The Dark Knight TDK vs Batman '89 Joker Comparison

[MysterioMenace]

I hate how people always make Jack and Heath so drastically different. Granted there are personality differences, but some people make them out to be far too drastic. They have far more in common.

Heath can be seen giddily skipping after Batman crashes the Batpod, very akin to how Jack dances through his film. It’s much more subtle, but it’s there. Heath and Jack both take down mob bosses for power, even having a relatively similar crime lord meeting scene. Heath admittedly doesn’t have as many gimmicky moments, but arguably his most popular scene was the gimmicky pencil trick. He’s also got the cell phone, fake smoke-bomb grenades, and coat full of explosives. You can even see a brightly colored gift wrapped box aboard the ship. Heath’s just as full of quips as Jack. People make Joker humor out to be campy these days, but truth is that Heath’s got it too. Humor makes the character arguably more frightening and Nolan retained it. Why people seem to argue that Joker shouldn’t be funny anymore is beyond me…especially when Heath and Jack both managed to be darkly hysterical and simultaneously frightening.

They’re both shown using and killing their own men for sadistic pleasure. They both do the staple Joker broadcasts of television, announcing their crimes. Whilst perhaps Jacks Joker appears frightened of Batman atop the cathedral, I think it’s an obvious ruse. He’s also holding his own against Batman shooting down on him in the Batwing, something Bale did not do to Heath! Nicholson’s Joker has balls, anyone arguing otherwise needs to watch 1989 again, and this scene debatably proves it more then anything Heath did. Even the Batpod “Hit me” scene in Dark Knight is an obvious homage to that segment from ‘89.

Then there’s that “Jack’s not crazy enough” argument that holds no real merit. What the hell? So frying mob bosses and talking to their corpse is normal? Homicidally gassing innocent citizens isn’t crazy? Killing your second in command just…because…was rational? The list goes on and on. People need to stop mindlessly joining the Heath bandwagon. Genuinely liking Heath better or not, claiming Jack wasn’t crazy…is a poor argument. They’re both great versions of the character, both serious, frightening, and darkly twisted takes. Heath even said he has great respect for Jack and didn't feel he could ever live up to his preformance. Heath himself loved Jacks Joker! Why debate superiority? Nuff said.

 

[deathfromabove]

 

[JaD]

 

[Evil_Meanie]

I'm sure that this thread will inevitably go bad, but what the heck, I haven't had the privilege of having this discussion on these boards yet.

I prefer Jack's Joker, plain and simple. It's more like The Joker that I enjoy in the comics, and it's more like the character that I enjoyed on the Animated Series. I respect Heath's performance, totally. But I think that the sensitivity surrounding the role, and the absolute bashing that has been directed at Jack Nicholson by some of the more abrasive fans has been absolutely and totally absurd. Nicholson's Joker was a wonderfully fun acting performance to watch, and nothing that anyone does in the future will ever tarnish that. Did Christopher Lee's new, darker, more evil, more sadistic take on Dracula invalidate Lugosi's? No. Both portrayals are seen as defining, however neither one invalidates the other. I don't get the mentality that just because Heath made a great Joker, Jack suddenly becomes a fat guy who was clowning around and playing himself on set.

I just think that in the quest to modernize the character, Christopher Nolan lost a great deal of the old charm. But that doesn't mean that Nolan's modernization wasn't done brilliantly. He took an intentionally ridiculously over the top character and managed to adapt it into a realistic, gritty setting, and still keep the character recognizable and retain most of his core aspects.

All in all, it's really just a matter of personal preference. Both portrayals are very good, and very valid. It just depends on which Joker you prefer. I'm not surprised that Heath's version has struck such a chord with mainstream society....it's really tapped into the imagination for a truly frightening villain for this era. It's not really my cup of tea for The Joker, but I think that the most disappointing thing for me walking out of the cinema on opening night was the knowledge that I would never get to see Heath revisit the role. It blows that the further exploits of the Heath Joker will probably be left to fan fiction.

The great thing about The Joker is the fact that the character, like Batman, is a timeless one, and I can only hope that I live long enough to see a new director take up the camera and reimagine him once again. I'm sure it'll cause quite the online fuss, too...

 

[El Payaso]

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

AFTER doesn't change the fact he used the girl against the bat. Accept it.

And yes, by "Macho Joker" I meant "Womanizer." Let's not forget Alicia (Jerry Hall).

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

Well, "Heath's was [more brutal] and that is what makes him a superior character" didn't sound as "ONE" of the reasons.

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.

What's the funny part of electrocuting a guy right in front of you, touching his hand in the process and being surrounded by the smoke and the smell of his charred meat? Absolutely nothing. Now, naturally you had the Joker laughing and making jokes about it, because... you know... for a man called JOKE-r, that's his thing. In fact, that's the main thing that has characterized the character; he mixes the macabre and the humour.

But the fact itself was not funny at all.

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.

It is as brutal in fact. The corpse was half exposing the skull with some charred meat on it and it was still smoking. It was far from a cartoon (but back in the day and even today you can't go much further in explicit depiction in a movie that pretends to be a financial success). But then again you had this JOKE-r guy joking about it. Talking to a charring corpse? Excuse me but at that point carving smiles is perfectly in the same league.

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.

Man, you can't interpret a scene properly, much less could you help someone else if that were the case.

Batman told the Joker "I'm gonna KILL you" before revealing the reason. So, what's the difference between knowing or ignoring why. For the Joker, Batman was as dangerous before or after this revelation (therefore when he punched him, he was punching a guy that told in his face he was going to kill him). But naturally the Joker was disconcerted about this piece of news. And then out of fear... he made the glasses jokes? It seems that his urinal incontinence was not such. He was just making time thinking how to escape. As I've said, this Joker knows that a living Joker can enjoy and do more harm than a dead one. Plus, Legder's Joker didn't have to worry about it since he knew for sure Bale's Batman wouldn't kill him. On the contrary, his whole purpose was to make Batman kill him in order to corrupt him, that's why he laughed his way down from the building; it was his ultimate personal victory.

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

Figures or not you're still misinterpreting it.

And how many they don't.

How many actually? Other than one Joker had to worry about Batman killing him and the other didn't.

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.

That makes him a man happy about corrupting what was considered the ultimate incorrutible man. Something that Nicholson's Joker was far from being concerned about.

Nevertheless when Batman was firing missiles at him, Nicholson's Joker didn't even blinked. Brave. In Joker's case, crazily brave. Another similirity.

Sure seems like it.

In fact everybody was just mentioning the similarities. It was only after your bashing that I started to correct you. And never by bashing Ledger's Joker back.

I hardly think they are "misconceptions".

And that's what makes them "MISconceptions."

They are valid conclusions based upon clear and evident scenes from the film.

Which are hardly subjective interpretations of it. Nicholson's Joker was far from begging for his life. He kept laughing at Batman but naturally wondering what was Batman talking about.

I guess it comes with the territory. If expressing my honest opinion about something is deemed as bashing then so be it.

Before that, it was being a fair comparision.

Plus, it certainly isn't any worse than the "bashing" Nolan's films receive in the Misc. Batman Films forum.

What? So you were trying to "restore the universe balance" here? How about some bashing-free discussion no matter what the rest of the world does?

I never see you "defending" Nolan's films as vigorously as you do the Burton films over her.

Then you haven't read all muy posts. TDK I defend it to death but I admit it, I consider BB quite flawed. But again, I'm flattered and all, but I don't want to be the measure of what your post are going to be. Now if the thread is supposed to be about comparing similarities and differences and not to rate the characters, then I behave.

Heck, if you are so "fair and balanced", why didn't you try addressing the "misconceptions" about Ledger's Joker in this thread?

What misconception about Ledger has been there actually?

Don't try and tell me you're not playing favorites here because you most certainly are.

Nope. I've never bashed Ledger's Joker, I've just defended what was wrongly attacked. If somebody comes and say Ledger was not the Joker because he was a face-painter I'll let him know how that's not defining what Joker is. Not after TDK at least.

"This...will not end well." Self-fulfilled prophecy.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

Ledger's Joker didn't want to be killed but only by Batman because that way Batman would be corrupted.

Jack's Joker didn't have that because Keaton's Batman had no problem in killing. Therefore Joker's own death didn't mean anything but that: the end of his days.


Totally different situations.

I hate how people always make Jack and Heath so drastically different. Granted there are personality differences, but some people make them out to be far too drastic. They have far more in common.

They have LOTS in common. I remember how I wowed at the scene where Ledger's Joker set the money on fire. Then I remembered that Nicholson's Joker gave away his money in order to attract people of Gotham and gas them to death. And as you say, the HIT ME - Come on gruesome son of a b!tch scenes. Similar to death.

 

[Salemdog]

Just my two cents so to speak.

I'm a fan of both. I saw both in the theaters and remember Jack's portayal very well and have even compared it recently. Now I can go back and start with the origins and the like but I won't. I will just compare the "Jokers".

As a few have pointed out the similarities of scenes are glaringly there. But the one difference I find that stands out consistantly performance wise is one thing. When I see Jack's Joker I see Jack's Joker. I see Jack there everytime. And I have seen enough Nicholson films over my years to know he consistantly played himself as he got older. Much like John Wayne did. With Heath I saw Heath's Joker. If you didn't know it was him behind the makeup then you may not have figured it out. (I know a few non-fans who didn't know till I told them) Like I said. I like both. Jack's was a dandy and a psycho while Heath's was a psycho with a few dandy tendencies. Both were the Joker. Just at different levels.

 

[ChocheTheHero]

It´s like:

Jack Nicholson. Heath Ledger. A blank paper for the two actors.

"Now, draw your Joker"

 

[percoset]

Ledger's Joker didn't want to be killed but only by Batman because that way Batman would be corrupted.

Jack's Joker didn't have that because Keaton's Batman had no problem in killing. Therefore Joker's own death didn't mean anything but that: the end of his days.


Totally different situations.



They have LOTS in common. I remember how I wowed at the scene where Ledger's Joker set the money on fire. Then I remembered that Nicholson's Joker gave away his money in order to attract people of Gotham and gas them to death. And as you say, the HIT ME - Come on gruesome son of a b!tch scenes. Similar to death.

Actually, he gave away counterfeit money with his face on it.

 

[El Payaso]

Actually, he gave away counterfeit money with his face on it.

Any frame of the movie that can corroborate this?

 

[The Joker]

This thread =

 

[percoset]

Any frame of the movie that can corroborate this?

Actually it was a deleted scene.

It refers back to Vicki asking him what he wants, "My face on the one dollar bill."

 

[dark_b]

Actually it was a deleted scene.

It refers back to Vicki asking him what he wants, "My face on the one dollar bill."

if its a deleted scene its not in the official relaesed movie which means that the face is not on the money. just because they filmed it that doesnt mean that its inside.

 

[percoset]

if its a deleted scene its not in the official relaesed movie which means that the face is not on the money. just because they filmed it that doesnt mean that its inside.

Hence me calling it a deleted scene.

 

[Fenrir]

AFTER doesn't change the fact he used the girl against the bat. Accept it. And yes, by "Macho Joker" I meant "Womanizer." Let's not forget Alicia (Jerry Hall).

Uhh, so? The fact that he chased a girl in the first place made him predictable to his enemies. It was how Grissom was able to frame him. It was how Batman was there on time to save Vale. This is another reason Ledger's Joker was superior - his unpredictability. Except for a bare few instances, no one in the entire film had any idea where he was going to strike next and how.

Well, "Heath's was [more brutal] and that is what makes him a superior character" didn't sound as "ONE" of the reasons.

Funny how didn't miss that one line but failed to comprehend the rest of my post which very much included the other reasons as well.

What's the funny part of electrocuting a guy right in front of you, touching his hand in the process and being surrounded by the smoke and the smell of his charred meat? Absolutely nothing.

If cartoonish violence doesn't make you laugh, then it's not my problem. I mean come on, it looked ridiculous, that a hand buzzer could turn someone into charcoal within twenty seconds.

Now, naturally you had the Joker laughing and making jokes about it, because... you know... for a man called JOKE-r, that's his thing. In fact, that's the main thing that has characterized the character; he mixes the macabre and the humour.

You're not reading. I never had any issue with him making jokes about it. That one part was exactly spot on, what bothered me was the silliness of the idea and how it was executed.

But the fact itself was not funny at all. It is as brutal in fact. The corpse was half exposing the skull with some charred meat on it and it was still smoking. It was far from a cartoon (but back in the day and even today you can't go much further in explicit depiction in a movie that pretends to be a financial success). But then again you had this JOKE-r guy joking about it. Talking to a charring corpse? Excuse me but at that point carving smiles is perfectly in the same league.

Like I said, I can't help myself laughing at cartoonish violence. And Jack's Joker joking about people he killed is hardly a great compliment, considering Heath's did the same as well.

Man, you can't interpret a scene properly, much less could you help someone else if that were the case.

Batman told the Joker "I'm gonna KILL you" before revealing the reason. So, what's the difference between knowing or ignoring why. For the Joker, Batman was as dangerous before or after this revelation (therefore when he punched him, he was punching a guy that told in his face he was going to kill him).

Uhh, no, he assumed Batman was probably pissed off and said that as a threat, in anger. That is why he tries to reason with Batman by calling him an "idiot", by trying to make him feel responsible and guilty, for creating the Joker. But when Batman reveals that Jack killed his parents, Joker knew he was being serious and he actually had a very legitimate reason for killing him. I mean, if he wasn't scared s**tless, he should've been cracking jokes instead of offering explanations that he was just a kid when he killed Batman's parents.

But naturally the Joker was disconcerted about this piece of news. And then out of fear... he made the glasses jokes?

Yes, he made the glass joke...after he was explained himself and seeing that it was doing no good. Hence, the glasses "joke" was his final defense mechanism. And like you said, at that point, he was just buying some time until his chopper arrived. But that doesn't change the fact that he was terrified of the prospect of Batman killing him. And it shows in his final moments how much he really was afraid of death.

It seems that his urinal incontinence was not such. He was just making time thinking how to escape. As I've said, this Joker knows that a living Joker can enjoy and do more harm than a dead one.

Uhh, so? That still makes him a coward. He was terrified of death. It showed that he had something to lose. Besides, you reasoning is downright absurd "a living Joker can enjoy and do more harm than a dead one"? That almost makes the B89 Joker sound shallow and materialistic.

Plus, Legder's Joker didn't have to worry about it since he knew for sure Bale's Batman wouldn't kill him. On the contrary, his whole purpose was to make Batman kill him in order to corrupt him, that's why he laughed his way down from the building; it was his ultimate personal victory.

Perhaps you didn't realize you contradicted yourself in this statement. First you say Ledger's Joker didn't have to worry about since was so sure Batman wouldn't kill him. But then say his whole purpose was to make Batman kill him? Uhhh, see a logical disconnect here?

Batman killing him would've been his ultimately victory, sure, and that is precisely why he WANTED Batman to kill him. Ledger's Joker was never that sure that Batman wouldn't kill him until the final scene where Batman saves his life "you TRULY are incorruptible, aren't you?". Before that, the Joker thought Batman can be corrupted like everyone else, that is why he lays all these elaborate schemes by killing his love and turning his friends into enemies, to drive him to his breaking point.

Figures or not you're still misinterpreting it.

You can talk to me about misinterpretation AFTER you stop contradicting yourself and learning the proper interpretation of TDK scenes.

How many actually? Other than one Joker had to worry about Batman killing him and the other didn't.

OK...

Heath's Joker was a more serious character and less of a clown than Jack's Joker.

He was far more unpredictable than Jack's Joker.

Heath's Joker didn't give a rat's ass about women. Jack's Joker had a tendency to oogle over them.

Heath's Joker despised the mob, saw them as petty criminals. Jack's Joker wanted to control the mob and take Grissom's place.

Heath's Joker saw Batman as his counterpart, his mirror image, a freak like himself in a world filled with hypocrites. Jack's Joker saw Batman as an adversary.

That makes him a man happy about corrupting what was considered the ultimate incorrutible man. Something that Nicholson's Joker was far from being concerned about.

Because Nicholson's Joker was more concerned about petty schemes and silly jokes. Heath's Joker was all about his personal battle with Batman's ideals. That is what made their relationship far more interesting than the cliched revenge story in B89.

Nevertheless when Batman was firing missiles at him, Nicholson's Joker didn't even blinked. Brave. In Joker's case, crazily brave. Another similirity.

That scene was a joke. And a total contradiction. First it is shown the Burton's Batman mind killing. If so, it is hilarious how downright incompetent he was in that scene, that even with all the advanced targeting systems and weaponry he wasn't able to lay scratch on the Joker. And how does the Joker take him down? With a revolver having an elongated barrel. See? Cartoonish violence (but if you call it "BRUTAL", 'is cool, bro, 'is cool)

The only way that scene makes sense is that Batman was trying to intimidate him and the Joker called his bluff. Otherwise, that scene was ridiculous, and a disgrace to Batman's abilities.

In fact everybody was just mentioning the similarities. It was only after your bashing that I started to correct you. And never by bashing Ledger's Joker back.

Like I said, it was my honest personal opinion. You want me censure myself for the sake of petty pleasantries for a bloody movie character?

And that's what makes them "MISconceptions."

Hardly.

Which are hardly subjective interpretations of it. Nicholson's Joker was far from begging for his life. He kept laughing at Batman but naturally wondering what was Batman talking about.

Uh, no, he knew what Batman was talking about. That is why he was terrified of him. Even his laughter was more of a chilly, nervous laughter and his was voice was shaking. All signs of a person being afraid.

Before that, it was being a fair comparision.

So I am being unfair by expressing how I feel Heath's Joker was superior to Jack's? Is that it?

What? So you were trying to "restore the universe balance" here? How about some bashing-free discussion no matter what the rest of the world does?

I would hardly call my opinion of Jack's Joker as bashing. I am providing valid reasons for my opinion, not just making trollish posts to push people's buttons.

Then you haven't read all muy posts. TDK I defend it to death but I admit it, I consider BB quite flawed. But again, I'm flattered and all, but I don't want to be the measure of what your post are going to be. Now if the thread is supposed to be about comparing similarities and differences and not to rate the characters, then I behave.

I don't see how your constant rating on BB's flaws is any different than my "bashing" of Nicholson's Joker.

What misconception about Ledger has been there actually?

Read the thread again.

Nope. I've never bashed Ledger's Joker, I've just defended what was wrongly attacked. If somebody comes and say Ledger was not the Joker because he was a face-painter I'll let him know how that's not defining what Joker is. Not after TDK at least.

I never said you bashed Ledger's Joker. I said you were certainly playing favorites. You may not dislike Heath's Joker like I do Jack's, but it is clear that you lean more towards one than the other.

"This...will not end well." Self-fulfilled prophecy.

Hallelujah!

 

[Fenrir]

Ledger's Joker didn't want to be killed but only by Batman because that way Batman would be corrupted.

I guess you missed the scene in which he was ready to set off dozens off grenades just keep the mobsters in line. He was willing to go to any lengths to get his way, even if it meant getting HIMSELF killed. That was how crazy he was.

 

[deathfromabove]

you guys are arguing opinion and preference.

stop telling the other they just dont get it. you are confusing facts with opinions.



i will say this, to anyone already familiar with tim burton when they saw batman 89, the joy buzzer/corpse scene was not brutal or scary IMO, it was kinda over the top and well tim burton-y. i mean the guys face turned glowing pink and then bam! he was a crispy beetlejuice extra. hardly the same thing as knife play imo.



to me that is really the biggest difference is the tone and execution of the characters. even tim burton has said as much. if you dont think tim and jack's take was naturally a bit lighter/sillier than you either need to understand the work of tim burton better or you are being intellectually dishonest. go watch the museum scene for reference.

p.s. the fake money was in the script and was in fact a deleted scene. if you want to include that fact or not is up to you i guess.

 

[Sonic1002]

jk, quote wouldn't work...nvm

 

[MysterioMenace]

I guess you missed the scene in which he was ready to set off dozens off grenades just keep the mobsters in line. He was willing to go to any lengths to get his way, even if it meant getting HIMSELF killed. That was how crazy he was.

That's a hypothetical and a completely unreasonable argument. So you prefer Heath, we get it. Jump on the mindless bandwagon, join the prepubescent posers that only care about brain-dead violence and will forget about Batman in two years, and bash every Joker that's not Heath. Fine! Doesn't bother me. You don't have to agree with my opinion, you’re entitled to your own, though I also prefer Heath when it comes to film Jokers, but I don't feel this incisive need to mindlessly bash the iconic comic book Clown Prince of Crime or Jack Nicholsons vastly more accurate portrayal of him. Heath is only a very small fraction of the Joker legacy and nowhere near the only respectable, frightening, intelligent, or enjoyable version of the character. So if you’re going to criticize Jack, do it with an amount of logic and reason. With statements like this…you blatantly don’t know what the hell you're talking about. Check your glaring bias at the door. You don't know he would have pulled the string. You’re making a brash assumption that he would’ve. Most likely scenario is that those were actually the trick smoke-bombs he used in the bank and not real explosives whatsoever. They certainly appear identical. Nothing points to him actually having the balls to do it at that moment, there was too much he wanted done to just sacrifice himself there, though he says he has no schemes...he's lying and actually has quite a bit, but it was merely a threat...and possibly not even dangerous. Your comment is completely without merit.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I prefer Jack's Joker, plain and simple. It's more like The Joker that I enjoy in the comics, and it's more like the character that I enjoyed on the Animated Series.

I disagree. I would say that Hamill's Joker is pretty much my favorite version of the character, and the only things that made Jack's Joker like him were the use of gags and his physical appearance. Personality wise, he's much more like Heath's Joker. I could never see Jack's Joker, after having his life threatened by Batman, respond by saying, "Oh, Batman, if you had the guts for that kind of fun, you would have done it years ago!" And how he just cackled his lungs out when an entire amusement part was blowing up around him, even though it would likely lead to the end of his life. To both the Ledger and Hamill Jokers, death is hilarious no matter what. Death is only funny to Jack's Joker if he's not the one dying.

I don't get the mentality that just because Heath made a great Joker, Jack suddenly becomes a fat guy who was clowning around and playing himself on set.

I know there are some band wagoners who are actually of this mentality, but I do hope you realize that there are people who were never fond of Jack's interpretation from the very beginning, and were stating a dislike for his version years and years before TDK (or Batman Begins, for that matter) was even announced. There was never a time when Jack's version was the be all, end all of the character, despite what some believe. It's not as if from 1989-2008, Jack's Joker was universally loved, then TDK comes out and people suddenly hate him.

I just think that in the quest to modernize the character, Christopher Nolan lost a great deal of the old charm.

I'm sure there are plenty of others who said the same thing about what Denny O'Neil and Neil Adams did with the character in the 70's.

All in all, it's really just a matter of personal preference. Both portrayals are very good, and very valid. It just depends on which Joker you prefer. I'm not surprised that Heath's version has struck such a chord with mainstream society....it's really tapped into the imagination for a truly frightening villain for this era. It's not really my cup of tea for The Joker, but I think that the most disappointing thing for me walking out of the cinema on opening night was the knowledge that I would never get to see Heath revisit the role. It blows that the further exploits of the Heath Joker will probably be left to fan fiction.

The great thing about The Joker is the fact that the character, like Batman, is a timeless one, and I can only hope that I live long enough to see a new director take up the camera and reimagine him once again. I'm sure it'll cause quite the online fuss, too...

Agreed!

You don't have to agree with my opinion, you’re entitled to your own, though I also prefer Heath when it comes to film Jokers, but I don't feel this incisive need to mindlessly bash the iconic comic book Clown Prince of Crime or Jack Nicholsons vastly more accurate portrayal of him.

Although I agree with the point you're making, I disagree about Nicholson's being more accurate. It wasn't more accurate by a long shot. Nor was Heath's version more accurate than Jack's. They were portraying Jokers of completely different eras, and each was very accurate to the eras they were intended to portray. Heath's Joker was far more accurate than Jack's in some areas, and vice versa.

 

[deathfromabove]

I disagree. I would say that Hamill's Joker is pretty much my favorite version of the character, and the only things that made Jack's Joker like him were the use of gags and his physical appearance. Personality wise, he's much more like Heath's Joker. I could never see Jack's Joker, after having his life threatened by Batman, respond by saying, "Oh, Batman, if you had the guts for that kind of fun, you would have done it years ago!" And how he just cackled his lungs out when an entire amusement part was blowing up around him, even though it would likely lead to the end of his life. To both the Ledger and Hamill Jokers, death is hilarious no matter what. Death is only funny to Jack's Joker if he's not the one dying.


I know there are some band wagoners who are actually of this mentality, but I do hope you realize that there are people who were never fond of Jack's interpretation from the very beginning, and were stating a dislike for his version years and years before TDK (or Batman Begins, for that matter) was even announced. There was never a time when Jack's version was the be all, end all of the character, despite what some believe. It's not as if from 1989-2008, Jack's Joker was universally loved, then TDK comes out and people suddenly hate him.

agreed. some just cant believe that there were people actually disapointed in 1989.

I'm sure there are plenty of others who said the same thing about what Denny O'Neil and Neil Adams did with the character in the 70's. Agreed!Although I agree with the point you're making, I disagree about Nicholson's being more accurate. It wasn't more accurate by a long shot. Nor was Heath's version more accurate than Jack's. They were portraying Jokers of completely different eras, and each was very accurate to the eras they were intended to portray. Heath's Joker was far more accurate than Jack's in some areas, and vice versa.

great post.

 

[MysterioMenace]

Although I agree with the point you're making, I disagree about Nicholson's being more accurate. It wasn't more accurate by a long shot. Nor was Heath's version more accurate than Jack's. They were portraying Jokers of completely different eras, and each was very accurate to the eras they were intended to portray. Heath's Joker was far more accurate than Jack's in some areas, and vice versa.

Well then (no offence) you mustn’t read many comic books. Jack’s stems more modern classics then anything. I.E. Killing Joke or O’Neil Joker. They’re now fairly older, but comparatively speaking to the age of the mythos, they’re relatively modern. That Joker displayed that dichotomy of being darkly humorous and simultaneously homicidally creepy. It’s that perfect clown/killer symmetry that makes Killing Joke legendary for the best Joker story ever written.

So what do they have in common? Jack’s sadistically funny, bleached by chemical bath, and even using his trademark laughing gas. The only difference is the added mobster back-story and him being the Wayne killer, which isn’t so much a departure as it is an addition. He even physically resembles the character more with his short hair and clean-cut appearance. Heath’s more the original Kane/Finger vision in personality. He’s got the knives and less humorous tone, but he's still got quite a bit of modern characteristics blending in too. He’s still funny, albeit not trying as hard. Costume’s essentially the basic Joker look, but Heath Ledger doesn’t resemble iconic Joker much whatsoever. That’s where the liberties were taken via make-up, Glasgow smile, long hair and the sort. Whilst I’m not claiming that Heath’s necessarily extremely inaccurate, there’s more then a few elements that are straight from the comics, claiming that he’s no more or less accurate then Jack’s is to be ignorant. They took far more liberties and left far more out with Dark Knight Joker. I’ll give you that some things that were merely adequate with one were made up for with the other though, I think combined they make the perfect comic book Joker on film that separately they come just inches away from.

Also there are also many examples (throughout history) of Joker running away from Batman due to fear of being caught. Even modern examples of that. This isn’t inaccurate. He’s a manic to begin with, I believe he wants Batman to kill him, other days he doesn’t. Sometimes he wants to kill Batman, others times he feels he never could. He does the very same in Dark Knight. He flip-flops. I say this because this is the most consistent with his character: He’s inconsistent. He’s at his most intellectually insane when he’s completely and utterly sporadic. This is purely why he’s Batman’s arch foe and greatest threat. Batman’s mastered the contingency plan, the Dark Knight detective. He methodically studies your every character defect and frequency until he’s borderline obsessively turned you into a Petri dish. How do you study one that’s so chaotically infrequent and a habitual liar to boot? All you know is that you never really know what exactly to expect. He’s entirely the yang to Batman’s grounded order. This inconsistency in his behavior has been consistent in about all Jokers, Jack’s and Heath’s interpretations the case in point.The difference is Nolan just told the audience about it, whereas Burton made the audience figure it out for themselves…which they’re rarely able to do.

I know there are some band wagoners who are actually of this mentality, but I do hope you realize that there are people who were never fond of Jack's interpretation from the very beginning, and were stating a dislike for his version years and years before TDK (or Batman Begins, for that matter) was even announced. There was never a time when Jack's version was the be all, end all of the character, despite what some believe. It's not as if from 1989-2008, Jack's Joker was universally loved, then TDK comes out and people suddenly hate him.

Funny! I have noticed exactly what you claim didn’t happen. I’ve clearly seen Jack beloved…only to suddenly be considered lesser by newb kids running rampage on Batman fan sites the second Heath Ledger died, then Dark Knight was released after that. It’s undeniably a fad. Of course there’s always been people that disliked Jack since his Joker shot on screen in 1989, but that doesn't explain the undeniable surge of bashing that happened after the death and then release of the film. Coincidence? I think not…I remember a time when Batman the Animated Series Joker was considered top notch. Now these violence craving teens come in and think he’s corny, any amount of humor to the character’s somehow cheesy. But I remember a different time when everyone felt just the opposite, then Nolan releases his feelings on the character and suddenly everyone always felt the exact same way about him too. Now bang guns, giant hammers, and Joker venom’s considered unacceptable by that crowd?!? Pssh! BULL! They’re still used in the comics, in funny yet frightening ways, to this very day! Kevin Smith releases his review…and suddenly everyone’s copying what he says literally word for word but passing it off as their own. Why? Because so few have an original thought about Joker anymore. So few have it right, they’re just sheparded into the flock of their choice. I’d guess that over half the Heath heathens haven’t graced an original concept in their lifetime, the type of person that has to wear the fashionable flavor of the month to be cool. They’re only carbon copying everything that’s gone before into a ****ish amalgam of unoriginality and recycled thoughts. That's exactly what Heath didn't want to be when making his Joker! If you ask me, he'd be ashamed of most the people that praised him...

So many people talk about the Joker like they’ve studied him for ages. People like to think they know what they’re talking about because they’ve read one lone comic book or watched a single movie. Most people I’ve encountered don’t seem to know crap! Praising Heath doesn’t instantly make you a bandwagon follower, not at all. I’ve praised him myself. It’s the ones that feel this aggressive need to criticize every past version, interpretations of the character that they’re too ignorant to realize his portrayal ironically derives from, that’s ridiculous and frustrating! Without the former Joker, comics, film, and television alike, the ones being bashed today by these designer-labeled dorks, Heath’s wouldn’t even exist. Again…the morals to show some respect for the character. It’s older then (probably) all of us. That’s what we’re discussing here. That immature mentality is disgusting.

Now I also know that's it's hard for you Heath fans to believe, but there's people today also disappointed by Heath Ledger. So what's your point with saying that about Jack in the past? I know a few that disliked Heath on a very personal level. Granted they’re not amongst the majority…but you can’t please everyone one hundred percent of the time. That’s an impossibility. Back in the day Jack’s performance was received just as positively as Heaths was today. He was up for a Golden Globe for the performance, or do you forget, and he didn’t have to die to get that nomination. I don't give a damn about the actors. I care about the caricature, something that will outlast anyone portraying the role. Times change, doesn’t render the past obsolete. People will always love Jack. Others will always loathe. It’s no different with Heath. He didn’t change the world because he played a homicidal clown in a comic book film…

I would estimate that a large majority of these Heath bandwagon people are posers to begin with. They know little about Batman and even less about the comics and diverse history. I’ve talked to morons that blatantly know jack-****, but because nerds never been cooler, they pretend to be Batman encyclopedias and spread misinformation. Freaking designer-labeled dorks, the second comics are no longer “in” they’ll run away like we’ve got the plague.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

They were portraying Jokers of completely different eras, and each was very accurate to the eras they were intended to portray. Heath's Joker was far more accurate than Jack's in some areas, and vice versa.

Agreed 100%.

 

[deathfromabove]

Well then you mustn’t read many comic books. Jack’s derivatives more modern if anything I.E. Killing Joke or Denny O’Neil Joker. He displayed that dichotomy of being darkly humorous and simultaneously homicidally creepy. He’s sadistically funny, bleached by chemical bath, and even using his trademark laughing gas. The only difference is the added mobster back-story and him being the Wayne killer, which isn’t so much a departure as it is an addition. He even physically resembles the character more with his short hair and clean-cut appearance. Heath’s more the original Kane/Finger vision with his knives and less humorous tone, but he's still got quite a bit of modern characteriztics blending in too. Costume’s essentially the basic Joker look, but Heath Ledger doesn’t resemble iconic Joker much whatsoever. That’s where the liberties were taken via make-up, Glasgow smile, long hair and the sort. Whilst I’m not claiming that Heath’s necessarily inaccurate, there’s more then a few elements that are straight from the comics, but to claim that he’s no more or less accurate then Jack’s is to be ignorant. They took far more liberties and left far more out with Dark Knight Joker.




As I have absorbed exactly what you claim didn’t happen. I’ve clearly seen Jack beloved…only to suddenly be considered lesser by newb kids running rampage on Batman fan sites the second Heath Ledger died, then Dark Knight was released after that. There were always people that disliked Jack, but that doesn't explain the undeniable surge that happened after the death and then release of the film. Coincidence? I think not…I remember a time when Batman the Animated Series Joker was considered top notch. Now these violence craving teens come in and think he’s corny, any amount of humor to the character is cheesy. But I remember a different time when everyone felt just the opposite, then Nolan releases his feelings on the character and suddenly everyone always felt the exact same way about him too. Kevin Smith releases his review…and suddenly everyone’s copying what he says literally word for word but passing it off as their own. It’s embarassing. Why? Because so few have an original thought anymore. I’d guess that over half the Heath heathens haven’t graced an original concept in their lifetime, only carbon copying everything that’s gone before into a ****ish amalgam of unoriginality and recycled crap. That's exactly what Heath didn't want to be when making his Joker! He'd be ashamed...

There are people disappointed today by Heath Ledger, so what's your point? I know a few on a very personal level. Granted they’re not the majority, but you can’t please everyone one hundred percent of the time. That’s an impossibility. Back in the day Jack’s performance was received just as positively as Heaths was today. He was up for a Golden Globe for the performance, or do you forget, and he didn’t have to die to get that nomination. So the point is…try to show a little respect. I don't give a damn about the actors. I care about the character, something that will outlast anyone portraying the role. Times change, doesn’t render the past obsolete. People will always love Jack. Others will always loathe. It’s no different with Heath. He didn’t change the world because he played a homicidal clown in a comic book film…

I would estimate that a large majority of these Heath bandwagon people are posers to begin with. They know little about Batman and even less about the comics and diverse history. I’ve talked to morons that blatantly know jack-****, but because nerds never been cooler, they pretend to be Batman encyclopedias and spread misinformation. Freaking designer-labeled dorks, the second comics are no longer “in” they’ll run away like we’ve got the plague. And they're always freaking teenage emo punks for that matter.

you just showed your hand.

and completely cancelled out your above post. and you are ranting.

fyi.

and how is making the joker the wayne's killer not a deviation? go ahead and defend jon peters but thats revisionist nonsense man.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Well then you mustn’t read many comic books. Jack’s derivatives more modern if anything I.E. Killing Joke or Denny O’Neil Joker. He displayed that dichotomy of being darkly humorous and simultaneously homicidally creepy. He’s sadistically funny, bleached by chemical bath, and even using his trademark laughing gas. The only difference is the added mobster back-story and him being the Wayne killer, which isn’t so much a departure as it is an addition. He even physically resembles the character more with his short hair and clean-cut appearance. Heath’s more the original Kane/Finger vision with his knives and less humorous tone, but he's still got quite a bit of modern characteriztics blending in too. Costume’s essentially the basic Joker look, but Heath Ledger doesn’t resemble iconic Joker much whatsoever. That’s where the liberties were taken via make-up, Glasgow smile, long hair and the sort. Whilst I’m not claiming that Heath’s necessarily inaccurate, there’s more then a few elements that are straight from the comics, but to claim that he’s no more or less accurate then Jack’s is to be ignorant. They took far more liberties and left far more out with Dark Knight Joker.

I consider it to be a bit immature to accuse someone of being ignorant of comic books just over a difference of opinion. I've read more Batman comic books than I can remember. From the Frank Miller stuff, to TKJ, to The Batman Adventures (each series of this one), to Shadow of the Bat, to No Man's Land, etc. etc. But that's neither here or there. I agree with you that there's a lot of Denny O'Neil in Jack's Joker, as that Joker was most heavily influenced by the 70's and 80's comics.

But I don't think there was much Killing Joke in him. For his origin, yes, but that's the area of '89 that was most heavily influenced by it in my view. TDK's Joker was more heavily influenced by it and in a much more important area (IMO), the character's personality and outlook. His giving multiple stories for his scars and being so passionate about those stories gives the impression that even he might think the story he's giving at any given time is what actually happened to him. Very similar to Joker's admission in TKJ, "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another." And just as important is his trying to break the sanity of Gotham, much like he did to Gordon in TKJ, "When the chips are down... these civilized people.. they'll eat each other." "It's not about money, it's about sending a message - everything burns!" "You really don't think I'd risk the battle for Gotham's soul in a fist fight with you?" I can't think of any lines in '89 that were directly influenced by TKJ as much as those were.

Having said that, the thing about the Joker killing Batman's parents does not get a free pass from me, because that drastically alters how I see Batman functioning. In the comics, I see him as visualizing criminality in general as the entity that took his parents. In Batman '89, it's quite obvious that the battle with Joker is very personal for Batman. Sure, he does stop him from killing hundreds in Gotham, but it's obvious that he's more than a little driven by revenge, especially once he gets to the top of the church. By the time Bruce dons the cape, I see him as being above such pettiness. So to me, the Joker killing Bruce's parents is just as big of a departure as a non-permawhite Joker. I also wasn't too fond of Joker being horny for Vale in '89. I know that discussing the Joker's sexuality just opens up a huuuuge can of worms, but I've always seen him as asexual. Even when he's with Harley Quinn, he usually ignores her sexual advances towards him or forcefully pushes her aside. I can't recall ever having seen him do anything in the comics motivated mainly by lust. That seemed to be his main reason for going after her in '89. There were other reasons, obviously, such as her skills in photography (if he was being serious in his proposal to her) and later on, because Batman was trying to save her.. but neither of these seem to be why he was interested in her at first.

Now, your main argument seems to mainly be about aesthetic faithfulness.. if we're going by looks alone, then I'd admit that Jack's Joker is more accurate than Heath's despite the fact that Heath does have a bit of a resemblance the Kane Joker. There's still too much of a difference there with the long hair, smudged makeup, and scarred smile. But if we're looking at the big picture (which I was doing all along), then I truly believe that it can't be said that one is more accurate than the other. They are both VERY accurate to the eras they're trying to portray. Jack's Joker is 1940-1989, with the biggest influence being from the 70's and 80's. Heath's Joker is a little bit of 1940 Joker with his main influences coming from 1989-2008. I don't think you've made a convincing argument that Jack's Joker is more accurate, apart from looks alone. They've both got inaccuracies, but are still faithful to those eras they intend to portray. I don't see how anyone can honestly say that one depiction is more faithful than the other when looking at each interpretation as a whole.

As I have absorbed exactly what you claim didn’t happen. I’ve clearly seen Jack beloved…only to suddenly be considered lesser by newb kids running rampage on Batman fan sites the second Heath Ledger died, then Dark Knight was released after that. There were always people that disliked Jack, but that doesn't explain the undeniable surge that happened after the death and then release of the film. Coincidence? I think not…I remember a time when Batman the Animated Series Joker was considered top notch. Now these violence craving teens come in and think he’s corny, any amount of humor to the character is cheesy. But I remember a different time when everyone felt just the opposite, then Nolan releases his feelings on the character and suddenly everyone always felt the exact same way about him too. Kevin Smith releases his review…and suddenly everyone’s copying what he says literally word for word but passing it off as their own. It’s embossing. Why? Because no one has an original thought anymore. I’d guess that over half the Heath heathens haven’t graced an original concept in their lifetime, only carbon copying everything that’s gone before into a ****ish amalgam of unoriginality and recycled crap. That's exactly what Heath didn't want to be when making his Joker! He'd be ashamed...

There are people disappointed today by Heath Ledger, so what's your point? I know a few on a very personal level. Granted they’re not the majority, but you can’t please everyone one hundred percent of the time. That’s an impossibility. Back in the day Jack’s performance was received just as positively as Heaths was today. He was up for a Golden Globe for the performance, or do you forget, and he didn’t have to die to get that nomination. So the point is…try to show a little respect. I don't give a damn about the actors. I care about the character, something that will outlast anyone portraying the character. Times change, doesn’t render the past obsolete. People will always love Jack. Others will always loathe. It’s no different with Heath. He didn’t change the world because he played a homicidal clown in a comic book film…

I would estimate that a large majority of these Heath bandwagon people are posers to begin with. They know little about Batman and even less about the comics and diverse history. I’ve talked to morons that blatantly know jack-****, but because nerds never been cooler, they pretend to be Batman encyclopedias and spread misinformation. Freaking designer-labeled dorks, the second comics are no longer “in” they’ll run away like we’ve got the plague. And they're always freaking teenage emo punks for that matter.

I'm not going to spend too much time replying here, because I think I've already spent too much time countering your first point, so I'll mainly address the comments that I've highlighted. First of all, I didn't claim that it hasn't happened. I ACKNOWLEDGED that there are people hopping onto the bandwagon. If you actually bother to read my post, you'll see this. My dispute is that whenever somebody says they prefer Heath's Joker to Jack's, there's always someone popping up with an attitude about it, talking about how they only like Heath's Joker because his version is the new toy, etc. etc. It annoys me to no end, because it's as if they're saying Heath's Joker isn't actually able to stand on his own two feet, and is only loved because he's "new". If that was the case, then the Star Wars prequals should be indefinitely praised over the older series as being superior, and we all know that's not how it works.

Now for these next couple of parts. Frankly, I feel embarrassed for you that you actually had to sink so low to try to make a point. TDK was guaranteed to have record breaking numbers long before Heath died. I remember in December of last year when that trailer broke, and that thing had an incredible number of views on youtube by the end of the month. And there was already Oscar buzz over Ledger's Joker from the prologue alone. Yes, I'm sure that Heath's death did contribute a bit to the box office intake, but that wasn't why the movie was such a hit. There was a movie called Batman in 1989 that broke all kinds of box office records in its day. And guess who was in it? Batman and the Joker. And nearly 20 years later, a movie comes out and has the same characters, with the same results. But it couldn't have anything to do with Batman or the Joker, could it? Nooo... everybody knows that the majority of TDK's success comes from Ledger's death.

If you REALLY think his death contributed that much to the praise he received, box office, etc., then I want you to call it right now and say that Dr. Parnassus (Heath's true last film) will be even halfway as successful as TDK. Because I guarantee you that film will not make 500 mil. I'd be surprised if it even makes 200 mil. And Heath definitely won't be receiving Oscar buzz for it, because he won't even be in the film long enough to warrant such praise. I find it ironic that you imply Heath's only getting Oscar buzz because of his death, and go on to demand that others show some respect immediately afterwards. I don't think there's anything more disrespectful than pissing on the performance he gave.