So tell me, what was wrong with B89's Joker?

[GoogleMe94]

Sounded exactly like Jack to me. Which is no bad thing. Jack WAS and IS the Joker. His an almalgamation of all the eras in one stunning package.

right on dude. his joker was classsss. the new ledger one, ate too much cake. lol.

 

[MrNapier]

Jack Nicholson will forever remain the veracious screen embodiment of the Joker - just as Tim Burton's oeuvre will remain the one true Batman picture.

 

[The Joker]

Jack was magnificent as The Joker.

 

[El Payaso]

BAD

1) It was never the Joker (as played by Jack Nicholson), but the reverse. Just as in B&R's Mr. Freeze, the star was bigger than the character being played, making it impossible to appreciate the full extent of the Joker's personality.

Firstly; Opposite to Schwarzenegger's Freeze, Nicholson did the hell of a job.

Then again, this is quite subjective. If for that, no celebrity could act without risking being 'too big' for the role. Nicholson's personality poretty much fit Joker's (except for the killing and real looney state). That's the important part.

2) The conversion of Jack Napier to Joker consists of the skin bleach and perma-smile only. In terms of personality, Nicholson portrayed the two characters as essentially the same (making his 'transformation' redundant, and adding zero character development).

I don't remember Napier laughing like crazy or making jokes, he was rather serious and vain.

Now of course they didn't go the usual comic way where the personalities must be 100% and caricaturesquely the opposite. Like nerdy Clark vs heroic handsome Superman. That doesn't mean they weren't different; they were. Napier never managed to eliminate Grissom and control the rest of the gangsters; Joker did.

3) The chaotic nature of the Joker was far too 'ordered' (if you'll pardon the pun). He takes control of the mob in Gotham, hooks up with his boss's girlfriend, and uses the resources to CONTROL the city. Granted, he kills people randomly (without remorse) and creates scenes of chaos, but the character appears more interested in Vicky Vale (WHY???), or

I'm sorry but chaotic personality is never absolute. Joker has always been interested in power. Controlling gangsters and having the girl he wants are included in that.

Joker has been described as chaotic but every looney follows a pattern even if not consciouly.

4) His relationship with Batman. Firstly, the Joker killing Bruce's parents adds another twist to the relationship, but screws up everything else. As a character of chaos, the Joker is both fascinated and disgusted by Batman (forever stuck between wanting to kill him, and wanting to keep him alive), whereas in the film the Joker just wants him dead.

Nicholson's Joker is pretty much fascinated with Batman: about how Bats manages to be in everyone's mouth and how he has become a TV star. Then about the way he acts (where does he get those wonderful toys?) AND then he wants him dead.

And Joker killing the Waynes gives finally a concrete bond between the character beyond the 'oh it's so random it's good' non existant kind of bond between them in comics.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I really hope you don't mean me, as I don't hate his Joker.
And if you find my point lame and not valid enough, I can't say anything more on the subject. I respect the fact that you find him near perfect and I wish you would respect my reason for not agreeing.

I mean just about everyone who goes around saying, "he sucked cause it was just Jack playing Jack." They can never give a valid reason. If you don't like him and can't think of a reason as to why, that's fine. No need to resort to being the 10 millionth person to say "It was just Jack being Jack."

Someone on page 1 or 2 even made a ridiculous comment saying The Joker wasn't even in this movie, just Nicholson playing himself. That's stupid. As I've said before, every single thing Nicholson did in Batman '89 was in character to The Joker.

Edit: It was Mad-Sci who made that comment, and his comment about "Barely any conversion of Jack Napier to Joker," is just as pity. Napier was sane, he dressed slick, and was a mobster who wants to take over Grissam's spot, he thought of himself as the "future." He was very serious. When he became The Joker, he went insane, was driven off the deep end, he dressed like a clown, laughed like a maniac, and killed people in his "pleasurable" ways. The Joker wants to stand out and will do whatever he wants to when he sees fit. Napier was laid back, he was patient and was waiting for the right time to off his boss.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

The Joker is chaos incarnate. No where is he "Leatherface" in any form, shape or fashion ... he still has personality, and theatricality as part of his guise. He lives to kill people, b/c THAT'S the joke. That everyone takes life too "seriously" ... and he doesn't understand why they don't "get the joke." In his intial creation, he is labeled as a "harlequin of hate". He's an oxymoron. He's smiling, but he utterly hates you. He doesn't "live for jokes". He's an absolute fear-less nutball. He's inspired by the Batman, in terms of theatricality ... so putting on makeup to look more like a clown is an extension of that. It's a horrific act that creates the Joker. Not how he gets white skin and green hair. He deliberetly chooses to act like a clown.

And you think I don't already know this because...?

That's the current Joker, man. A character who's become more psycho than jokester. The balance has been lost by a fanbase that feels the only way to be "adult" is to be over the top graphically sadistic. Seriously. I can't tell you how many "The only way for the Joker to be done right is for the movie to be rated R" posts I've seen. The TDK forum almost is littered with them.

New fans really piss me off sometimes. No respect.

The comic books haven't made the Joker any MORE sadistic than he ever was, really, but the jokester part is almost forgotten. Whenever it's in nowadays, it doesn't flow at all, it feels shoehorned in like they remembered at the last minute that it was the Joker instead of someone like Ted Bundy.

Hell, back in my day, the Joker's killing was more eliptical and we liked it that way. It wasn't an attempt to make us almost vomit from the graphic nature. What mattered was that he killed, we didn't need to go into grusome details.

 

[The Joker]

And you think I don't already know this because...?

That's the current Joker, man. A character who's become more psycho than jokester. The balance has been lost by a fanbase that feels the only way to be "adult" is to be over the top graphically sadistic. Seriously. I can't tell you how many "The only way for the Joker to be done right is for the movie to be rated R" posts I've seen. The TDK forum almost is littered with them.

New fans really piss me off sometimes. No respect.

The comic books haven't made the Joker any MORE sadistic than he ever was, really, but the jokester part is almost forgotten. Whenever it's in nowadays, it doesn't flow at all, it feels shoehorned in like they remembered at the last minute that it was the Joker instead of someone like Ted Bundy.

Hell, back in my day, the Joker's killing was more eliptical and we liked it that way. It wasn't an attempt to make us almost vomit from the graphic nature. What mattered was that he killed, we didn't need to go into grusome details.

I agree.

All Joker does these days is kill loads of people for a laugh. I miss the days when he had an actual agenda, and not just mindless slaughter.

Jack's Joker was on par with the Joker of the 70's/80's.

 

[Mr. LOL]

I wasn't lecturing you, guy. And whose to say people voting for a more malicious Joker are new fans? I think you're labeling people now, based off their preference. Joker is vicious. And he is demented and sick. It's the brutality and grusome nature of his crimes which is a major part of why he is so appaling. The balance should be more chaotic killer then over the top clown. Having the theatricality of a clown, and to the extent he goes to earn style points is what further seperates him from other vicious criminals. But he's always meant to be more lethal, then he is blundering bozo the clown with a mean streak. There is a PURPOSE to his actions. You keep talking as if "your day" is the accurate Joker or something. There is multiple interps. As said the B'89 vision of the Joker pays homage to the entire scope of the character. Yes, he is way more over the top @ times then other incarnations. But don't give me this stuff about "recent Joker" being bad, new fans, and all that crap. Sounds like you just have a vivid dislike for anything new or someone or something that represents change.

In fact, TDK Joker is getting back to basics. They are using that first story or two from the Joker as a template. And that, by most accounts among artists @ work on the comics, movies, etc. seems to be the most interesting form of the character. It gives you room to play with ideas. And, it is a very dark version of the character. Still theatrical, yes. But much more menace and hate, then clown-ish antics.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I wasn't lecturing you, guy.

Um, excuse me? Go back and read what you wrote.

No, not a lecture. Not at all.

And whose to say people voting for a more malicious Joker are new fans?

Um.... me?

I think you're labeling people now, based off their preference.

It's a fact that the more immature someone is, the younger they probably are, and such is their tastes. It's immature to want an overly-gruesome Joker, as only children would find such a thing worth obsession and only people so childish would indulge in it because in their mind, it validates what they're reading as something "adult" and "edgy" to be taken seriously. You aren't going to find any older fans suddenly changing their tune and deciding that they want the Joker to eat people's hearts.

Joker is vicious. And he is demented and sick. It's the brutality and grusome nature of his crimes which is a major part of why he is so appaling.

Correct.

The balance should be more chaotic killer then over the top clown.

Incorrect, because then he's might as well be Mr. Zsasz.

Having the theatricality of a clown, and to the extent he goes to earn style points is what further seperates him from other vicious criminals.

All of the Batman villains have their own style, so you're not being specific enough. If the Joker's clown quality isn't played up enough, he's the same as any other Batman villain. It's the clown quality that makes him stand out as The Joker (his level of cruelty aside).

But he's always meant to be more lethal, then he is blundering bozo the clown with a mean streak. There is a PURPOSE to his actions.

Yes, to keep a clown motif going and to kill with it, other than just outright killing. The Joker without enough clown is just Mr. Zsasz with clown makeup.

You keep talking as if "your day" is the accurate Joker or something.

To put it succinctly, I'm better than you, and my opinions are more right because I'm an old school fan.

There is multiple interps.

Quite right. But when an interpretation goes against what the general outline of the character is, then it is an unacceptable interpretation.

Yes, he is way more over the top @ times then other incarnations.

No, not really. Just the newer over-the-top dark version of the Joker, which I consider an anomaly to begin with.

But don't give me this stuff about "recent Joker" being bad, new fans, and all that crap. Sounds like you just have a vivid dislike for anything new or someone or something that represents change.

Seriously, though. Change doesn't automatically equal good. Believe it or not, beating up on the new doesn't make me some dinosaur who thinks new = evil. Did it ever occur to you that the new might actually not live up to the standards set by the old? Chew on that one. I have standards and expectations as a fan. The newer material doesn't live up to it. My opinion, let it go.

In fact, TDK Joker is getting back to basics. They are using that first story or two from the Joker as a template.

B89 already went there and did that. Not that I'm complaining about TDK using those stories for their source, I'm pleased-as-peas to see it. But let's not act like Hamm's script and work with Burton was some kind of anomaly where the comics were not used as inspiration of any sort.

This is a great problem I have with people who treat B89 lightly as an accurate adaptation just because of a relatively minor change. Bob Kane was an active consultant. Fact. Kane wrote up a bible for the production and the script, based on his very early work with the character (and with Finger, obviously). Fact. Nicholson was a fairly big fan of the comics, and he even went so far as to meet with Kane and ask him how to play the Joker. Bob told him to play it "straight, not campy. You're not just a clown, you're a demented individual who wants to completely annihilate Gotham City." Fact. The only valid complaint on accuracy against B89 is the Joker killing the Waynes. Nearly everything else is pissing in the wind.

And that, by most accounts among artists @ work on the comics, movies, etc. seems to be the most interesting form of the character. It gives you room to play with ideas.

And B89 didn't?

I love all of the ways the Nolanites talk about the new franchise as if it was the only one that tried to be accurate and they come up with ways to talk about it like it's the only Batman take that ever was intelligent or deep. Burton was there and did that.

And, it is a very dark version of the character.

That's well and fine, but by cutting away so much of the clown antics (not confirmed by any means for TDK yet, but looking likely with the comics out now), you lose a key part of the darkness to play with. The fact that he is so clownish is an immediate reversal of the obvious. Cut out the clown antics and you lose at least 50% of what's darkest about the Joker. Just having him be a twisted killer who laughs is only half of the character. He's GOT to be a clown, and that is unbelieveably dark when done right, such as B89.

But much more menace and hate, then clown-ish antics.

And Nicholson's performances lacked menace and hate? He breathed it. Or did you miss the angry rants he had and how he relished revenge on Rotelli, Grissom and Vinnie Recorso? And as I said, lose the clownish quality and you lose 50% of the Joker. Downplay it even, and you're losing some of the Joker's best qualities.

 

[Penismightier]

Oh man, that post was filled with brilliance, Mr. DocLathropBrown. I think you put a lot of people in their place. This is how you win a debate, people. Sound arguments that make total sense. Kudos to you, good sir.

 

[Gianakin_]

His post was very articulate and most of his points are dead on. But if one doesn't like Jack as Joker, you really can't change his/ her mind (and in danger of being misunderstood, I liked him, but I don't praise him).
I could raise MANY points why Transformers could very well be one of the worst movies cinema has ever defacated, but no matter how good they are, some will like it, even if they agree with them (like some of my friends). If you can't accept that, well, pitty.

 

[Gianakin_]

I mean just about everyone who goes around saying, "he sucked cause it was just Jack playing Jack." They can never give a valid reason. If you don't like him and can't think of a reason as to why, that's fine. No need to resort to being the 10 millionth person to say "It was just Jack being Jack."

What I can't seem to understand is why you think this is not a valid enough reason. And if by making this point makes me the 10th million person, what is so wrong? I'm not trying to bring up fresh points as to why I didn't embrace Jack as Joker 100%, it's an accurate point IMO, even if it's old and common.
You saw Jack getting lost in the role, I didn't. You think Jack was chosen BECAUSE the way he plays is similar to the Joker, I don't agree 100%. It really is as simple as that.
All this time in the boards, I've heard pro-Jack-as-Joker comments, and they pretty much are the same. So you should be the 10 millionth person to bring up similar points. And you know what? It's perfectly normal, because many people agree on these points, and they are valid. Why the "Jack not being volatile enough for the role" is invalid, is beyond me.

 

[mad-sci]

Edit: It was Mad-Sci who made that comment, and his comment about "Barely any conversion of Jack Napier to Joker," is just as pity. Napier was sane, he dressed slick, and was a mobster who wants to take over Grissam's spot, he thought of himself as the "future." He was very serious. When he became The Joker, he went insane, was driven off the deep end, he dressed like a clown, laughed like a maniac, and killed people in his "pleasurable" ways. The Joker wants to stand out and will do whatever he wants to when he sees fit. Napier was laid back, he was patient and was waiting for the right time to off his boss.

What I mean by the 'lack of conversion between Napier and Joker' is just like the criticism of another of Nicholson's roles (in the Shining, where critics and some fans alike complained that there was was something 'off' about his character BEFORE he even went to stay in the hotel).


Jack Napier may have been a laid back, vain person, but at the same time there were already some 'Joker' characteristics beginning to emerge. Witness his mirror scene with Alicia (where we first see his 'dead' eyes), followed by the Eckhart confrontation (when he's first called a 'psycho', BEFORE the accident). Then you have the shooting in the factory - in front of the police (who can see his face and hear him clearly), he KILLS A COP without any remorse or fear of prosecution. That's ANOTHER Joker characteristic (Remember that this is BEFORE he converts).

Then look at Napier's motivations. First, he wants to get the girl (Grissom's gal). Then he wants to take charge of the mob in Gotham. Finally, he wants to 'run' Gotham, in his own way.


When the Joker is born, what happens? First, Grissom is killed (albeit for revenge) and the mob is taken over by Joker. Then, he gets the girl (first Grissom's, then another 'blonde'). Finally, he plans to take control of the city and run it his own way.


In terms of motivation, the Joker is still similar to Jack Napier (although admittedly, he IS more deranged). However, the fact that Napier was slightly psycho to begin with makes his bleaching accident more a physical deformation than a psychological one. It could be argued that B89's Joker is nothing more than a 'crazier' Jack Napier (a psycho gangster) than a character in his own right.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

DocLathropBrown: keeping the SHH streets clean of idiots who think they have a clue.

 

[Gianakin_]

DocLathropBrown: keeping the SHH streets clean of idiots who think they have a clue.

Really open-minded. Bravo.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Besides Jack being in his 50s at the time and Joker being the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents, I had no problem with Jack's Joker. I thought he was near perfect. Visual look, attire, and characterization was perfect. If only he had been around the same age as he was in Cuckcoo's Nest.

Jack Nicholson's Joker is still the ONLY comic book villain in history to ever make the AFI list of top villains.

Agreed.

Thats not to say I'm not looking forward to seeing Ledger, but Jack I think, will always be my number1 Joker.

 

[raleagh]

Agreed.

Thats not to say I'm not looking forward to seeing Ledger, but Jack I think, will always be my number1 Joker.

dont you mean "number1-aaa.....guy....."?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I'm not given to labelling anyone a particular idiot (not meaning it, anyway), but what I did, I did not to "own" Mr. LOL, but just to show him that his arguments are weak.

Out of anyone else here, Mr. LOL has a superiority complex and he's a jerk. In his very first posts, he and I clashed and he showed me no respect, going so far as to speak about me "behind my back" without me in the conversation. Every time he gets sufficiently called out, he leaves the thread. He's a pompous and arrogent jerk; an opinion nazi. He behaves as if he's right and the rest of the board is wrong if they have a different opinion. Aside from that He's not overtly unfair.

Gianakin, you speak the truth. If somebody doesn't like Jack, they don't like Jack. That's fine. But if you're going to argue about it like you think your points hold water, you'd better make them sound arguments. If you just say you don't like him, that's fine. But to try and denounce something being poor as a fact? You'd better have some valid complaints.

And hey, I don't condone my groupies. I make no bones about their bias. :P

 

[Gianakin_]

I'm not given to labelling anyone a particular idiot (not meaning it, anyway), but what I did, I did not to "own" Mr. LOL, but just to show him that his arguments are weak.

I know, you are not that kind of poster, DLB.

Gianakin, you speak the truth. If somebody doesn't like Jack, they don't like Jack. That's fine. But if you're going to argue about it like you think your points hold water, you'd better make them sound arguments. If you just say you don't like him, that's fine. But to try and denounce something being poor as a fact? You'd better have some valid complaints.

Fair enough. I still stand by my opinion of not enough volatility and consider it valid. Also, like I said in my first post of the thread, even when I was a kid, Joker didn't click me as the Penguin and Catwoman in the movies. So, you could say my initial and truest reaction was that: I just didn't find him perfect. However, in that same post I explained my philosophy and my tastes in acting, so there you have it. The non-volatility factor is always takn into account in ANY movie, not just B89. I have no pro-Nolan/ anti-Burton agendas here, I think I'm making it clearer day by day.
Finally, I don't think I ever presented anything here as a fact, but as my own personal opinion. In fact, my last few posts were made just because I felt there was an atmosphere of the factual "Jack IS Joker" kind. I don't believe that I have ever been dogmatic, in this thread at least.

And hey, I don't condone my groupies. I make no bones about their bias. :P

What can I say? You seem to have a very loyal fanbase. Maybe you can add things to your posts and release them 30 years after they were made to get some money (ok, that was too lame a joke).

 

[Penismightier]

His post was very articulate and most of his points are dead on. But if one doesn't like Jack as Joker, you really can't change his/ her mind (and in danger of being misunderstood, I liked him, but I don't praise him).
I could raise MANY points why Transformers could very well be one of the worst movies cinema has ever defacated, but no matter how good they are, some will like it, even if they agree with them (like some of my friends). If you can't accept that, well, pitty.

Just so you know, I wasn't talking about you when I said put a lot of people in their place. I was generally talking about the people who ******e Nolan non-stop and hate Jack's Joker because they're too young to have proper perspective or they just love Nolan too much to consider other possibilities. You do not fall into either category. You have always stated your opinion on Jack's performance eloquently.

 

[Gianakin_]

Just so you know, I wasn't talking about you when I said put a lot of people in their place. I was generally talking about the people who ******e Nolan non-stop and hate Jack's Joker because they're too young to have proper perspective or they just love Nolan too much to consider other possibilities. You do not fall into either category. You have always stated your opinion on Jack's performance eloquently.

Fair enough. Previous post retracted (but my Transformer comment still standst:). Moving on!

 

[GoogleMe94]

kinda makes you wonder, just how old are hype posters? i cringe to think that most of them are 12-13 year olds who prolly havent even seen any of the older films.

 

[El Payaso]

What I mean by the 'lack of conversion between Napier and Joker' is just like the criticism of another of Nicholson's roles (in the Shining, where critics and some fans alike complained that there was was something 'off' about his character BEFORE he even went to stay in the hotel).


Jack Napier may have been a laid back, vain person, but at the same time there were already some 'Joker' characteristics beginning to emerge. Witness his mirror scene with Alicia (where we first see his 'dead' eyes), followed by the Eckhart confrontation (when he's first called a 'psycho', BEFORE the accident). Then you have the shooting in the factory - in front of the police (who can see his face and hear him clearly), he KILLS A COP without any remorse or fear of prosecution. That's ANOTHER Joker characteristic (Remember that this is BEFORE he converts).

Then look at Napier's motivations. First, he wants to get the girl (Grissom's gal). Then he wants to take charge of the mob in Gotham. Finally, he wants to 'run' Gotham, in his own way.


When the Joker is born, what happens? First, Grissom is killed (albeit for revenge) and the mob is taken over by Joker. Then, he gets the girl (first Grissom's, then another 'blonde'). Finally, he plans to take control of the city and run it his own way.


In terms of motivation, the Joker is still similar to Jack Napier (although admittedly, he IS more deranged). However, the fact that Napier was slightly psycho to begin with makes his bleaching accident more a physical deformation than a psychological one. It could be argued that B89's Joker is nothing more than a 'crazier' Jack Napier (a psycho gangster) than a character in his own right.

That has a simple explanation: he is the same person dude.

The desfigurement of Napier unleashed something that was there. It couldn't have unleashed something that wasn't there before; ex nihilo nihil.

That said, Joker was quite different from Jack to state he performed both characters the same way.

 

[Penismightier]

That has a simple explanation: he is the same person dude.

The desfigurement of Napier unleashed something that was there. It couldn't have unleashed something that wasn't there before; ex nihilo nihil.

That said, Joker was quite different from Jack to state he performed both characters the same way.

Sometimes I think some people expect a different actor to emerge from the chemical bath. One with a completely different personality.

 

[bullets]

you cant knock jack nicholson's performance here.