Well, they both look awful for different reasons.
The first picture is about as un-Joker as one can get while still having a white face and red lipstick. No panache, no flair, no sense of style. Which would have worked before he repaired his face with surgery and grew into his new persona and the character developed in the film.
The second picture has some Joker elements to it, but all of the stylistic elements that differ from the Joker character in the comics miss the point entirely. If it is indeed makeup and he looks "normal" once the makeup is gone, well that really throws the character out of the window. The theme of the Joker character is that one bad day can change a normal man into the clown-faced nutjob that we all know and love. The dynamic between Batman and The Joker is given further depth because Batman can become Bruce Wayne whenever he wants, while The Joker cannot because of his permanent clown face. The whole point of the escalation scene at the end of Batman Begins is that the new villains roaming Gotham aren't normal criminals in masks. They're a whole different breed that can't have lives outside of crime.
Everything may change with the final film, but going by the picture above, the image captures nothing of what The Joker means. Sure, elements are there and it may make for good filmmaking but it seems that Nolan and collaborators are trying too hard to break the mold that they're forgetting what has made the character an icon and most likely the greatest villain in comic book history. I am reminded of a conversation that I believe is on the Sleepy Hollow DVD. Johnny Depp wanted his Ichabod Crane to have a bunch of prosthetics to emphasize the awkwardness of the character. Tim Burton said no, that those elements would be brought out in the performance. I think it applies to this in that Nolan and company could have gave the world a traditional looking joker, like basically any of the incarnations of the character the world has ever seen. Then instead of being iconoclastic, this Joker could have set itself apart through Heath Ledger's performance. I'm of the thought that wacky makeup and twists involving disguises shouldn't compensate for a great performance. I'm not saying that's the case with this film, but there is an idea that this could be the case.
This is all very long and I'm not sure how coherent it is, but I suppose what my thoughts boil down to are if an actor is as good as people think Ledger is, he should be able to give a good enough performance regardless of the direction the makeup takes. That being said, drastic changes in the aesthetics of a character are a little like ignoring almost 70 years if iconic depictions. It's quite possible that Nolan and Ledger's Joker may be fantastic and break the mold and become the dominant Joker portrayal for years to come. But there is something to be said about classic portrayals. And, long story short, the makeup job looks half-assed.
