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

The Sage said:
Kane's Batman also punched people off of rooftops. It wasn't always through guns.:O
yeah . who needs guns when you know kung - fu ???:woot:
 
Doesn't exactly answer the question, though :o
Never killed up until that point, and in fact tried to SAVE "Jack Napier" (ugh) from falling into the vat of chemicals!
 
Renegade said:
Then I ask again...why didn't he kill from the start?
Why not use guns?
Why beat around the bush?
I don't buy that argument. It doesn't hold water for me.

didnt Batman kill at the beginning? and used guns as well? :confused:

its was after the comic code brouhaha that things changed.
 
Renegade said:
Doesn't exactly answer the question, though :o
Never killed up until that point, and in fact tried to SAVE "Jack Napier" (ugh) from falling into the vat of chemicals!
hmm... good point ... can't argue with you on that one.
 
Renegade said:
Doesn't exactly answer the question, though :o
Never killed up until that point, and in fact tried to SAVE "Jack Napier" (ugh) from falling into the vat of chemicals!

Did he try to save him, or did he have a last minute change of heart?:)

I thought it was kind of ambiguous.
 
Maybe Batman should've knock Jack Napier into the vat of acid insetead of trying to sanbe him like he did this guy in the early days.

detective_27.jpg


A fitting end for his kind!
 
I wish everyone still smoked cigars and pipes, especially Bruce Wayne. Kidding.

I always thought they should have cast young Jack from the movie as Joker. That guy was psychotic looking.
 
bunk said:
II always thought they should have cast young Jack from the movie as Joker. That guy was psychotic looking.


You're joking right...:o
 
Two Face said:
You're joking right...:o

Only if Burton had chosen not make Joker the one who killed Bruce's parents.
But he did so that meant he'd need someone 20 years Bruce's senior and preferably overweight.
 
I think Nicholson hit the Joker dead-on for the Joker that existed back in 1980.

The Joker today is much more sadistic than he was back than.
 
i don't even know if there IS a single, definitive version of the joker. the character's interpretation seems to vary, if only slightly, even in the comics. i don't think that anyone can truly say "THIS is the joker" or "THAT is the joker", except for maybe bob kane and bill finger, and even there i'm not so sure. he is an evolving character who is subject to the whims of his writers and artists, as well as the times he "exists" in. certainly there is a rudimentary foundation that has to be in place for the joker to be "the joker", but there are so many subtleties and traits that can be tweaked and manipulated that keep the character from being static and therefore "definitive". anyway, that being said, i think that jack nicholson did a fantastic job as that particular incarnation of the joker, though he was by no means MY ideal version. i think nolan and ledger will certainly hit closer to the mark...
 
Jack did a great job, but I think that for a lot of people he overwhelmed the character simple because he himself is SO iconic. I know I had a hard time seeing his Joker as being the Joker and not as me seeing Jack.
 
Jack Nicholson nailed a Joker, but there are many other ways for the character to be portrayed. Personally I prefer someone you'd laugh with if you had a very dark and twisted sense of humor and someone you'd be absolutely petrified of if you didn't. A completely manic, sadistic, freakishly maniacal Joker hasn't been done. I mean the personification of pure, unbridled, boundless insanity-the type of guy that makes a guy like Batman nervous, but he's laughing hysterically as the body count rises.
 
Nicholson was Joker. You don't nail something when you are it.
 
Nicholson really nailed the over-the-top Joker side, but Hamill is still the best Joker.
 
NinjaTurtleFan said:
Nicholson really nailed the over-the-top Joker side, but Hamill is still the best Joker.

Only in voice and portrayal. Not in actuality. It's fairly easy to do a voice compared with being on film or on stage.
 
He was good on his own... But he was nothing like his comic sadistic counterpart...
 
Jack Nicholson as the Joker was the best and I mean BEST part of the first Batman movie! Without him, it would've been so doll! Jack Nicholson is so incredibly amazing (in every role he's done!)... And I think that YOU ARE one of the few that don't like him as the Joker. He nailed the part better then could've EVER been expected. He's 110% the joker.
 
raybia said:
Nicholson performance wasn't Jokerish, it was Nicholsonish. Thats right, Jack just essentially played Jack.

And he's so cool that it worked. Plus, the only other performance of the Joker that people at the time knew of was Cesar Romaro, and outside of Hackman's performance as Luthor, Nicholson's performance of a villian in a Superhero movie was it.

In other words, that performance was great for its time, but wouldn't hold much weight today.

More importantly though it that the Joker we all know an love has yet to grace the silver screen and the best intepretation so far is from TAS.

THAT IS THE STANDARD. Maybe unfairly but thats it.

my thoughts are prettymuch in line with this
 
Naite22 said:
Jack Nicholson as the Joker was the best and I mean BEST part of the first Batman movie! Without him, it would've been so doll! Jack Nicholson is so incredibly amazing (in every role he's done!)... And I think that YOU ARE one of the few that don't like him as the Joker. He nailed the part better then could've EVER been expected. He's 110% the joker.
Can i get an opinion from an avid comic reader who is not a fan of Jack's work?:)
 
Poetic Chaos said:
Bale nailed Bruce
Keaton nailed Batman

keaton nailed batman to the best of his limited physical capabilities.
bale is batman and bruce wayne.

and hopefully we will be able to say the same about nicholson's joker compared to ledgers joker.
 
keaton nailed bruce wayne / batman
bale nailed bruce wayne / batman
kilmer didn't nail bruce wayne / batman
clooney nailed bruce wayne
 
Bale is the best Batman IMO

Keaton was also great, but he wasn't so great like Bale was.

Bale showed doubts, thoughts and fears of real Bruce Wayne and Batman.

And he also showed Bruce's interest in his company, while in B89 they didn't even mention about this aspect.

He showed how Bruce turrn into total Batman, and looses himself. But the only 2 characters, who explained him this were Alfred and Rachel.

Yes, for Keaton it wasn't so easy to turn into Batman, because of less comfortable suit and fanboys, who hated him.

But Bale is still my #1.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"