How would Bales Batman react to Jacks Joker and Keatons B-Man to Ledgers Joker?

[the GRIN Reaper]

In that case you failed.

LOL, ok. Whatever lets you sleep at night

Nicholson's Joker was more akin to the kind of chaos the Joker of the comic books does.

Really?

And TDK Joker being an algamation of the most pure and best Joker stories around, isn't? The Killing Joke, Batman #1, Man Who Laughs, etc?

Chaos of defacing art?

Going after hot blondes?

Trying to be an obscure artist?

Dancing to Prince?

Yeah, real threats there. That's chaos forreal.

Did he stop the Joker for good in the end?

Of course. It took him quite the effort to defeat an inferior threat.

Bale's Batman stopped the Joker at the end of The Dark Knight, as well.

You still haven't explained how. The fact that Batman was written as an inferior to the Joker in TDK doesn't mean diddly squat. All it shows is that's not the real nature of the Batman/Joker relationship.

Sure it did. Joker is an enigmatic threat that has a reign of terror on the city, Batman has to confront everything he believes in order to stop him, and he does.

That's the relationship.

Not one being the murderer of his parents, etc. If you wanna get technical.

I'm sorry, but when the villain is one step ahead of the hero from start to finish, they most definitely are NOT equals. Joker was the superior all thru the movie.

What's the problem per se with that? Joker was the 1st villain Batman couldn't be proactive against. He was stuck in reaction mode, because Joker is unpredictable threat. In the end, Batman makes a sacrifice to win the war with the Joker. Batman technically lost the battle with the Joker, but wins the war.

Did you even understand the movie?

No, he tries to the be a hero. He failed to stop everything the Joker did.

Really? He stops him from killing Harvey Dent. That was the Joker's intentions regardless if he wanted to get pulled into the MCU. He stops him at the ferries, and strings him up.

Then, in being MORE than a hero, Batman stands up to his "ace in the hole" ... and in the most heroic act in a Batman movie, he selflessly gives up his name, and character in order to protect Gotham.

The Dark Knight asks the question of what a true hero is ...

Batman is that. He's selfless to the fullest extent.

And as we go back to the point of the thread. Bale's Batman faces the most unstoppable force in the series. Takes a beating, loses a battle or two, but wins the war. Bale's Batman would eat Jack's prancing, dancing, art loving ass for breakfast. And the sinister ghoul that Ledger's Joker was, would show Burton's Gotham and Batman what true terror really is ... and it wouldn't be break dancing to Prince.

 

[deathfromabove]

but who would win in a fight? superman or wolverine?

jesus.

 

[The Joker]

Really?

And TDK Joker being an algamation of the most pure and best Joker stories around, isn't? The Killing Joke, Batman #1, Man Who Laughs, etc?

What influences from a story point of view was there in TDK from The Man who Laughs and Batman #1?

There was two little nods from a couple of panels Batman #1, where Joker dressed as a Cop, and where he leaves Joker cards at the scene of his crimes.

But what from the actual story itself is in TDK? Or the Man who laughs? Batman #1 has Joker stealing diamonds and stuff from wealthy people and announcing it on the radio. The Man Who Laughs has Joker trying to kill all of Gotham with his Joker toxin [Gee that sounds familiar].

Chaos of defacing art?

Joker does stuff like that. You want to see a scan where he trashes some priceless artefacts in a museum?

Going after hot blondes?

So what? Hardly a huge deviation. Being a a guy in make up is a bigger deviation than that.

Trying to be an obscure artist?

By defacing artwork? Absolutely. That was done in 60's Batman TV show as well. So I'm guessing that's come from some comic book.

Dancing to Prince?

Acting theatrical. Dancing, jumping around, laughing, all while destroying artwork, or luring victims he plans to kill.

Of course. It took him quite the effort to defeat an inferior threat.

How was he an inferior threat? He was a master criminal who took control of Grissom's organisation. A chemistry genius who poisoned all of Gotham's products.

What is inferior about this? If that's inferior, then comic book Joker is inferior. As I already mentioned, comic book Joker never had the kind of aspirations TDK's Joker did. He never tried to take down Gotham officials in order to break Gotham's spirit. The closest he came to anything like that was torturing Gordon simply to prove how he is just one bad day away from everyone else. Hardly the same as what he did in TDK.

Bale's Batman stopped the Joker at the end of The Dark Knight, as well.

After the Joker had won. Kind of like shutting the stable door after the horse has fled.

As you said, Joker won the battle in TDK.

Sure it did. Joker is an enigmatic threat that has a reign of terror on the city, Batman has to confront everything he believes in order to stop him, and he does.

No, he doesn't. Jesus christ, were you watching the movie? Rachel died. Harvey died. All Joker's targets, the Judge, Loeb, all died. Batman is an outlaw at the end.

Batman's only victory over the Joker in TDK was capturing him.

Not one being the murderer of his parents, etc. If you wanna get technical.

And that didn't even come to light until the final quarter of the movie.

What's the problem per se with that?

That's not the nature of the Batman/Joker relationship. Not to mention it makes Batman look weak as a hero. Can you think of any Batman story where Batman was pwned by Joker so many times at every turn, and lost so much because of it?

Ra's Al Ghul ran an international organization that infiltrated every level of Gotham's infra-structure, and Batman still matched Ra's admirably. He captured Scarecrow, put an end to Falcone, and still defeated Ra's without any casualties.

The Joker was lone gun who climbed his way up the Gotham underworld with "A few drums of gas and a couple of bullets". And Batman couldn't keep up with him at all. Joker ran rings around him. And the end results was Harvey dead, Rachel dead, and Batman a wanted criminal. A Batman who found himself so hopeless against the Joker that he was going to quit.

And you're asking what's wrong with that?

Joker was the 1st villain Batman couldn't be proactive against. He was stuck in reaction mode, because Joker is unpredictable threat.

The Joker is an unpredictable threat in the comic books, but that doesn't stop Batman from being his equal as an adversary.

In the end, Batman makes a sacrifice to win the war with the Joker. Batman technically lost the battle with the Joker, but wins the war.

A sacrifice he didn't even have to make. Why didn't they just blame those crimes on the Joker? He was free at the time of them. He killed the chechan. They could easily pin the others on him, too, without making Batman the villain.

Did you even understand the movie?

Better than you apparently.

Really? He stops him from killing Harvey Dent.

No, he didn't. If Joker wanted Harvey dead, he'd have blown him sky high when he had him tied up in that warehouse. He wanted to use Harvey to break Gotham's spirit.

He stops him at the ferries, and strings him up.

Again, this was dwarfed by the fact that the people themselves had already saved eachother by not blowing eachother up. And then after Joker is strung up, he gets another one over on Batman by telling him his ace in the hole about corrupting Harvey.

Then, in being MORE than a hero, Batman stands up to his "ace in the hole" ... and in the most heroic act in a Batman movie, he selflessly gives up his name, and character in order to protect Gotham.

Needlessly. He didn't have to do that.

The Dark Knight asks the question of what a true hero is ...

Batman is that. He's selfless to the fullest extent.

A hero who couldn't save the Commissoner Loeb, the Judge lady, Rachel, and Harvey.

"I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell"

"You let five people die. Then you let Dent take your place."

And as we go back to the point of the thread.

We kind of are discussing the point of this thread. Bale's Batman couldn't keep up with a Joker who started out a loner and climbed his way up by going around killing public servants.

Again, let me say that I do prefer TDK over Batman '89. But I'm not looking at it with rose tinted glasses. It's got it's flaws. And one of them was how ineffectual Batman was against the Joker.

 

[deathfromabove]

What influences from a story point of view was there in TDK from The Man who Laughs and Batman #1?

There was two little nods from a couple of panels Batman #1, where Joker dressed as a Cop, and where he leaves Joker cards at the scene of his crimes.

But what from the actual story itself is in TDK? Or the Man who laughs? Batman #1 has Joker stealing diamonds and stuff from wealthy people and announcing it on the radio. The Man Who Laughs has Joker trying to kill all of Gotham with his Joker toxin [Gee that sounds familiar].

you need to go back and read those stories.

the similarities are striking.

 

[p4poetic]

Cool topic.

I think Ledgers Joker would really be bugged by how reserved Keatons Batman is. When he wants a reaction out of Bale, he gets it, but that brings up the point, would Keatons Batman ever snap and just go insane then maul Ledger?

At first I agreed with you, but then I remembered this scene

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Yeah. And idiotic Bruce Wayne virtually giving up his identity by flying off the deep end.

But no one notices? Heh ... weird.

Ledger's Joker would giggle, leave. Show up at Wayne Manor, show little Wayne a pencil and WHAM ... TADAAA ... It's ... It's GONE.

 

[p4poetic]

And I highly doubt that, given a few different circumstances. Keaton had his way with a physical sissy in Jack's Joker. Heath Ledger's Joker stands 6'1, and is pretty well built. He's a gritty character who obviously knows how to throw his muscle as he willingly dispenses of trained body guards, etc. He'd be more than a few inches taller than Keaton, and showed a willingness to get physical when needed. Where as Keaton's Batman had troubles with the likes of Ray Charles in the Cathedral. An everday thug. How would Keaton snap his neck? Keaton's Batman was limited physically. If he couldn't legitimately win a fight the way a Batman should, he'd resort to strapping bomb's to people's waists, etc.

I always saw Keaton's Batman as the older Bruce Wayne that was practically aging (hence using more of his gadgets than brute strength in fight scenes) whereas Bale is playing Batman is currently and obviously in his prime.

Good point, touche. But even if he did. He'd eat that sucker for breakfast. Joker in that film was laid out on a platter and Keaton's Batman couldn't find out who he was till the final act. He can't remember the face of his parents killer till a television message from Jack Napier, even though he encountered him numerous times prior in the movie.

Well I wouldn't either, considering he gained an immense amount of weight t: It's the 'Ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?' quote that did it.

Trying to be an obscure artist?

Well, they both like to draw.

And hijack Gotham's television programs with a victim, sending out a message. Whilst both Bruce Waynes and Alfreds watch on baffled.

 

[dude stannis]

WTF are you talking about? LOL ...

This thread was talking about the way characters were written in two different stories, and having a fictional "what if they squared off" discussion.

Any opinion is valid and welcomed. That's the point. I presented mine in a confident manner, backing up my claims.

I wouldn't call what you did backing up your claims. Seeing as how they're full of holes.

Are you insane? I have no clue what you're talking about here. I wasn't criticizing anyone, or not giving credit where it's due ... huh?

The other Joker thread. You had a winge at old man Kevin for saying Danny DeVito should've won an Oscar before Heath Ledger, claiming he can't give credit where credit is due, when you're acting far worse with some ridiculous views on the subject.

And I highly doubt that, given a few different circumstances. Keaton had his way with a physical sissy in Jack's Joker. Heath Ledger's Joker stands 6'1, and is pretty well built. He's a gritty character who obviously knows how to throw his muscle as he willingly dispenses of trained body guards, etc. He'd be more than a few inches taller than Keaton, and showed a willingness to get physical when needed. Where as Keaton's Batman had troubles with the likes of Ray Charles in the Cathedral. An everday thug. How would Keaton snap his neck? Keaton's Batman was limited physically. If he couldn't legitimately win a fight the way a Batman should, he'd resort to strapping bomb's to people's waists, etc.

And let's say he did snap Ledgers Joker's neck, Ledger's Joker would've WON if that happened.

Ledger's Joker WANTED Bale's Batman to kill him the entire time. So he could corrupt him, show he doesn't have the fortitude to keep his sacrafice of maintaining his "one rule" ... and Keaton's Batman being mentally weaker, given he has no self imposed restraints, would give into his whims as he so often does in the two movies he's in ... would kill Ledger's Joker, as Ledger's Joker would've allowed him to ... "because that's the point" ... he'd turn the entire city against him, and he'd be a criminal and eventually tracked down and sentenced. It wouldn't be a wink / wink with the commissioner of police who agrees to "chase him" even though he knows he's the good guy. He'd be the legit bad guy.

But the public knows Keaton kills and they don't care because he's keeping the streets safe. Due to his willingness to kill BatKeaton has far less collateral damage to his name than BatBale. If he snapped Ledger's neck the public wouldn't have cared less. Killing does not make a movie hero mentally weak. Are McClane and Rambo menally weak?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The simple fact of the matter is, If it was Keatons Batman against Ledgers Joker he would of just killed him, seeing as Burton decided to make Batman a killer for some reason.
Then if it was Bales Batman against Jacks Joker he would of just beat the crap out of him untill he gave in.
Thats why I like TDK Joker more, no amount of physical prowess bothers him, Batman could beat on his arse all day long and he would just laugh in his face.
Jacks Joker had limits, he wasn't a complete nihilst who doesn't care if he dies.

And people complaining about Batman being helpless to TDK Joker, well thats the whole point of the Joker. Thats what makes him the greatest comic book villain of all time. He can't be defeated, yea Batman can beat the living crap out of him but Joker don't give a toss about that, he is the only villain who can really get under Batmans skin, really push him to break his ONE rule. And the only way for Batman to truly beat Joker is to break his ONE rule. Thats why Joker ALWAYS wins.

 

[El Payaso]

LOL, ok. Whatever lets you sleep at night

Being right can provide you a refreshing sleep night.

Really?

And TDK Joker being an algamation of the most pure and best Joker stories around, isn't? The Killing Joke, Batman #1, Man Who Laughs, etc?

Chaos of defacing art?

Going after hot blondes?

Trying to be an obscure artist?

Dancing to Prince?

Yeah, real threats there. That's chaos forreal.

Maybe your dvd player is skipping some scenes. Dancing Prince might be inoffensive, dancing Prince while killing people by the diozen it's an entirely differenmt matter.

And I'm worried your dvd is skipping the parade scene where Joker gives away money - pretty much the same as burn it - to people. He of course knows that people will go, giving him the chance to kill them. And Joker is proving a point here, much as he does in TDK: people, even knowing Joker tried to poison them will go if there's money involved. People's greed dominates their lives. Chaos is possible if you're offering money and a colorful show going on. And people will go and participate not caring one bit if the guy is a hero or a killer.

Yep. That's chaos for real and that's certainly a threat.

Bale's Batman stopped the Joker at the end of The Dark Knight, as well.

He merely stopped Joker physically, which he had done before. Joker isn't even a bit worried about being arrested. It is far from being a defeat. His point, not to obtain profit but to prove corruption is possible, was made.

Sure it did. Joker is an enigmatic threat that has a reign of terror on the city, Batman has to confront everything he believes in order to stop him, and he does.

That's the relationship.

Not one being the murderer of his parents, etc. If you wanna get technical.

If you wanna be technical one doesn't deny or rule out the other. Apasrt of having an unknown identity, Nicholson's Joker and Keaton's Batman had the same relationship you describe.

What's the problem per se with that? Joker was the 1st villain Batman couldn't be proactive against. He was stuck in reaction mode, because Joker is unpredictable threat. In the end, Batman makes a sacrifice to win the war with the Joker. Batman technically lost the battle with the Joker, but wins the war.

Did you even understand the movie?

In the end, Joker wins. Batman's sacrifice is made to cover that fact from people.

Really? He stops him from killing Harvey Dent. That was the Joker's intentions regardless if he wanted to get pulled into the MCU. He stops him at the ferries, and strings him up.

Joker wins nevertheless. Even when Batman and Gordon thought they won (when arresting the Joker) they were wrong. They were merely playing Joker's game all the time, fake Gordon's death or not. And in the end, as I said, Joker's point stands.

The Dark Knight asks the question of what a true hero is ...

Batman is that. He's selfless to the fullest extent.

And as we go back to the point of the thread. Bale's Batman faces the most unstoppable force in the series. Takes a beating, loses a battle or two, but wins the war.

Far from that, this "hero" loses the war, his point is not proven, doesn't stand so the last thing he got is to lie about it. And in order to keep the lie, he sacrifices his own image as Batman (he doesn't reveal he's Bruce Wayne and goes to jail, that would have been a real sacrifice).

Batman wins the battles, stops Joker's plans once or twice, but in the end he's forced to lie because it's his mentality; I eiother win or lose and lie about it so people think I won.

Bale's Batman would eat Jack's prancing, dancing, art loving ass for breakfast. And the sinister ghoul that Ledger's Joker was, would show Burton's Gotham and Batman what true terror really is ... and it wouldn't be break dancing to Prince.

The execution and tone might be different but boith Jokers were after the same.

 

[The Joker]

you need to go back and read those stories.

the similarities are striking.

I have. The similarities are purely on a visual level in Batman #1. I can't see what's so strikingly similar in the Man who Laughs. It's a basic retelling of Batman #1, except they had Joker killing for revenge rather than profit.

Joker's actual agenda in both stories is nothing like what he was trying to do in TDK.

 

[Rockbottom]

Yeah. And idiotic Bruce Wayne virtually giving up his identity by flying off the deep end.

But no one notices? Heh ... weird.

Ledger's Joker would giggle, leave. Show up at Wayne Manor, show little Wayne a pencil and WHAM ... TADAAA ... It's ... It's GONE.

I always saw that scene differently. I doubt Keaton was actually trying to take them on or he would of jumped the gang from behind atleast, and i never saw it as him really going mental. Seemed like an act to try and get Joker to shoot him (thus putting the tray under his top).

 

[mjbull23]

That is clearly what Burton was trying to establish in this scene. Bruce Wayne, sacrificing himself, by drawing attention to himself, in the hopes of rescuing viki vale. I agree,

 

[Cain]

 

[November Rain]

Keaton's Batman is fighting himself? Of course he'd win t:

bloody typo

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

I have. The similarities are purely on a visual level in Batman #1.

No they aren't. The methodology is the same, use of disguise to kill or sneak in unprotected to gain leverage on a target. Yes, they are also similar visually with the black eyes, etc. But there is ALOT of striking similarities. The physicality of the character is a representation of him being a more physical threat as he is in Batman #1, etc.

Well "Man Who Laughs" is just a re-telling of Batman #1.

Joker's actual agenda in both stories is nothing like what he was trying to do in TDK.

For someone screen named the Joker, you don't really know what you're talking about. In essence what Joker is attempting to do in The Dark Knight, is psychological warfare, that pushes people to the brink of their rules and society's boundaries much the same way he did in The Killing Joker.

The character in TDK is literally the best concept from the source material, only amplified for the movie. Ledger's Joker was written directly like the best aspects of Joker source material. But you'd know that seeing as how you're such a fan of the character, and Ledger's Joker. Right?

 

[The Joker]

No they aren't. The methodology is the same, use of disguise to kill or sneak in unprotected to gain leverage on a target.

He has disguised himself in many stories to get to a target. He did it in the The Laughing Fish story as well, for example. It's not unique to Batman #1. And even Nicholson's Joker used the disguise trick by dressing as a mime.

Yes, they are also similar visually with the black eyes, etc. But there is ALOT of striking similarities.

List them for me then, please.

The physicality of the character is a representation of him being a more physical threat as he is in Batman #1, etc.

Ledger's Joker wasn't a physical threat to Batman in TDK. He had to use dirty tricks like attack dogs, and metal bars, and Batman being caught in a net etc.

Where did Ledger's Joker ever match Batman physically in TDK?

For someone screen named the Joker, you don't really know what you're talking about.

Awww sticks and stones.

In essence what Joker is attempting to do in The Dark Knight, is psychological warfare, that pushes people to the brink of their rules and society's boundaries much the same way he did in The Killing Joker.

Wrong again.

Joker in TDK is trying to crush the morale of a whole society of people. A whole city. Joker in the Killing Joke is trying to break ONE man, just one, to simply prove he is only one bad day away from everyone else. That's all.

"It doesn't matter if you capture me and put me back in the asylim. Gordon's been driven mad. I've proved my point. I've proven that all it takes is for one bad day to drive the sanest man to lunacy".

Do you get it now? Can you see the glaring difference? He was just trying to prove a point. Joker doesn't want to crush the morale of Gotham City. Why? It's not fun. There's no punchline in it.

The character in TDK is literally the best concept from the source material, only amplified for the movie.

But their two motives are still entirely different. Joker in TDK was battling for Gotham's soul. Joker in Killing Joke didn't give a rat's ass about breaking Gotham City's spirit.Two different motives.

The only obvious nod to the Killing Joke is the different stories he tells about his scars, which stems from the "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice".

Ledger's Joker was written directly like the best aspects of Joker source material.

Not in terms of his motives. His theatrical nature, his lust for murder, his cunning and intelligence [even though he was smarter than Batman], the multiple origins was there. But in terms of his what he was trying to achieve, that is not something comic book Joker has ever been interested in.

He sees himself as a performance artist, and Gotham City is his stage to perform on. He doesn't want to crush their spirit. Where's the punchline in that?

I think I need to give you a scan just to prove my point. This is from the No Man's Land arc:

"It's a built in audience, it's the chance for my greatest show ever"

But you'd know that seeing as how you're such a fan of the character, and Ledger's Joker. Right?

I am a huge fan of Ledger's Joker. But I know he deviated from the source in some areas as mentioned above. But then I was expecting that. Every comic book character brought to life on screen usually deviates from the source in some way. Especially the villains.

All I do hope for is an enjoyable rendition of that character. And I got that in spades with Ledger's Joker. But I'm not so dumb as to think he was 100% loyal to the comics. No way.

 

[dude stannis]

The simple fact of the matter is, If it was Keatons Batman against Ledgers Joker he would of just killed him, seeing as Burton decided to make Batman a killer for some reason.

Some reason? Homework time please sir.

Then if it was Bales Batman against Jacks Joker he would of just beat the crap out of him untill he gave in.
Thats why I like TDK Joker more, no amount of physical prowess bothers him, Batman could beat on his arse all day long and he would just laugh in his face.
Jacks Joker had limits, he wasn't a complete nihilst who doesn't care if he dies.

A very strong valid and good opinion. But not what the title of the thread is discussing (Not complaining), nor why I told off GRIN reaper.

And people complaining about Batman being helpless to TDK Joker, well thats the whole point of the Joker. Thats what makes him the greatest comic book villain of all time. He can't be defeated, yea Batman can beat the living crap out of him but Joker don't give a toss about that, he is the only villain who can really get under Batmans skin, really push him to break his ONE rule. And the only way for Batman to truly beat Joker is to break his ONE rule. Thats why Joker ALWAYS wins.

There's a difference between the Joker winning because of his one rule and what happens in TDK where Joker is practicaly omnipotent.

 

[Grommers]

I don't get how people say "he isn't true to the comics."



Do you guys not realize there are hundreds of different takes on the joker, from different writers, it would be impossible to match every single one into one movie, especially a character like the joker. Both Heath's and Jacks' were very spot on with the characters, just from different comic book eras, and takes on the character.



I don't think Jacks joker would stand a chance against Bales, just for the sheer fact, Bale did a lot more research and studying of people and his surroundings.

Keaton vs Ledger - This would be very strange because I dont' feel Keaton changed gotham "forever." So, Ledgers joker might not of came around, say if he did, I just couldn't see Keatons Joker being able to keep up with ledger, and doing what was necessary, I always felt Keatons batman thought very highly of himself, and almost better than most ppl.

 

[El Payaso]

I don't get how people say "he isn't true to the comics."

Creates the illusion amongst the unawares that you know a lot and have the last definitive word.

Do you guys not realize there are hundreds of different takes on the joker, from different writers, it would be impossible to match every single one into one movie, especially a character like the joker. Both Heath's and Jacks' were very spot on with the characters, just from different comic book eras, and takes on the character.

Simple and evident.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

IMO the thing that makes Joker so great is that he can be portrayed in a way that is relevant to the times required. Jacks Joker for instance, his main plots involved make-up and handing out money to kill people. That is perfect for the 80-90s culture where every thing was so superficial and vain.
Whereas Heaths Joker is perfect for our time because the climate we are now in is extremely terror-weary. His plots involve blowing things up and testing our moral resolve, things that are extremely relevant to our times.
That is why IMO, Joker is the greatest villain of all time in any medium. He can be portrayed in so many different ways so that his villainy can really hit home in each different era. The superficial days of the "Yuppie" 80s-90s, or the terror-weary, morally questionable climate that we live in now.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Ace of Knaves ... my man

We've disagreed before, mainly on the ridiculous concept of yours of recasting the Joker for a 3rd Nolan movie. Or having a different interp of the character in the 3rd for justification story wise for a re-cast.

But I must say, that your opinion on how Jack's Joker from a sociological perspective is a great representation of late 80's, early 90's culture and people in America as an accurate villain to represent that time period was spot on. I never, ever thought of it like that. Great post.

Also it's obvious how TDK's Joker represents a STRONGER threat in today's post 9/11 society, dealing with un-expected and random terrorism. So naturally he's going to appear more menacing and the threat level of his character makes him more dangerous than Jack's Joker, because he represents the spontaneous nature at which seemingly this "terrorist threat" finally hit home in the heartland of America at the start of this century. Story wise he has no name, no alias, a monster on the side of evil that grew from the cracks. America is more in jeapordy in today's world than it was in 1988 / 1989 / 1990 so naturally the villains actually represent their society and respective time eras well in the films.

Very good post.

Also goes to explain how in the mid to late 90's when America was busting out financially and there weren't many worries, party explains how un-menacing and threatning the villains in Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, were. haha ... PART of the reason.

Yes, you're right. Joker of B89 has the corrupt ideas and concepts of that time period in America, but amplified and personified by his character and his methodology, and his motivations as a character.

Where as TDK Joker, representing the world wide, and even more intimate homeland attacks on America represent a more psychologically disturbing threat ... that strikes without warning. Has no type of vanity. Will risk themselves to destroy, aren't afraid of anything ... asking us, and "The Dark Knight" ... how do you face such a threat?

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

What was the most imminent problems facing America in the late 80's and budding 90's? Commercialism (New Improved Joker Products), Materialism (Joker's twisted "art", Dumping counterfit bills on a crowd who knew the man giving them money was dangerous) ...

Really well done post Ace of Knaves. I like to consider myself an intelligent guy, and I never thought about it way until you worded it the way you did here.

Maybe that was Burton and or Sam Hamm commenting on society's issues of that time.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea man I'm glad you agree! You made some good points also. When I watch Batman 89 now i see it as a sort of satire of them "Yuppie" times. Especially the make-up plot, that scene where the news-anchors are without make-up and have spotty and clammy skin just makes me laugh every time.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Re-watching B89 after your explanation last night, I actually re fell in love with it. When previously it lost any sort of depth and meaning to me beyond nostalgia. Very good post. Now, as it pertains to preferance of the characters. I prefer the TDK Joker because naturally it's a more complicated character and time period. That has a stronger level of threat to the people in the mythos, and the audience in that he represents a stronger fear on both a concious and un-concious level, as opposed to the ideas Jack's Joker represents.

This gave me a new found respect for the story and the character.

With that said, I still prefer TDK Joker as a villain, and for the more personal themes he represents.

And even though Jack was good as Joker. I will strongly defend my stance, that apart from CHARACTERIZATION ...

Ledger's ACTING "performance" was better than Nicholsons.

And let me re-itterate. Doesn't make what Nicholson's did in B89, "bad" or insignificant. For all intensive purposes, for all-time cinematic villains, and even more so comic book villains ... Nicholson's job still ranks up there as one of the best. In comic book villains specifically, I'd easily say top 3. And those three spots, 2/3 are held down by the same character. So props to Nicholson, Ledger for that, the writing teams on the movies, and more importantly Bob Kane and Bill Finger.

But at the end of the day I just feel Ledger put more effort and work into creating mannerisms, vocal inflextions, and a more believeable and funcitoning threatning character for the screen. Beyond the well written character he was in the script. He made this chartacter seem like he exists somewhere in this world. That is terrifying. Nicholson's performance and character was a great cartoon. Larger than life. Ledger's in many ways is very personal, intimate, and ultimately IMO a better performance.