me), they're one of the main reasons Batman and The Dark Knight are so special. I personally think they both nailed the Joker in their own ways. How come people always want to compare things in order to put one down? The Pfeiffer/Hathaway thread in the TDKR section comes to mind. Can't they just both be good? Why does there always have to be a victor? Why does it have to be "choose one", when both are available to us?



I haven't read every comic book, but I think I've read enough to know what makes the Joker, Joker. He's literally one of my favorite characters, right up there with Batman himself. I don't think it's right to say that Nicholson or Ledger didn't "get it right" just because they're not every comic interpretation rolled into one. Even those interpretations vary from comic to comic. Nothing is set in stone, I have yet to see a definitive version out of all the stories out there.


Personally, I never liked the whole, "Jack is just playing Jack in Batman '89" argument. Maybe Jack Napier, but once the Joker steps out of that elevator in that iconic scene where he reveals himself to Grissom, he ceases to be Jack being Jack, to the Joker. Heck even before that at the post-surgery scene with the mob doctor. That's cheesy and "not Joker", that whole sequence? Really? I don't think nostalgia has anything to do with it, but that vibe from that scene still gives me chills. It's just a great moment when you see all those bloody tools and he sees himself in the mirror for the first time. It's brilliant and a great first look. The reveal at Grissom's is even better. Jack is dead, enter the Joker.

I never understood the negative comments about him going after Vicki either. Did people really think that he wanted her as a girlfriend or something? That he was in infatuated with her? I didn't see that. The Joker is easily sidetracked, you even see it in The Dark Knight where that versions of the Joker's plans and ideas are all over the place (a distracted "dog chasing cars"). Vicki was never the Joker's end game, he didn't want to court her. I mean, didn't he try to deform her with acid at the museum and kill her at the Cathedral? I always figured that after he saw that picture of her after Bob's reconnaissance outside the courthouse that he became obsessed with disfiguring her because of what she represented and how beautiful she was, just like Alica (who "threw herself out of a window". The Joker was demented and psychotic. There's also the fact that he seemed to think she had information about the Batman (along with Knox). He asks her this at the Museum. I love the way she quickly answers "I don't know anything about Batman" and it's like he just snaps and starts going after her like a shark. Those eyes, the way he's coming over to her like a Terminator when he misses with the acid. It's creepy stuff.

I dunno, the Vicki thing seems like a nitpick to me. I mean yeah, their encounter is there to move things along like people have stated, but she's the damsel in distress. Ledger Joker does the same thing with Rachel "you are beautiful", but I don't think he wanted to "get with" Rachel at Dent's party, quite the contrary. They're the hero's girl, they're put in harms way. That's how the stories go.

A lot of fans really rip the Nicholson Joker now a days and I'm not sure why. What's so bad about him? I see complaints about the chelsea grin, really? I thought that was brilliant for an explanation for the Joker's perma smile. Just as good as in TDK with the scars. He's not always smiling, there's emotion in there. At the mob meeting, when Anton and the other mob bosses provoke him ("what's with that stupid grin") he looks down right sinister. Or even at the museum when Vicki says "you must be joking", I don't see the Joker "smiling" there, even with his deformity. There's an expression there, and the expression isn't happy, happy. He looks down right serious and threatening. Ironically, he looks the most intimidating WITH the flesh tones in my opinion. I'll always prefer the white, red and green classic look, but I gotta admit, I really dig when the Joker is in "disguise". I thought the flesh tone "civilian" look was brilliant. Joker DID that in the comics. Hell, that's one of my favorite parts in TDK. I love the honor guard sequence. I remember when that pic was first revealed with Ledger in the cop get up without make up and the scars, I was so excited. Same deal with the Nicholson Joker in his mob look.


Now to the Ledger Joker, I don't see why people still seem to have hang ups over the painted face or say that he's not funny or "Joker" enough when it comes to the clown aspects. He's not just some sick, homicidal clown and he has the white face, red lips, green hair and the purple suit. What more do people want? I don't know about other folks, but when he was on screen, I literally had a smile from ear to ear. From the magic tricks to his nurse disguise, I thought he was great. He didn't need the gags (which are great in other interpretations) to impress you, he was naturally charismatic, just like the Nicholson Joker. Some things that you shouldn't agree with, you just do. He's just an electrifying character. I love how in the beginning of the film, you're not sure what his end game is. He wants to mess with the mob, he wants to kill Batman. Then later on, everything is turned on it's head like he's been enlightened and now he wants to destroy the mob, give the city a better class of criminal (the rise of the freaks which, unfortunately TDKR completely does away with, along with the Joker) and duke it out with Batman forever, never killing him. He's just so great and interacts with every character, even the city.


I love them both equally, not just for their differences but their similarities. Everyone focuses on how they are different, how one is better than the other and even how they "aren't accurate to the source", but how about all the things that they got right and the similarities they share? Both Joker's rise to the top of the food chain and end up ruling Gotham (for a short time) after decimating the mob. Those mob meetings are eerily similar. They both get annoyed/upset when they're called "freaks" or "crazy", everyone at the table is shocked that they're there and can't take their eyes off them, especially after Nicholson Joker fries Anton or when Ledger Joker pulls out the grenade rig.

The tv broadcasts, boy oh boy. That Joker commercial with the smylex is brilliant, "NEW AND IMPROVED JOKER PRODUCTS". It's just lolz. He's developed this product that not only kills innocent gothamites, but gives them a disgusting, hideous grin and he's promoting it with cardboard cut outs of models and a seagul. If that isn't Joker, I don't know what is. The song, the "OH, NO", the shopping card jig. It's just so fantastic, he was like the first troll before the internet. I especially love Bruce Wayne's expression at the sight of it, you can tell he's uneasy.

Then of course the Joker broadcasts in TDK. JUST as GREAT in my opinion, hell, the virals revolved around it. That first one when he finally shows himself to Gotham with Brian Douglass is just fantastic and eerie. "So you think you've made Gotham a better place?", you can tell Ledger was just really into it there. The latter ones are even better where he's not even harming people, like with Mike Engle. I love how the Ledger Joker makes up little scripts and you can hear him repeating this things to Engle during the "town is mine" speech. You see him later on READING from the paper scripts during his speech to the ferry boats before the Prewitt seige. It's just pure Joker.


There's another similarity that ties both of them together. What is the only painting that the Nicholson Joker doesn't destroy at the Museum? Why 'Figure of Meat' of course. Guess what Nolan gave Ledger as inspiration for his role? Francis Bacon paintings, the painter of 'Figure of Meat'. One of the included paintings was none other than 'Figure of Meat'. The painting is just as twisted and dark as both of their psyches, how appropriate.

That's another thing that I don't get. What's the hangup with the Joker's views on art? It seems appropriate to me. "I'm the world's first fully functioning homicidal artist . . . and I want my face on the one dollar bill". What's wrong with destroying all those priceless painting (which, if you're an art person is pretty upsetting), it fits with the Joker's twisted view with vanity and what's considered beautfiul (after he's been scarred and disfigured by Batman). This guy gets off on death, destruction, chaos, so much so that he considers corpses of war to be brilliant (as seen in Vicki's portfolio with the corto maltese war photos). Just because he's defacing priceless works of arts doesn't mean that simply painting is what art is all about (nor is it what Joker is all about). His goal, other than to get back at Batman is one about vanity. His major end game is killing Gotham on the outside with his DDID nerve gas (which he famously dubs Smylex) so everyone is just as ugly as him while having a damn good time doing it. Not swooning Vicki.

How about the Ledger Joker? He's an "artist" in his own way with the things he does. There's an art to what he pursues and accomplishes, hell, just look at his "custom" outfit. He wears his ideals and deformities on his sleeve, just like the Nicholson Joker. He has those stories about his scars that he tells his victims, instead of smylex, he carves up his victims and paints their faces (Brian Douglass, Harvey and Dent) etc. His whole motto is "whatever doesn't kills us simply makes us stranger", he can attest to that. He gets right up in people's faces with not only his ideals, but his facial scars as well. His major end game is destroying Gotham's spirit from the inside and making everyone just as ugly as him while having a damn good time doing it.







I could go on and on, but there you have it. I think both actors nailed the character completely. Any time the two of them are on, they get my attention (and other people's as well). That's what the character does, he steals the show. He's the ultimate showman, the antithesis Batman (it doesn't matter if he killed Batman's parents or if he wasn't dropped by him into a vat of chemicals), you're supposed to hate him, but you can't help but cheer for him with his crazy (and sometimes not so crazy) antics. He's the most quotable and easily the best written character of all the Batman films. He's the Joker, Batman's greatest villain, and perhaps the best comic book villain and villain in general. He has been played by two great actors (that are rooted from their comic origin, but also transcend it) and will hopefully see a glorious return in a future cinematic interpretation.


Not sure what more people could ask for other than more when it comes to either Nicholson or Ledger for the Joker. It upset everyone when the Joker was killed off in '89, that's a gripe almost everyone had with it. "Damn, they killed off the Joker". Then, sadly, we lost Heath Ledger, whose character lived through the events of the film, but would never be heard or seen from again. It's a shame really (especially about Ledger), but having the character around in film once every 20 years makes it that much special and powerful. You want to see more, but what's given to you lives on.



Am I the only one who loved both and think Ledger and Nicholson nailed the character?

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

"but none of it screams 'JOKER' to me. Like Jack pulling a ridiculously long pistol out of his pants and shooting down the Batwing. Those kind of moments that really live up to the name "Joker"."

I'm sorry, but I have never seen the Joker as some half-assed anarchist/Osama Bin Laden wannabe.

No, he's not. I'll be here waiting for you to prove otherwise though.

Because I don't see the Joker, all I see are 9/11 parallels. I see a terrorist/anarchist wearing facepaint. I don't see the malicious trickster/clown/mobster that is the original concept for the character.

I'm still waiting to hear the Batman #1 inspiration he has.

Well I already listed plenty, including showing a panel that was directly copied into frames of film.

Is faithful to many eras of the comics. That's the beauty of his interpretation of the character. There's a good mix in there.

Like you state later, not all of it was good.

Yes, but he didn't announce it as a death threat, but as a great product that he was giving away. That's the major difference. Joker in Batman #1 was cut throat in saying out right he was intending to murder people, like Heath's Joker did.

Showing a dead guy in a chair that he killed with his poison is not a death threat... ok.

Yes but that doesn't negate the point you keep dodging. He made his announcements in Batman #1 as murder announcements just like Heath's did. Jack did not.

Yes, he announced that he's poisoning/going to poison Gotham.

You're really reaching now. What difference does it make what design was on the cards? They were Joker cards. He used Joker cards the same way he did in Batman #1.

You want to nitpick little details too. It doesn't really make much difference. The card is there in both instances.

His look was no different to any of his others. Same design, different artists.

His design in Batman #1 is pretty much the same: purple suit, purple hat, same hair, same white face, purple eyeshadow, laugh lines, etc.

No different to a million other Joker stories.

How many stories did Joker die?

No different to a million other Joker stories.

No different to a million other Joker stories. He even did that in The Killing Joke, too.

Yes, leaving dead victims with a smile is leaving dead victims with a smile.

Your point? Batman #1 is the blueprint for all future stories with the Joker. Of course it's going to show up again in future stories.

Harley wasn't someone he took a fancy to. He manipulated and used her in Arkham to help him escape. She fell for him and became obsessed with him.

The pretty much used Vicki too, to lure Batman into a trap.

Paul Dini created Harley Quinn and he never ever mentioned Alicia or anything from Burton's Batman as an inspiration for her. The two characters couldn't be more different.

They're both mentally disturbed women who dress like clowns (Alicia with clown mask) and follow Joker despite his abuse/throwing acid on face behaviour. That's why I made the connection.

Since you called Joker a well known ladies man I thought you'd find it easy.

I was actually joking, but of course there are examples of Joker going after the hero's girl.. he did in The Dark Knight, even: "Hello beautiful"

Harley doesn't count as we've already established.

You're saying he has displayed no interest in women, but my point is that he has, but only to terrorise or manipulate or abuse them. Just like he did in Batman '89 and The Dark Knight.

That's about as valid to Joker's persona as this is to Batman's:



I asked you to name three INFAMOUS Joker stories where this was a key trait since you claimed Joker is a notorious ladies man. You give me some obscure Brave and the Bold story panel.

I told you, you're cherry picking what you like and don't like about Batman. This history is part of Batman whether you like it or not.

Really? You're using a one off campy Batman comic from the 60's as your example that the Joker sees himself as an artist? Do you consider the Rainbow Batman costumes I posted above a key trait to Batman's character, too? The campy comics did one off silly gimmicky stuff like that all the time with the villains. Do you think a key trait to the Penguin is being a pirate?

No, I don't think they're key traits but it's not so alien to the character. It all depends on what interpretation they're going for.

Ok two things:

1. There is no big psychological payoff. It leads to a scene where Batman beats up the Joker for killing his parents. No big psychological payoff there. It was added in last minute by Burton during the writers strike.

If you ignore that whole "I made you, you made me first", and really the whole last half hour is one epic duel between Batman and Joker (well, most of the movie, really), not just the brief fist fight. It just adds something extra to that whole confrontation.

2. If you consider the death of Batman's parents, the entire foundation of him being Batman, as a plot device, then you must not know Batman well at all. It weighs heavily on Bruce's arc in Batman Begins.

Batman is a standalone movie, it wasn't meant to be part of a multi-part movie series unlike The Dark Knight. It would seem random to just setup his whole parent's murder without it leading somewhere in the plot.

Originally Posted by gwynplaine

Also in TDK Heath uses knives and dresses like a cop, both nods to B#1 and #2. Also unlike Nicholson who was stuck with the ridiculous perma-smile make-up, Ledger's Joker was not always smiling (contrary to one of his "stories". Just like Joker in B#1 or TKJ was not always smiling either) and able to convey a much wider range of emotions.
Nicholson was actually pretty close to Romero's take on the character and even in a way to Hackman's Luthor, where back thyen playing a supervillain wasn't really taken seriously and meant acting way over the top like some kind of commedia del'arte buffoon or something.
Heath represents the spirit and the essence of the character.
Bottom line, the writing and the Joker in B89 simply aren't in the same league as what was done with TDK.
But to be fair, B89 did pave the way and prepared the audience for a darker take on the mythos.

If you think the Joker is supposed to be some anarchist/terrorist wearing makeup.

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

That is a cringeworthy moment.

Why so serious? You take the character too seriously. Joker is meant to be a fun character, with gadgets and silly things like that. It's a huge part of the history of the character.

Originally Posted by milost

Long time lurker, finally joined up. This thread has always caught my eye (I like seeing some of the posts in here, great stuff) so I thought it would be appropriate to make my first post here.


I don't see how anyone could hate/dislike the Nicholson Joker, or the Ledger Joker for that matter. I find it hard to believe that anyone that's a Batman fan would have any faults with either of them. The two characters are arguably the best villains out of the 7 films (atleast for me), they're one of the main reasons Batman and The Dark Knight are so special. I personally think they both nailed the Joker in their own ways. How come people always want to compare things in order to put one down? The Pfeiffer/Hathaway thread in the TDKR section comes to mind. Can't they just both be good? Why does there always have to be a victor? Why does it have to be "choose one", when both are available to us?



I haven't read every comic book, but I think I've read enough to know what makes the Joker, Joker. He's literally one of my favorite characters, right up there with Batman himself. I don't think it's right to say that Nicholson or Ledger didn't "get it right" just because they're not every comic interpretation rolled into one. Even those interpretations vary from comic to comic. Nothing is set in stone, I have yet to see a definitive version out of all the stories out there.


Personally, I never liked the whole, "Jack is just playing Jack in Batman '89" argument. Maybe Jack Napier, but once the Joker steps out of that elevator in that iconic scene where he reveals himself to Grissom, he ceases to be Jack being Jack, to the Joker. Heck even before that at the post-surgery scene with the mob doctor. That's cheesy and "not Joker", that whole sequence? Really? I don't think nostalgia has anything to do with it, but that vibe from that scene still gives me chills. It's just a great moment when you see all those bloody tools and he sees himself in the mirror for the first time. It's brilliant and a great first look. The reveal at Grissom's is even better. Jack is dead, enter the Joker.

I never understood the negative comments about him going after Vicki either. Did people really think that he wanted her as a girlfriend or something? That he was in infatuated with her? I didn't see that. The Joker is easily sidetracked, you even see it in The Dark Knight where that versions of the Joker's plans and ideas are all over the place (a distracted "dog chasing cars"). Vicki was never the Joker's end game, he didn't want to court her. I mean, didn't he try to deform her with acid at the museum and kill her at the Cathedral? I always figured that after he saw that picture of her after Bob's reconnaissance outside the courthouse that he became obsessed with disfiguring her because of what she represented and how beautiful she was, just like Alica (who "threw herself out of a window". The Joker was demented and psychotic. There's also the fact that he seemed to think she had information about the Batman (along with Knox). He asks her this at the Museum. I love the way she quickly answers "I don't know anything about Batman" and it's like he just snaps and starts going after her like a shark. Those eyes, the way he's coming over to her like a Terminator when he misses with the acid. It's creepy stuff.

I dunno, the Vicki thing seems like a nitpick to me. I mean yeah, their encounter is there to move things along like people have stated, but she's the damsel in distress. Ledger Joker does the same thing with Rachel "you are beautiful", but I don't think he wanted to "get with" Rachel at Dent's party, quite the contrary. They're the hero's girl, they're put in harms way. That's how the stories go.

A lot of fans really rip the Nicholson Joker now a days and I'm not sure why. What's so bad about him? I see complaints about the chelsea grin, really? I thought that was brilliant for an explanation for the Joker's perma smile. Just as good as in TDK with the scars. He's not always smiling, there's emotion in there. At the mob meeting, when Anton and the other mob bosses provoke him ("what's with that stupid grin") he looks down right sinister. Or even at the museum when Vicki says "you must be joking", I don't see the Joker "smiling" there, even with his deformity. There's an expression there, and the expression isn't happy, happy. He looks down right serious and threatening. Ironically, he looks the most intimidating WITH the flesh tones in my opinion. I'll always prefer the white, red and green classic look, but I gotta admit, I really dig when the Joker is in "disguise". I thought the flesh tone "civilian" look was brilliant. Joker DID that in the comics. Hell, that's one of my favorite parts in TDK. I love the honor guard sequence. I remember when that pic was first revealed with Ledger in the cop get up without make up and the scars, I was so excited. Same deal with the Nicholson Joker in his mob look.


Now to the Ledger Joker, I don't see why people still seem to have hang ups over the painted face or say that he's not funny or "Joker" enough when it comes to the clown aspects. He's not just some sick, homicidal clown and he has the white face, red lips, green hair and the purple suit. What more do people want? I don't know about other folks, but when he was on screen, I literally had a smile from ear to ear. From the magic tricks to his nurse disguise, I thought he was great. He didn't need the gags (which are great in other interpretations) to impress you, he was naturally charismatic, just like the Nicholson Joker. Some things that you shouldn't agree with, you just do. He's just an electrifying character. I love how in the beginning of the film, you're not sure what his end game is. He wants to mess with the mob, he wants to kill Batman. Then later on, everything is turned on it's head like he's been enlightened and now he wants to destroy the mob, give the city a better class of criminal (the rise of the freaks which, unfortunately TDKR completely does away with, along with the Joker) and duke it out with Batman forever, never killing him. He's just so great and interacts with every character, even the city.


I love them both equally, not just for their differences but their similarities. Everyone focuses on how they are different, how one is better than the other and even how they "aren't accurate to the source", but how about all the things that they got right and the similarities they share? Both Joker's rise to the top of the food chain and end up ruling Gotham (for a short time) after decimating the mob. Those mob meetings are eerily similar. They both get annoyed/upset when they're called "freaks" or "crazy", everyone at the table is shocked that they're there and can't take their eyes off them, especially after Nicholson Joker fries Anton or when Ledger Joker pulls out the grenade rig.

The tv broadcasts, boy oh boy. That Joker commercial with the smylex is brilliant, "NEW AND IMPROVED JOKER PRODUCTS". It's just lolz. He's developed this product that not only kills innocent gothamites, but gives them a disgusting, hideous grin and he's promoting it with cardboard cut outs of models and a seagul. If that isn't Joker, I don't know what is. The song, the "OH, NO", the shopping card jig. It's just so fantastic, he was like the first troll before the internet. I especially love Bruce Wayne's expression at the sight of it, you can tell he's uneasy.

Then of course the Joker broadcasts in TDK. JUST as GREAT in my opinion, hell, the virals revolved around it. That first one when he finally shows himself to Gotham with Brian Douglass is just fantastic and eerie. "So you think you've made Gotham a better place?", you can tell Ledger was just really into it there. The latter ones are even better where he's not even harming people, like with Mike Engle. I love how the Ledger Joker makes up little scripts and you can hear him repeating this things to Engle during the "town is mine" speech. You see him later on READING from the paper scripts during his speech to the ferry boats before the Prewitt seige. It's just pure Joker.


There's another similarity that ties both of them together. What is the only painting that the Nicholson Joker doesn't destroy at the Museum? Why 'Figure of Meat' of course. Guess what Nolan gave Ledger as inspiration for his role? Francis Bacon paintings, the painter of 'Figure of Meat'. One of the included paintings was none other than 'Figure of Meat'. The painting is just as twisted and dark as both of their psyches, how appropriate.

That's another thing that I don't get. What's the hangup with the Joker's views on art? It seems appropriate to me. "I'm the world's first fully functioning homicidal artist . . . and I want my face on the one dollar bill". What's wrong with destroying all those priceless painting (which, if you're an art person is pretty upsetting), it fits with the Joker's twisted view with vanity and what's considered beautfiul (after he's been scarred and disfigured by Batman). This guy gets off on death, destruction, chaos, so much so that he considers corpses of war to be brilliant (as seen in Vicki's portfolio with the corto maltese war photos). Just because he's defacing priceless works of arts doesn't mean that simply painting is what art is all about (nor is it what Joker is all about). His goal, other than to get back at Batman is one about vanity. His major end game is killing Gotham on the outside with his DDID nerve gas (which he famously dubs Smylex) so everyone is just as ugly as him while having a damn good time doing it. Not swooning Vicki.

How about the Ledger Joker? He's an "artist" in his own way with the things he does. There's an art to what he pursues and accomplishes, hell, just look at his "custom" outfit. He wears his ideals and deformities on his sleeve, just like the Nicholson Joker. He has those stories about his scars that he tells his victims, instead of smylex, he carves up his victims and paints their faces (Brian Douglass, Harvey and Dent) etc. His whole motto is "whatever doesn't kills us simply makes us stranger", he can attest to that. He gets right up in people's faces with not only his ideals, but his facial scars as well. His major end game is destroying Gotham's spirit from the inside and making everyone just as ugly as him while having a damn good time doing it.







I could go on and on, but there you have it. I think both actors nailed the character completely. Any time the two of them are on, they get my attention (and other people's as well). That's what the character does, he steals the show. He's the ultimate showman, the antithesis Batman (it doesn't matter if he killed Batman's parents or if he wasn't dropped by him into a vat of chemicals), you're supposed to hate him, but you can't help but cheer for him with his crazy (and sometimes not so crazy) antics. He's the most quotable and easily the best written character of all the Batman films. He's the Joker, Batman's greatest villain, and perhaps the best comic book villain and villain in general. He has been played by two great actors (that are rooted from their comic origin, but also transcend it) and will hopefully see a glorious return in a future cinematic interpretation.


Not sure what more people could ask for other than more when it comes to either Nicholson or Ledger for the Joker. It upset everyone when the Joker was killed off in '89, that's a gripe almost everyone had with it. "Damn, they killed off the Joker". Then, sadly, we lost Heath Ledger, whose character lived through the events of the film, but would never be heard or seen from again. It's a shame really (especially about Ledger), but having the character around in film once every 20 years makes it that much special and powerful. You want to see more, but what's given to you lives on.



Am I the only one who loved both and think Ledger and Nicholson nailed the character?

Excellent post and good points.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

I'm sorry, but I have never seen the Joker as some half-assed anarchist/Osama Bin Laden wannabe.

That's not what you got in TDK either. Unless you associate Bin Laden with causing anarchy because he was trying to drive everyone crazy, protecting a masked vigilante because he thinks he's too much fun to lose, taking over the Gotham underworld etc.

Because I don't see the Joker, all I see are 9/11 parallels. I see a terrorist/anarchist wearing facepaint. I don't see the malicious trickster/clown/mobster that is the original concept for the character.

Then your perception of the character is way off. For instance, what would you say is the Joker's most famous story? The Killing Joke would be the one most would say. What was Joker's goal in that? Drive Gordon crazy to prove everyone is as bad as he is. What did Joker try and do in TDK? Drive Gotham crazy to prove they're all like him deep down.

Joker's obsession with Batman because he thinks he's so much fun is another key trait of the character. Several examples of that shown in that link I showed you, including from infamous Joker stories like The Laughing Fish and A Death in the Family.

Yet somehow you saw Osama Bin Laden. Your version of Osama Bin Laden sounds a lot more interesting than the version I've seen on the News.

Well I already listed plenty, including showing a panel that was directly copied into frames of film.

All you have listed is a similar Joker card design, a false claim that Nicholson announced he would kill all of Gotham when he didn't, and something about a similar design. The design had several key differences right down to the costume. Joker in Batman #1 didn't have a perma grin. He didn't wear chequered pants. He didn't wear an orange shirt.

So remind me again what this list is you're talking about?

Like you state later, not all of it was good.

I never said that. I said the campy comics did one off silly gimmicks like the ones I showed you, including "artist" Joker. Heath's Joker didn't use anything like that in his character's persona.

Showing a dead guy in a chair that he killed with his poison is not a death threat... ok.

Of course it's a death threat. You keep dodging the point. Did the Joker say in his commercial that he would kill Gotham? No. He sold it as a great new product that leaves you looking happy.

Batman #1 Joker went on the air and said he will kill. Like Heath's Joker.

Yes, he announced that he's poisoning/going to poison Gotham.

No, he didn't.

You want to nitpick little details too. It doesn't really make much difference. The card is there in both instances.

I haven't nit picked any details. Saying you're giving away a product, and saying you're going to murder people are two different things.

A Joker card is a Joker card. It doesn't make one iota of difference what design of Joker is on it.

His design in Batman #1 is pretty much the same: purple suit, purple hat, same hair, same white face, purple eyeshadow, laugh lines, etc.

No orange shirt, no chequered pants., no perma smile. Everything else is seen in a million other Joker stories.

So why are you continuously trying to claim this came from Batman #1?

How many stories did Joker die?

The same number as he did killing Batman's parents.

Your point? Batman #1 is the blueprint for all future stories with the Joker. Of course it's going to show up again in future stories.

That is my point. What makes you think this came from Batman #1 and not one of those other later stories.

Apart from the proof you've been given by me and others of the blatant similarities of Batman #1 and TDK's Joker, I can give you direct quotes from Nolan that Batman #1 was used as an influence.

Do you want to see them?

The pretty much used Vicki too, to lure Batman into a trap.

When? The first time the Joker tricked her into meeting at the museum. He had no idea Batman would show up. Second time he went to her apartment in the middle of the day. Third time she happened to show up at the cathedral and Joker took her hostage after he thought Batman was dead in the Batwing.

They're both mentally disturbed women who dress like clowns (Alicia with clown mask) and follow Joker despite his abuse/throwing acid on face behaviour. That's why I made the connection.

The mardi gras mask Alicia wore was not a clown mask. Her clothing was nothing clown like.

Alicia committed suicide after seeing two brief scenes of her "following" the Joker. You were really stretching that one weren't you.

I was actually joking

Sure you were.

but of course there are examples of Joker going after the hero's girl.. he did in The Dark Knight, even: "Hello beautiful"

He did not go after her. He accosted her and terrorized her with a freaky story about he got his scars. That was strictly after she first attracted his attention to her to stop him from hurting Senator Patrick Leahy.

How on earth do you equate that to Joker "going after her" like with Vicki in Batman '89? Or being a ladies man?

You're saying he has displayed no interest in women, but my point is that he has, but only to terrorise or manipulate or abuse them. Just like he did in Batman '89 and The Dark Knight.

He has no interest in women ROMANTICALLY. Joker in Batman '89 blatantly had a romantic fixation on Vicki.

"She's dating some guy named Wayne"
"She's about to trade up"

Explain to me in detail how that's the same as what Joker did to Rachel in TDK?

I told you, you're cherry picking what you like and don't like about Batman. This history is part of Batman whether you like it or not.

I'm not cherry picking I'm making a point to you. We're discussing who was closer to the Joker of the comics right? Do you associate Joker in the comics with being a skirt chaser any more than you associate Batman with wearing rainbow costumes?

Think about that then you'll see the silliness of your argument.

No, I don't think they're key traits but it's not so alien to the character. It all depends on what interpretation they're going for.

Of course it's alien to the character. If it's some one off gimmick that was never done again then it's alien to the character. Penguin as a pirate? Batman wearing rainbow costumes? Joker as a skirt chasing artist lover?

Out of character gimmicks.

If you ignore that whole "I made you, you made me first", and really the whole last half hour is one epic duel between Batman and Joker (well, most of the movie, really), not just the brief fist fight. It just adds something extra to that whole confrontation.

Ok lets break down this "epic duel"

1. First scene between Batman and Joker is when Batman bursts into the museum, grabs Vicki, and leaves. Very thrilling duel there.
2. Joker dares Batman to meet him at the parade.
3. Joker and Batman finally come face to face in the cathedral and Joker gets the snot beaten out of him for killing Batman's parents.

I must have missed this big epic duel between them. The last half hour was Batman climbing a cathedral, getting beaten up by a random Joker henchman, then beating up Joker.

Is that the big epic duel you're talking about?

Batman is a standalone movie, it wasn't meant to be part of a multi-part movie series unlike The Dark Knight. It would seem random to just setup his whole parent's murder without it leading somewhere in the plot.

I'm not talking about The Dark Knight. I'm talking about Batman Begins, which is where the flashback to the death of Bruce's parents happened. That's what you decided to compare the two flashbacks scenes for some unknown reason right? So why are you talking about TDK?

[milost]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Excellent post and good points.

Thanks!


But I gotta say, I obviously don't see the Ledger Joker as a "half-assed anarchist/Osama Bin Laden wannabe who wears war paint". I think you're downplaying it quite a bit (then again, that's exactly what The Joker is doing to Nicholson as well). In TDK, the Joker is brilliant and the right amount of sinister and fun in my opinion. You don't like the magic trick? You don't like "a little fight in ya"? Or his charisma? Or his Nurse disguise with the ironic "I Belive in Harvey Dent" sticker"? If you like Nicholson Joker, you must like the Ledger one right?


Like I said, those great clown characteristics are in there, Ledger plays them to a tee.



As for Batman and Joker "meeting" and "dueling" in person. I never felt that they actually had to physically meet and discuss everything from weather to politics to get that "epic" feeling of two titans duking it out, not just physically, but with their ideals and outlooks on life.

In Batman and The Dark Knight, the two of them don't really meet that often, they simply react to each other. In fact, both films take place in what, just a few days? A week or two at the most? In Batman, they're obviously at Axis together where the Joker is born. They see each other/hear about each other in the news. There's the few seconds at the Museum where Batman saves Vicki and fights his goons. There's also Axis when Batman isn't able to subdue Joker at the factory. Then of course, there's the parade and Cathedral in the film's climax.

The Dark Knight is similar, with just a little more Batman and Joker interaction, namely during the interrogation scene (though Batman is pretty much silent and more preoccupied as the clock counts down with Dent's life than what Joker has to say, besides the location). Before that, they meet at the party that is literally not even a minute long. Then there's the great street scene with the Batpod (just like the Batwing scene in '89). Instead of duking it out and subduing the Joker though, Batman literally plays possum and falls off his Batpod. Hell, up till that point, the Joker thought he was Harvey Dent anyway which, if you're worried about interactions between the two sort of deflates their "clash of the titans" relationship. Then after the interrogation scene, they don't meet again until the Prewitt sequence. It's probably no longer than the Cathedral, other than the dialogue (which is cut with the actual reactions in the Ferry). It's just like '89 Batman where Batman is getting to the top of the building, fighting off the Joker's goons. Instead of Batman pounding on the Joker like in '89 (I love the Joker's little gags to distract Batman, like the chattering teeth), the Joker is the one doing the beating to Batman at the end of TDK.

Unfortunately, while we get the fantastic "I think you and I are destined to do this forever speech", we never hear or see the Joker again (one of my biggest gripes with TDKR). He's simply retconned out of existence along with Ramirez, Reese and the other important key players from The Dark Knight. So Batman and Joker's feud is a couple of days long, does that detract from the impact the two of them have on each other? Batman literally spends most of his time trying to find the untraceable Joker (until his Sonar device of course).



What constitutes as Batman and the Joker meeting? Sitting down and having a cup of tea with a little chit chat? I don't need to see them punching each other or having long elaborate conversations. They don't have to meet for them to be epic rivals, '89 Batman and The Dark Knight prove this.



As for comic accuracy, while I prefer a nameless, low life criminal (not even Joe Chill per se) murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne, I don't mind Jack Napier murdering the Wayne's. It doesn't bother me at all. I can see what Burton was going for. He made it more personal and I love the whole "I made you, but you made me first". It's a nice twist to the lore, and doesn't really destroy the relationship Batman and the Joker have with each other in the film. In fact, even after the Joker is told, he doesn't seem to remember or care. That was another life, when he was Jack Napier, now he's the Joker. He continues to call Batman "Batsy", and wants him dead. He still sees him as Batman, nothing else. The murder aside, the personalities and traits of Batman and the Joker were always going to clash, just like in the comics. They're the exact opposites of each other in nearly every way. Batman is hidden, a loner, he works alone, everyone fears him, he should be the villain, he's a brooding monster. In fact, Gotham doesn't know what to make of him, even after he cracks the Joker's code. The Joker on the other hand, is again, the ultimate showman. He's out there, in the public, day and night. He loves attention, from his commercials to his announcements. He seeks a certain fame as the clown prince of crime and relishes in becoming the center of attention. He's the villain, he murders innocent Gothamites in various ways with agenda and outlook on life.

Before Batman even discovers that the Joker killed his parents, he's out there to stop him. Joker is in direct conflict with everything Batman represents. Was it about revenge when he saves Vicki at the Museum? He could have killed the Joker right then and there (and all of his goons for that matter). Was it about revenge when he foils the Joker's cosmetics plot when he discovers the ingredients and gives them to the press? Nope. It's simply about Batman eliminating crime and apprehending a madman, nothing more. He doesn't even KILL a criminal, thug, goon, etc. until he discovers that Jack Napier killed his parents. Batman is very much the figure he is in the comics, one that apprehends and leaves criminals shaking in their boots before the final act. Likewise, the Joker is just like his comic counterpart.


The murder and flashback (that flashback is brilliantly haunting and sad by the way, when Bruce thinks back to the night that created him) is a twist, a catalyst that doesn't take away from either character as far as I'm concerned. Before that they're still titans trying to outsmart and end each other. "He's psychotic", Batman despises the Joker because the Joker is everything Batman is not. They're the exact opposites, antitheses of each other. Like wise, the Joker is the same way. Remember how infuriated he is when Batman continues to thwart every plan the Joker has? Or when Batman gets the media's attention? It bothers him. This is the same man that "dropped him into the vat of chemicals", now, not only has he created him, but he's ruining everything he believes in and conjures up.




The Dark Knight is the same way, just even more fleshed out (as it should be with the progression of the characters and 20+ years of evolution). It doesn't matter if Batman didn't CREATE the Joker in a vat of chemicals or physically deforming him, a key component to the mythology. It's the characters alone, the Dark Knight character, and the Clown Prince of Crime character that makes it impossible for them not to clash. They have completely different ideologies, just like in '89. They don't have to be punching each other or meeting up to get this idea. Joker even says that the fight for Gotham's soul isn't about a fist fight with Batman. It's all about the characters and their reactions to each other. You see Bruce's expression when he watches the Joker on his monitors in the Batbunker, you see the Joker's reaction to Batman. THAT is what's important.



Comic accuracy be damned, imo. It doesn't matter if Jack Napier killed Bruce's parents in '89 or if Ledger wasn't created by Batman in TDK. You still get that sense that they contrast each other by personalities alone. I'll tell you what they both do though, they both damage Batman emotionally in a BIG way. In '89, The Joker obviously kills Bruce Wayne's parents. That's huge. What does the Joker do in The Dark Knight? He also kills one of the most important people in Bruce's life, Rachel Dawes. This is similar to the comics where the Joker kills Jason Todd and it has a lasting impact on Batman, emotionally and mentally. I don't see the problem with either. In fact, the same scene plays, music and all, when Bruce is mourning Rachel in the penthouse. It's the same sequence as the first film where he's a child and blames himself for the death of his parents. Alfred is there comforting and supporting him (asking him if he wants something to eat) and the same emotion and music is playing. So, even in that aspect, both Joker's do the same amount of damage. It doesn't matter who or what. Parents or girlfriends. It's still there.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

That's not what you got in TDK either. Unless you associate Bin Laden with causing anarchy because he was trying to drive everyone crazy, protecting a masked vigilante because he thinks he's too much fun to lose, taking over the Gotham underworld etc.

It's obvious the parallel is there. Batman wiretapping all the phones in Gotham to find Joker? It's like the Patriot Act. Joker = Bin Laden.

Then your perception of the character is way off. For instance, what would you say is the Joker's most famous story? The Killing Joke would be the one most would say. What was Joker's goal in that? Drive Gordon crazy to prove everyone is as bad as he is. What did Joker try and do in TDK? Drive Gotham crazy to prove they're all like him deep down.

His master plan was to ruin Harvey Dent by turning him into a criminal psychopath, and this was supposed to break the spirit of Gotham. Honestly, I find a lot of flaws in that.

And the 'social experiment' was basically to prove that people would murder others for self-preservation. I don't see how that proves Joker's point that "deep down, everyone is like him".

Joker's obsession with Batman because he thinks he's so much fun is another key trait of the character. Several examples of that shown in that link I showed you, including from infamous Joker stories like The Laughing Fish and A Death in the Family.

I wouldn't call it a 'key trait', though.

Yet somehow you saw Osama Bin Laden. Your version of Osama Bin Laden sounds a lot more interesting than the version I've seen on the News.

It was obviously trying to reflect current events. Like I mentioned, Batman wiretapping all the phones, was obviously a reflection of the Patriot Act.

All you have listed is a similar Joker card design, a false claim that Nicholson announced he would kill all of Gotham when he didn't, and something about a similar design. The design had several key differences right down to the costume. Joker in Batman #1 didn't have a perma grin. He didn't wear chequered pants. He didn't wear an orange shirt.

So remind me again what this list is you're talking about?

Now you're nitpicking. I don't remember seeing him start out with a glasgow smile, runny makeup and long greasy hair.

I never said that. I said the campy comics did one off silly gimmicks like the ones I showed you, including "artist" Joker. Heath's Joker didn't use anything like that in his character's persona.

That's because the character wasn't always 'dark' and 'serious'. That's just one facet of the character that has been seen in more recent comics.

Of course it's a death threat. You keep dodging the point. Did the Joker say in his commercial that he would kill Gotham? No. He sold it as a great new product that leaves you looking happy.

..and dead.

Batman #1 Joker went on the air and said he will kill. Like Heath's Joker.

I'm not denying that, but so did Nicholson.

No, he didn't.

Ok, he was really advertising a "great new product that leaves you looking happy".

I haven't nit picked any details. Saying you're giving away a product, and saying you're going to murder people are two different things.

You just aren't getting it, are you?

A Joker card is a Joker card. It doesn't make one iota of difference what design of Joker is on it.

True, but does it also matter how it is specifically used as well?

No orange shirt, no chequered pants., no perma smile. Everything else is seen in a million other Joker stories.

So why are you continuously trying to claim this came from Batman #1?

It's much closer than runny makeup, long greasy hair and glasgow smile Joker. Visually, Nicholson is much closer to the original appearance in Batman #1.

The same number as he did killing Batman's parents.

Bob Kane mentioned that having the Joker be the killer of Batman's parents was a great idea, and that he wish he had thought of it. But by that time, he had already done Batman's origin, and that was before the first issue with the Joker (Detective Comics #33 November 1939 - Joker first appeared in 1940).

That is my point. What makes you think this came from Batman #1 and not one of those other later stories.

Apart from the proof you've been given by me and others of the blatant similarities of Batman #1 and TDK's Joker, I can give you direct quotes from Nolan that Batman #1 was used as an influence.

Do you want to see them?

I know that Tim Burton was given a copy of Batman #1 so that he could base part of it on that. That's why that screenshot of the Joker card is almost exactly like the comic panel in Batman #1. If that's not proof, I don't know what is.

I already know that Batman #1 was an influence on The Dark Knight, I'm not trying to prove against that.

When? The first time the Joker tricked her into meeting at the museum. He had no idea Batman would show up. Second time he went to her apartment in the middle of the day. Third time she happened to show up at the cathedral and Joker took her hostage after he thought Batman was dead in the Batwing.

Joker's motives towards Vicki are not made clear in the film. But I don't think we're supposed to know, anyway, because Joker is Joker. Like I said, if he fancied her, why did he throw acid at her face? Why did he try and throw her off a building? You're reading too much into it.

The mardi gras mask Alicia wore was not a clown mask. Her clothing was nothing clown like.

Alicia committed suicide after seeing two brief scenes of her "following" the Joker. You were really stretching that one weren't you.

Ok, we'll agree to disagree.

Sure you were.

He did not go after her. He accosted her and terrorized her with a freaky story about he got his scars. That was strictly after she first attracted his attention to her to stop him from hurting Senator Patrick Leahy.

How on earth do you equate that to Joker "going after her" like with Vicki in Batman '89? Or being a ladies man?

Joker didn't fancy Vicki. As I said, he tried to burn her with acid and tried to throw her off a building. It's just the villain threatening the hero's girl. The 'damsel in distress'. The same concept as Ledger's Joker going after Rachel, just done slightly differently.

He has no interest in women ROMANTICALLY. Joker in Batman '89 blatantly had a romantic fixation on Vicki.

"She's dating some guy named Wayne"
"She's about to trade up"

Explain to me in detail how that's the same as what Joker did to Rachel in TDK?

Sure, man, that's why he tried to burn her with acid and throw her off a building. That's Joker's way of romance.

Ever even think that he was actually joking. But surely someone called The Joker would never make a joke like that.

I'm not cherry picking I'm making a point to you. We're discussing who was closer to the Joker of the comics right? Do you associate Joker in the comics with being a skirt chaser any more than you associate Batman with wearing rainbow costumes?

Think about that then you'll see the silliness of your argument.

Joker was married in The Killing Joke, wasn't he? Before he became Joker?

But Joker in '89 wasn't a 'skirt chaser'. He was the supervillain threatening the hero's girl, as has been seen countless times in movies, even in The Dark Knight. You're acting like it is some love triangle, with Joker putting the moves on Vicki. Yeah, trying to burn her with acid and throw her off a building.

Of course it's alien to the character. If it's some one off gimmick that was never done again then it's alien to the character. Penguin as a pirate? Batman wearing rainbow costumes? Joker as a skirt chasing artist lover?

Out of character gimmicks.

That was the reality for a certain period of the character's history right up to the 60s, including the tv show. Hell, the Joker even went surfing in that one. So much so, that until '89, most people thought of Batman as being a campy character. So, it wasn't a "one off" at all.

Ok lets break down this "epic duel"

1. First scene between Batman and Joker is when Batman bursts into the museum, grabs Vicki, and leaves. Very thrilling duel there.
2. Joker dares Batman to meet him at the parade.
3. Joker and Batman finally come face to face in the cathedral and Joker gets the snot beaten out of him for killing Batman's parents.

I must have missed this big epic duel between them. The last half hour was Batman climbing a cathedral, getting beaten up by a random Joker henchman, then beating up Joker.

Is that the big epic duel you're talking about?

From Batman's first encounter with Jack Napier, the entire movie is basically Batman VS The Joker. It all climaxes with the parade/cathedral.

That doesn't mean it's all physical, one on one, but other stuff like Batman foiling Joker's plans and such.

I'm not talking about The Dark Knight. I'm talking about Batman Begins, which is where the flashback to the death of Bruce's parents happened. That's what you decided to compare the two flashbacks scenes for some unknown reason right? So why are you talking about TDK?

That's a mistake on my part, I meant to say Batman Begins.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

It's obvious the parallel is there. Batman wiretapping all the phones in Gotham to find Joker? It's like the Patriot Act. Joker = Bin Laden.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

It's obvious the parallel is there. Batman wiretapping all the phones in Gotham to find Joker? It's like the Patriot Act. Joker = Bin Laden.

No, Joker = Bin Laden in your mind. I say that as a Batman fan who is perplexed why you would think Batman tracking villains using tech is something new. Batman tracking the Joker's whereabouts is something taken straight from the comics. As if you've never heard of Batman using tracking technology to locate criminals.

His master plan was to ruin Harvey Dent by turning him into a criminal psychopath, and this was supposed to break the spirit of Gotham.

"Tell your men they work for me now. This my city"

"You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle Gotham's soul in a fist fight with you. Nooooo, you need an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey"

His plan was to take over the Gotham underworld and break Gotham's soul. Kill the city's hope. All from the comics, too.

Honestly, I find a lot of flaws in that.

That's your loss. It's ten times more valid than say the Joker being able to announce on public TV to Commissioner Gordon, the Mayor, Harvey Dent and the rest of Gotham that he'll be at the parade at midnight and not have one single Cop waiting to arrest him when he gets there.

Now that's flawed writing.

And the 'social experiment' was basically to prove that people would murder others for self-preservation. I don't see how that proves Joker's point that "deep down, everyone is like him".

That should be obvious. " See their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. I'll show ya. When the chips are down these civilized people they'll eat each other".

I wouldn't call it a 'key trait', though.

It's been done so many times that it's become one.

It was obviously trying to reflect current events. Like I mentioned, Batman wiretapping all the phones, was obviously a reflection of the Patriot Act.

As I said to you, that's just your false perception of it. Batman's been tracking criminals with tracking technology for decades. Why is him using it to find Joker suddenly a Patriot Act thing?

Now you're nitpicking. I don't remember seeing him start out with a glasgow smile, runny makeup and long greasy hair.

That's right, he didn't. Hence why I challenge you to show where I said Joker's physical appearance was based on Batman #1. I never did. You're the one who made the claim Nicholson's was.

I'm still waiting to see your list of exclusive Batman #1 influences.

That's because the character wasn't always 'dark' and 'serious'. That's just one facet of the character that has been seen in more recent comics.

That's nothing to do with it. The point, which you are dodging is that it was a one off campy gimmick like a million other silly one off gimmicks they did back in those campy comic book days.

and dead.

Which he never mentioned. Not once.

I'm not denying that, but so did Nicholson.

No, he didn't. Quote me the dialogue where he said that.

Ok, he was really advertising a "great new product that leaves you looking happy".

Exactly.

You just aren't getting it, are you?

I get it more than you do apparently.

"Uh oh, he don't look happy. He's been using brand X. But with this new improved Joker brand I get a grin again and again"

"If you want order in Gotham, Batman must take off his mask and turn himself in. Every day he doesn't people will die. Starting tonight. I'm a man of my word. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

"Tonight I will kill Henry Claridge. The Joker has spoken"

Who's quote looks out of place? Yep Nicholson's.

True, but does it also matter how it is specifically used as well?

Yes, if you're making a claim it was influenced by Batman #1. Holding up a Joker card is not from Batman #1, but leaving them at the scenes of crimes and on victim's bodies etc is from Batman #1.

It's much closer than runny makeup, long greasy hair and glasgow smile Joker. Visually, Nicholson is much closer to the original appearance in Batman #1.

Costume wise, no. Facially yes, minus the perma grin. But as I already said I never once claimed any visual appearance was based off Batman #1. You did with Nicholson. You're wrong.

Bob Kane mentioned that having the Joker be the killer of Batman's parents was a great idea, and that he wish he had thought of it. But by that time, he had already done Batman's origin, and that was before the first issue with the Joker (Detective Comics #33 November 1939 - Joker first appeared in 1940).

Playing the Bob Kane card again. Bob Kane's word is worth less than nothing. The man was a plagiarist who stole all the creative credit from Bill Finger. Google this if you doubt me. It's infamous. It's actually called 'The haunting of Robert Kane' because it's hung over him like a dark cloud for years.

You quote him like he was some great authority on what's good. If you want to think that way then you must agree with him that Val Kilmer was the best Batman. Better than Keaton.

I know that Tim Burton was given a copy of Batman #1 so that he could base part of it on that.

You know this how? Show me proof please.

That's why that screenshot of the Joker card is almost exactly like the comic panel in Batman #1. If that's not proof, I don't know what is.

How about because that was the standard Joker card symbol in the comics. Batman has one hanging in his Batcave. It's even in The Killing Joke, too.

Joker's motives towards Vicki are not made clear in the film.

Joker's motives towards Vicki are made clear as crystal:

Bob: "She's dating some guy named Wayne"
Joker: "She's about to trade up"

Joker: "We were having dinner. I was a man doing well with a beautiful woman"

Joker: "It's though we were made for each other. Beauty and the Beast"

He gives her flowers as a gift. He has their conversation by candlelight in the museum with romantic music playing on the radio etc. He was as subtle as a sledgehammer about his romantic intentions.

Like I said, if he fancied her, why did he throw acid at her face?

"Oh you're beautiful in an old fashioned kind of way. But I'm sure we can make you more today".

Like he did with Alicia.

Why did he try and throw her off a building?

Because she screwed him over by distracting him by pretending to return his affections so Batman could sneak up on him and beat the hell out of him.

You're reading too much into it.

No, I'm just seeing the obvious. You incredibly have somehow missed it, and you claim to be a fan of the movie, too.

Joker didn't fancy Vicki.

Bob: "She's dating some guy named Wayne"
Joker: "She's about to trade up"

Joker: "We were having dinner. I was a man doing well with a beautiful woman"

Joker: "It's though we were made for each other. Beauty and the Beast"

He gives her flowers as a gift. He has their conversation by candlelight in the museum with romantic music playing on the radio etc. He was as subtle as a sledgehammer about his romantic intentions.

Yeah, all comic book villains treat the damsels in distress that way lol.

As I said, he tried to burn her with acid and tried to throw her off a building. It's just the villain threatening the hero's girl. The 'damsel in distress'. The same concept as Ledger's Joker going after Rachel, just done slightly differently.

Name me one scene where Joker tries to seduce Rachel by giving her gifts, arranging candlelight discussions with romantic music playing, seeking her out at her apartment because he's upset she walked out on their romantic dinner with someone else, says they were made for each other etc.

Sure, man, that's why he tried to burn her with acid and throw her off a building. That's Joker's way of romance.

And you accuse me of cherry picking. You ignore all the other romantic affections he showed towards her and focus on his two violent acts towards her.

I've explained these already.

Ever even think that he was actually joking. But surely someone called The Joker would never make a joke like that.

When he follows it up with a candlelit dinner and soft romantic music playing and the plethora of other things I've already listed, it's blatantly obvious he wasn't joking.

You must be the one having the joke if you're trying to suggest otherwise.

Joker was married in The Killing Joke, wasn't he? Before he became Joker?

Yes.....and?

But Joker in '89 wasn't a 'skirt chaser'. He was the supervillain threatening the hero's girl, as has been seen countless times in movies, even in The Dark Knight. You're acting like it is some love triangle, with Joker putting the moves on Vicki. Yeah, trying to burn her with acid and throw her off a building.

I've never seen a supposed fan of a movie misconstrue something as straight forward as this. It's actually shocking.

I'm seriously wondering if you're just making this up now to try and save face. Do you see all other villains in comic book movies treat the hero's girl like the way Joker did with candlelit dinners, romantic music, flowers, and repetitive lines about how they belong together, how beautiful she is, how she's going to trade up dating someone for him etc?

Honestly stop talking nonsense here.

That was the reality for a certain period of the character's history right up to the 60s, including the tv show.

Yes, the TV show was campy so naturally they adapted all of these silly campy gimmicks from the campy comics.

Hell, the Joker even went surfing in that one. So much so, that until '89, most people thought of Batman as being a campy character. So, it wasn't a "one off" at all.

Wrong. The public perception was Batman was campy, because they only knew him from the TV show. Batman fans who were reading the comics knew full well Batman wasn't a campy character, and didn't start off that way, and had not been that way since 1970.

From Batman's first encounter with Jack Napier, the entire movie is basically Batman VS The Joker. It all climaxes with the parade/cathedral.

So you say, but you neglect to mention where this big rivalry is. They share ONE proper scene together in the whole movie as Batman and Joker, and it's just Batman beating him up for killing his parents. Before this, there's just Joker trying to poison Gotham, a scheme Batman foils within 15 minutes of it being initiated without breaking a sweat. He just hands Vicki a ready made file with all the answers. That's that. Smilex scheme foiled.

Boring.

Then he finds out Joker killed his parents, goes to the parade, and swipes his balloons, then follows him up a church tower and beats him up.

I struggle to understand how you see this as an epic rivalry.

That's a mistake on my part, I meant to say Batman Begins.

Alright, then Batman Begins was never intended to be part of a series either. It was never written or made with that intention.

Yet both Batman '89 and Begins got sequels 3 years later after their release. So what's your point?

[milost]

I didn't really like the GCPD taking their time to converge on the Joker's location either. They show up as soon as the Joker goes up to the Cathedral, but where are they before that?




I know in the scripts, cards and comic adaptations, the Joker poisoned/killed the officers and they weren't equipped to handle the Joker and his men, but it would have been nice to have a small explanation in the actual film. Unless it was left on the cutting room floor, which is a pretty great possibility. I just chalk it up as behind the scenes stuff I guess, even though I don't really like doing that. Joker never announced where he'd be, the streets were crowded, and the Joker's men were all over various buildings, so maybe they just couldn't get up to him. I'll just chalk that up as a coincidence.


All movies have that though. I mean atleast a small force of them come later right? It's not as bad as sending EVERY single cop in the city into a trap like in TDKR. THAT is bad writing. It's ashame how bumbling and unsuitable Gordon got by TDKR. But then again, the police being incompentent at showing up at the Joker's float is just as bad as having the idea of sending the two ferries out (one with citizens, and the other for prisoners) for the sole purpose of protecting them. They scanned the bridges for explosives, they didn't think of checking the oh so important ferries? Gotham's men in blue have never been to bright in any of these films. Not Burton's, not Nolan's.










Outriddled, I think you should watch The Dark Knight again. I don't know if you're being biased because of your appreciation and love for the Nicholson Joker, but I promise you, the Ledger version is just as good and just as faithful to the comics. He's certainly no Osama Bin Laden rip off or alagory. He's just as much Joker as Nicholson. Ledger Joker's plans changed on a whim, very much like the Joker of most interpretations. He's not supposed to be predictable. I mean look. At first you think he wants the mob money and a part of their cut. He's also pretty serious about killing Batman (and Dent and other civic leaders). But then look, once Batman shows up and he figures out Dent and Batman aren't the same, he's offing mob bosses, won't kill Batman and wants to make Dent a freak criminal too. What if he had killed Dent in the SWAT van? He was being the JOKER, it's that simple. Is ideal was that nothing really mattered. He wanted to be at the top of Gotham's food chain and break the whole system apart. He wasn't even against the idea of other folks coming in and joining in on the fun, he even says he wants as much. Who knows that else he had up his sleeve. Too bad we'll never find out.


And I do agree with you about the '89 Joker not being a skirt chaser. There's no way the Joker was trying to get with Vicki, he was just messing with her and wanted to disfigure her. She was a side plan, a happy accident. Again, another one of those unpredictable things. I mean, look at what he's doing when he first discovers Vicki. He's literally making a collage of victims, cutting and pasting away at his Axis lair. After Bob's reconnisance (where he learns about key players in Gotham), he snaps and adverts his attention to Vicki. Not out of love, not out of trying to “wow her”. He's psychotic, he's pursuing a beautiful woman, probably Gotham's best, but not to court her, to get info and ruin her. Even more so when he found out she was somehow involved with Batman. I mean, Jack Napier didn't even love Alicia, it was a power thing. He even says to Grissom “you set me up, over a WOMAN”, as if she's nothing more than a thing, an inanimate object. These ladies were just objects to him. Not lovers, not things. Hell, they're no meaningful to him than those works of art in the gallery. All they are to him are things that need his personal touch, which is chaos and death. Had he gotten a hold of Vicki, Vicki wouldn't have lived very long.


I mean, this guy disfigured Alicia, seemed to have ruined her mind (she doesn't even act the same anymore) and most likely killed her horribly (I highly doubt she “threw herself out of a window not by his twisted expression at the apartment and omlett speech”). Personally, I think the Joker wanted Vicki for 1. information (“what can you tell me about Batman”) and 2. to kill her in some horrible way. Not buy her flowers and go out on a date with her, that's ridiculous. He gave her, what, a dead rose? That shock alone might have killed her What about how shocked he looks when she starts kissing him to distract him from Batman. If he were looking to be with her, why would he do those things? Nah, he wanted to torment and disfigure her, then kill her. More so when he found out that she was somehow associated with the Dark Knight when she “ran off with that sideshow phoney”. She represented something beautiful and pure in Gotham and that's against his view on life.




The Joker doesn't want or need girl friends or friends. I mean, look what he did to poor Bob, his right hand man who'd take a bullet for if need be. He murders him in a quick, unpredictable gun shot to the side. He even shows signs of hating Bob's guts when he mocks Grissom by mocking Bob's “yes sir”. He treated Alicia like crap before he even became the Joker. She compliments him and he's still nasty with the "I didn't ask" line.

Bad wiring indeed. He's a vile character.