TDK vs Batman '89 Joker Comparison

[myway]

This thread is a place for people to list and discuss, logically, the strengths and weaknesses of of the Joker portrayals in both TDK and Batman '89. It's NOT a place for trolling but rather for an informed and respectful exchange of ideas. You don't have to definitively pick one over the other because I know I don't have a favorite. Rather, let's just point out the pluses and minuses each one had because in my opinion both were good in their own way.

One thing that Heath's joker had going for it was the violent, literally "in your face" threats he would make to people. Even though Jack's Joker arguably had a much higher civilian body count, judging from the Museum and Parade scenes, his kills were made with some form of gas which when we see it put to use in the Museum scene basically makes people pass out. Presumably they don't wake up, lol, but to me it wasn't as effective as someone holding a knife in your mouth and threatening to cut your cheeks open. Now, if gas worked something like mustard gas and there was some sort of pain involved, then maybe you'd have something but the way it was in the movie, whatever death was caused by the gas was too peaceful to be really scary.

[Juggernaut33]

I think we already have a thread like this.

[namtaB]

For me it was a simple bright line test. Ledger made you believe his Joker truly was a psycho. It had nothing to do with the people he killed. It was his demeanor, gaze, gestures, facial ticks. Jack never conveyed that to me. I always felt he was trying to act like a pyscho as opposed to being one.

[Fenrir]

This...will not end well.

[myway]

Fenrir, I hope you're wrong but you may be right. Like I said, I like both so I can talk about it calmly. In any case, I looked for a thread like this but I couldn't find it so I figured at least give it a shot.

[Beanjuice]

Um.. didnt we already kill this topic like three months ago?

[El Payaso]

Both Jokers are anarchists that try to prove Gotham people can be corrupted in spite of everything.

Both give a damn about money, it's just a mean to achieve something else.

Both want to see the world burn.

Both have scars in the shape of a smile that seem to have scarred them mentally.

Both like purple and green.

Both enjoy mass killing.

[Fenrir]

The way both characters were written, I obviously find Ledger's Joker to be the far superior character. He is not bogged down by hokey antics and he is not chasing a chick for half a movie. And he is far more brutal and chaotic than Jack's version to boot. Whatever Nicholson's Joker did, all of it combined couldn't measure up to the utterly sadistic idea of gutting someone open and planting a bomb with a cellphone trigger in their insides...as an escape plan.

And Jack's Joker was a coward. Sure, he was one smart coward, but a coward. He was literally pissing his pants when he found out that Batman had bested his goons and was now going to give him a royal ass-kicking as well. Ledger's Joker on the other hand, enjoyed provoking Batman into hurting him even more and derived pleasure from his punches. And I doubt Nicholson's Joker would have had the balls to stick a loaded gun to his head and have the guy whose girlfriend he just blew up sky high on the trigger. Besides, witness the parallel and the difference between Jack's Joker and Heath's Joker falling from a building. Jack's Joker screams out in terror of his imminent death and Heath's...well, he's falling face down and the crazy psycho laughs while falling. Jack's Joker was essentially a clown with some deadly tricks up his sleeve. Ledger's Joker is the personification of chaos and a complete lack of any kind of moral fiber, a peerless and demented psycho who is as terrifying as he is unpredictable.

And perhaps most importantly, I love the way the Batman/Joker relationship is handled in TDK. They really did seem like completely opposite sides of the same coin, true arch enemies. The TDK Joker was fascinated and obsessed with Batman. The B89 version, on the other hand, seemed to be jealous of him ("he gets all of my press!" "you ran off with that sideshow phoney").

In my opinion, there was a reason why so many viewers and critics thought Jack's Joker seemed like a comedian compared to Ledger's. Sure, he best represented the comics of his era and in that regard, he can even be called as the more faithful representation of the character. But in my view, faithfulness to the source material isn't always the best barometer for judging superiority, as Burton himself had shown with how he brought The Penguin and Catwoman to life. As did Nolan.

[Beanjuice]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Both Jokers are anarchists that try to prove Gotham people can be corrupted in spite of everything.

Both give a damn about money, it's just a mean to achieve something else.

Both want to see the world burn.

Both have scars in the shape of a smile that seem to have scarred them mentally.

Both like purple and green.

Both enjoy mass killing.

wrong. 89 Joker wants Batman for dumping him into the chemicals

[Superman Prime]

wrong. 89 Joker wants Batman for dumping him into the chemicals

Human pieces of art. He wanted not only to alter their faces, but their minds. Sure, his first victim was involved in organized crime and whatnot, but I believe he saw Vicki as so appealing because she was relatively uncorrupted. He wanted to change that.

A throwback to The Joker injuring and kidnapping Barbara Gordon. Also bringing her father into the mix to drive him insane with the grotesque scenario.

[Beanjuice]

Originally Posted by Superman Prime

Human pieces of art. He wanted not only to alter their faces, but their minds. Sure, his first victim was involved in organized crime and whatnot, but I believe he saw Vicki as so appealing because she was relatively uncorrupted. He wanted to change that.

A throwback to The Joker injuring and kidnapping Barbara Gordon. Also bringing her father into the mix to drive him insane with the grotesque scenario.

i congratulate you for proving me wrong

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

He is not bogged down by hokey antics and he is not chasing a chick for half a movie.

In fact both Jokers use the girl (Vicky and Rachel) against Batman.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

And he is far more brutal and chaotic than Jack's version to boot. Whatever Nicholson's Joker did, all of it combined couldn't measure up to the utterly sadistic idea of gutting someone open and planting a bomb with a cellphone trigger in their insides...as an escape plan.

In the history of cinema you'll find that the level brutality is often allowed to be higher in time. 20 years ago it was impossible to conceive a superhero movie this brutal. Always happens.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

And Jack's Joker was a coward. Sure, he was one smart coward, but a coward. He was literally pissing his pants when he found out that Batman had bested his goons and was now going to give him a royal ass-kicking as well.

Might have happened in one of those wonderful mental deleted scenes. Nothing in B89 suggested Joker was afraid not "literally" pissing his pants.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Ledger's Joker on the other hand, enjoyed provoking Batman into hurting him even more and derived pleasure from his punches.

Nicholson's Joker was all about pissing Batman off. Like killing those who he tries to protect, taking his girl as a hostage, blowing the batwing, etc.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

And I doubt Nicholson's Joker would have had the balls to stick a loaded gun to his head and have the guy whose girlfriend he just blew up sky high on the trigger.

Nicholson's Joker knew a living Joker can do more harm - and fun - than a dead one.

But anyways, we agree this belong to the world of your doubts.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Jack's Joker was essentially a clown with some deadly tricks up his sleeve.

Which describes the Joker perfectly.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Ledger's Joker is the personification of chaos and a complete lack of any kind of moral fiber, a peerless and demented psycho who is as terrifying as he is unpredictable.

Another great personification.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

And perhaps most importantly, I love the way the Batman/Joker relationship is handled in TDK. They really did seem like completely opposite sides of the same coin, true arch enemies. The TDK Joker was fascinated and obsessed with Batman. The B89 version, on the other hand, seemed to be jealous of him ("he gets all of my press!" "you ran off with that sideshow phoney").

As you described yourself, both Jokers were obsessed with Batman; another point in common to the list.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

In my opinion, there was a reason why so many viewers and critics thought Jack's Joker seemed like a comedian compared to Ledger's.

To sound "cool."

[November Rain]

ledger's joker wasn't joker enough. He lacked flair and style and intimidated people for the wrong agenda.

his relationship with bats was also somewhat weaker with them never sharing any 'true' screen time psyching each other out but maybe that was a reflection more on bale's inexperience in the role. There was nothing as drammatic as the scenes keaton shared with pfieffer, nicholson or de vito.

also his schemes seemed too similar to hugo strange's setting up psychological mind ****s to see what people would do, he played with the minds of people, he wasn't doing it just for the sake of doing it.

I wanted more toxicology knowledge from the joker, he didn't show any true flair for that although he could have.

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

In fact both Jokers use the girl (Vicky and Rachel) against Batman.

Uhh, no. Jack's Joker had a hard on for Vicky Vale even before he connected Batman to her. This is evident in the scene where he's cutting the photographs.

In the history of cinema you'll find that the level brutality is often allowed to be higher in time. 20 years ago it was impossible to conceive a superhero movie this brutal. Always happens.

Uhh, so? How does that change the fact that Ledger's Joker was a far more brutal character? What you're saying is an excuse for why Nicholson's wasn't, but Heath's was and that is what makes him a superior character.

Might have happened in one of those wonderful mental deleted scenes. Nothing in B89 suggested Joker was afraid not "literally" pissing his pants.

Oh no? What about the final scene in the cathedral when Batman knocked out all the Joker's goons and then gave the Joker his own "dance with the devil in the pale moonlight line"? It was clearly evident that the Joker was s**tting his pants in that one on one confrontation when he sees Batman filled with fury "You killed my parents" and he goes "w-what're you talking about?".

Nicholson's Joker was all about pissing Batman off. Like killing those who he tries to protect, taking his girl as a hostage, blowing the batwing (batmobile), etc.

Sounds a lot like Ledger's Joker, no?

Nicholson's Joker knew a living Joker can do more harm - and fun - than a dead one.

Like I said, the falling from the building scenes of both Jokers show Nicholson's was a coward who was terrified at the prospect of death.

But anyways, we agree this belong to the world of your doubts.

Uhhh...k?

Which describes the Joker perfectly.

Like I said, faithfulness to the source material does not always equate a better character. The Batman from B&R is a caricature and perfectly resonates with the pre-crisis comics and the 60s show. But that faithfulness doesn't mean that he is a better character than Burton's, or Nolan's Batman.

Another great personification.

Yes.

As you described yourself, both Jokers were obsessed with Batman; another point in common to the list.

Yes, but Nicholson's Joker had his own agenda on the side too. Ledger's Joker's entire motivation was completely based on his obsession with Batman. Nicholson's Joker saw Batman as an adversary; Ledger's Joker saw him as his counterpart, a mirror image, in a world filled with hypocrisy. So in that sense, though it may be a common point, the degree and reasons for their obsession with Batman is what makes them very much different.

To sound "cool."

I can say the same thing about people who unrelentingly defend the Burton films - To sound "cool" and "different".

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by November Rain

also his schemes seemed too similar to hugo strange's setting up psychological mind ****s to see what people would do, he played with the minds of people, he wasn't doing it just for the sake of doing it.

What's so strange about that? That practically is The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum Joker in a nutshell.

[Superman Prime]

I can say the same thing about people who unrelentingly defend the Burton films - To sound "cool" and "different".

Or maybe some see them as good, worthy Batman movies, while sounding "cool" and "different" is a bonus that comes along with the package.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Uhh, no. Jack's Joker had a hard on for Vicky Vale even before he connected Batman to her. This is evident in the scene where he's cutting the photographs.

Yes, he's a macho Joker. But anyways, that doesn't deny the fact he used Vicky against Batman.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Uhh, so? How does that change the fact that Ledger's Joker was a far more brutal character? What you're saying is an excuse for why Nicholson's wasn't, but Heath's was and that is what makes him a superior character.

Brutality makes a character better? That's new. I'd say other things should count as well.

But anyways, Nicholson's Joker doesn't fall short about brutality. Killing people with smiling gas, electrocuting a man with his hand and talking to the corpse; those are facts of undeniable truth, in words of Jor-El.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Oh no? What about the final scene in the cathedral when Batman knocked out all the Joker's goons and then gave the Joker his own "dance with the devil in the pale moonlight line"? It was clearly evident that the Joker was s**tting his pants in that one on one confrontation when he sees Batman filled with fury "You killed my parents" and he goes "w-what're you talking about?".

When Batman defeated all of Joker's goons, the Joker went "You IDIOT!" he was far from being afraid. The "w-what are you talking about" line was said that way because Joker had his hand crushed after trying to punch Batman; something an afraid man wouldn't dare to do. Pissing himself would be "Please Mr. Bat don't kill me."

Maybe you smelled something and thought Joker was sh**ting himself. But that didn't happen in the movie for sure.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Sounds a lot like Ledger's Joker, no?

Exactly; that's exactly my whole point, how many things they have in common.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Like I said, the falling from the building scenes of both Jokers show Nicholson's was a coward who was terrified at the prospect of death.

That's not being a coward. That's instinct. Before the prospect of death the bravest hero would feel fear. Again, Nicholson's Joker knows a living Joker makes more harm than a dead one.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Uhhh...k?

Yep. You said "I doubt." You certtainly have no proof about it.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Like I said, faithfulness to the source material does not always equate a better character. The Batman from B&R is a caricature and perfectly resonates with the pre-crisis comics and the 60s show. But that faithfulness doesn't mean that he is a better character than Burton's, or Nolan's Batman.

My only point is that it doesn't dismiss him as the Joker as you suggest.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Yes, but Nicholson's Joker had his own agenda on the side too. Ledger's Joker's entire motivation was completely based on his obsession with Batman. Nicholson's Joker saw Batman as an adversary; Ledger's Joker saw him as his counterpart, a mirror image, in a world filled with hypocrisy. So in that sense, though it may be a common point, the degree and reasons for their obsession with Batman is what makes them very much different.

Even better. I'm still right - it's yet another common point between both Jokers - and there are still room for different development on the same idea.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

I can say the same thing about people who unrelentingly defend the Burton films - To sound "cool" and "different".

Could you? Is anyone here defending Burton? And in an "unrelentingly" way?

I started making a list - as the thread opener asked; not to bash or pick one but to list and discuss similarities and differences - but I have to correct your huge misconceptions on Nicholson's Joker.

Anyway, critics and fanboys know that bashing makes you feel way cooler than defending. Specially when they have asked you specifically not to do it.

[November Rain]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

What's so strange about that? That practically is The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum Joker in a nutshell.

It's not really his gimmick.

[namtaB]

To add. The defining moment for me when I felt that Heath nailed it and was superior to Jack was the point where Gambol goes "You think you can steal from us and walk away?" and Joker replies "Yeah." The way he says yeah, his mannerism, posture, his pretending to be intimidated, the voice, the acting, the spontaneity, the humor. Its one of the best acted moments I've seen on film and what makes it more brilliant is that it was all carried by the innocuous word "yeah" not some well written moment.

[Superman Prime]

Both Jokers were great. Where one is lacking, the other makes up for it. Where one excells, the other excells just as strongly. Nicholson and Ledger, collectively, are THE Joker. Different, but so much alike. Superb acting on both sides.

And that's the end of that story for me.

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Yes, he's a macho Joker. But anyways, that doesn't deny the fact he used Vicky against Batman.

AFTER he fell for her himself. He was a little bit of womanizer himself too.

Brutality makes a character better? That's new. I'd say other things should count as well.

It's only ONE of the reasons why Heath's Joker is better.

But anyways, Nicholson's Joker doesn't fall short about brutality. Killing people with smiling gas, electrocuting a man with his hand and talking to the corpse; those are facts of undeniable truth, in words of Jor-El.

See that's the difference right there. The talking to the corpse part was spot on, but the way he electrocuted him was just plain well...FUNNY. And the blacked out corpse really came off as more cartoonish than threatening. Killing people with smiling gas is bit less brutal than carving smiles into their face.

Besides, I never said Jack's Joker was NOT brutal. I said Heath's was more.

When Batman defeated all of Joker's goons, the Joker went "You IDIOT!" he was far from being afraid. The "w-what are you talking about" line was said that way because Joker had his hand crushed after trying to punch Batman; something an afraid man wouldn't dare to do. Pissing himself would be "Please Mr. Bat don't kill me."

Umm, that's exactly what he was doing after he said "w-what're you talking about". He was making excuses for himself "I was just a kid when I killed your parents". And like I said, he was pissed his pants when he realized that Batman had a personal vendetta against him. And that was revealed AFTER he tried to punch Batman. If you couldn't see the fear in Joker's eyes in that scene, or when he was desperately hanging on to the rope ladder that clearly showed he was a coward, then I can't help you.

Maybe you smelled something and thought Joker was sh**ting himself. But that didn't happen in the movie for sure.

It's a figure of speech, kiddo, to imply the Joker was pretty scared of Batman in those scenes.

Exactly; that's exactly my whole point, how many things they have in common.

And how many they don't.

That's not being a coward. That's instinct. Before the prospect of death the bravest hero would feel fear. Again, Nicholson's Joker knows a living Joker makes more harm than a dead one.

Then it goes to show that TDK's Joker was even braver than your "bravest hero". He literally laughed in the face of death. That makes him a far more terrifying villain than Nicholson's Joker.

My only point is that it doesn't dismiss him as the Joker as you suggest.

When did I say it dismissed him as the Joker? I even recall saying that Nicholson's Joker was more faithful to the source material of his time than Ledger's was. My point was that Ledger's Joker was the superior character and the superior villain.

Could you? Is anyone here defending Burton? And in an "unrelentingly" way?

Sure seems like it.

I started making a list - as the thread opener asked; not to bash or pick one but to list and discuss similarities and differences - but I have to correct your huge misconceptions on Nicholson's Joker.

I hardly think they are "misconceptions". They are valid conclusions based upon clear and evident scenes from the film.

Anyway, critics and fanboys know that bashing makes you feel way cooler than defending. Specially when they have asked you specifically not to do it.

I guess it comes with the territory. If expressing my honest opinion about something is deemed as bashing then so be it. Plus, it certainly isn't any worse than the "bashing" Nolan's films receive in the Misc. Batman Films forum. I never see you "defending" Nolan's films as vigorously as you do the Burton films over her. Heck, if you are so "fair and balanced", why didn't you try addressing the "misconceptions" about Ledger's Joker in this thread? Don't try and tell me you're not playing favorites here because you most certainly are.

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by November Rain

It's not really his gimmick.

The comics his character was based on (TKJ, Arkham Asylum, earliest Joker stories) prove it is.

[bane]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Besides, witness the parallel and the difference between Jack's Joker and Heath's Joker falling from a building. Jack's Joker screams out in terror of his imminent death and Heath's...well, he's falling face down and the crazy psycho laughs while falling.

Yeah, that among other things made the big difference for me, Heath's Joker wanted to be killed, to make Batman a killer(to brought him down to his level), while Jack's Joker was screaming for his life while falling down.

[Octoberist]

they're both good

[myway]

I appreciate both for different reasons. For instance, I love how Jack Nicholson's Joker is dancing gleefully at the parade knowing that he's about to poison countless people. Heath's Joker was less giddy so there's really nothing like that in TDK. With the passage of time, things always change. In the case of movies, and most art for that matter, the bounds of permissability change. Now we can show more graphic depictions of violence in movies and for a villain like the Joker, that's definitely going to yield some improvements. But, that's not to say that the Joker was improved upon on every level and that we should disregard one. I think most of us here are fans so we should like each one for different reasons.