The Dark Knight TDK vs Batman '89 Joker Comparison

[Fenrir]

That's a hypothetical and a completely unreasonable argument.

How? The film clearly shows at multiple points that he isn't afraid to get himself killed.

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.

What a load of s**t. Just because I didn't like Jack's Joker automatically makes me a member of the bandwagon that only like the most trendy stuff and doesn't know crap about the character? Why don't you take a deep breath, take a step back and try to understand how downright stupid that sounds. This dumbass mentality that individual criticism always equates "trolling" and "bashing" has got to go.

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.

I did. But if they don't subscribe to your hypocritical notions of what constitutes logic and reason, it's not exactly my problem.

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.

And what makes YOU so sure that he was bluffing? What is YOUR proof about your own "MOST LIKELY SCENARIO"? Why don't YOU leave your accusations and double-standards at the door before demanding the same of others, pal?

My stance is based upon his actions throughout the film. There are numerous instances where he clearly doesn't give a rat's ass whether he is killed or not just as long as he gets his way. Examples:

After the truck flip, he comes out, enraged, starts shooting at everything mumbling "come on come on, I want you to do it, COME ON!" before shouting "HIT ME!!". In that scene he is almost suicidal. At that point in the film, though the Joker had an idea that Batman had his rules, he wasn't completely sure until Batman reveals his "one rule" in the interrogation room. Thus his desire for wanting Batman to kill him preludes his own realization of Batman's one rule.

He was crazy enough to consistently provoke Batman into killing him, and laughs while he pummels to his death when he thought he had succeeded. He puts a gun to his own head, hands it to Harvey and when Dent shows him his chances, he is elated rather than terrified "NOW we're talking!", which is clear proof of the fact that he wasn't bluffing that moment either. He couldn't have anticipated Dent leaving his fate to a coin toss. But not only he remains unfazed, he feels a moment of triumph. And when Dent checks which side of the coin came up, The Joker sticks the gun closer to his head, ready to accept the judgment of chance.

Now why don't you give me some of your own dose of logic and reason now, considering what a shining bastion of fair and balanced Batman fandom you are.

 

[ironwez20]

i always hated jack's portrayal of the joker he wasn't the joker in my opinon but heath was more impressive and actually like the comic book.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Ugh, Jack Vs. Heath. I knew it would happen...

 

[MysterioMenace]

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.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.

If it’s immature to call someone out on formulating their opinion due to ignorance…then mark me as immature. Doesn’t bother me. I apologies if I’ve come off as hostile, but I‘m just speaking my honest take, be it brutally or not. I’m still shocked that someone could sit here, proclaim that Jack’s Joker stems from 1940’s - late 1980’s, then say “Killing Joke” didn’t effect the interpretation much. That’s considered to be the obligatory Joker story, coincidentally falling into the timeframe you’ve given, the late 80’s. What are the odds? Again I don’t mean to offend, but I just can’t see you as being an experienced comic reader when you say something like that. It makes you look very green in my book. Not that I‘m some flawless comic book nerd encyclopedia, I make idiotic mistakes on a daily basis and can scarcely make a pop tart, but Burton himself said it had a profound effect on the film. So my question is…how can’t you see it? I’m curious on the specifics.

I just can’t agree that Heath’s Joker is just as accurate as Jack’s. He’s lacking gigantic portions of staple Joker lore. I can’t blame them for axing the laughing gas considering the fear gas in the former film, but that’s become such an iconic addition to his character. True that the largest departures were superficial, but they’re departures nonetheless. I just believe Heath’s Joker derives far more heavily from Batman #1 then you seem to and ultimately his caricature there, that being essentially just a straight-up homicidal maniac, was very short-lived. Actually only featured in his first appearance and (pretty much) that alone. I really find it far from the finest version of the Joker, rather probably the most one-dimensional. Thankfully they meshed it with other Joker traits, particularly dark comedy, otherwise I’d have been furiously disappointed with an overly-serious interpretation. More and more humor was injected the more and more appearances he garnered. He actually grew to become harmlessly mischievous, the real threat disappeared for a while. Chalk that up to the Comics Code. Thankfully O’Neil resurfaced the killer in the early 70’s, with added dark humor. This is the longest lasting incarnation of the character. There’s probably a reason for that…

Now suddenly newb kids come along and bash that beloved Joker because it’s not realistic enough. That’s the cookie cutter argument anymore, huh? It’s always about realism these days. The Joker’s arguably always been the most iconic super villain in the vast annals of comic books. He’s become a household name, a pop culture icon. Before Heath Ledger, things like giant hammers, “bang” guns, and his acid-spitting flower were adored. These aren’t long-forgotten things of the past, they’re still featured in the most popular comics of today, proving they can be treated seriously and looked at as frightening. They don’t hinder the character, that add to his sadistic comedy and level of irony. Hush arch comes to mind, fairly recent example of his usage of gimmicks like these. They’re even featured in Killing Joke! I’ve even heard of people finding the Joker dancing to be out-of-place. Pssh! Ten to one that if Heath danced, they’d gobble it up like good little lemmings. He does skip for that matter, but besides the point. So why are these weapons or mannerisms suddenly deemed too unrealistic or corny by some fans? They’ve been staples of the character for decades and successfully written into some of the most popular Batman classics. No one had a problem with them beforehand. They weren’t considered cheesy a mere year ago! So…what’s the reasoning? Is it merely a realism kick that will die off eventually…or is it that notorious bandwagon? And if so, what spurred on that bandwagon?

Oh…don’t give me that “low” crap, Dad. Heh. I didn’t know the guy. I doubt you were on a close basis with him. Odds are not a soul on this entire site knew him personally. The guy was an actor, damned good one too, but not a hero. Don’t treat him with more then he deserves. So low? No…not low. Realistic! Of course his death boosted sales. That’s not debatable, it’s common sense. If you’d bothered to read my posts in their entirety, you’d see that Heath’s even my preference. Dark Knight went from being a hugely anticipated movie…to somehow life changing for people. You’re completely misconstruing my comments though. Never did I say that bulk of the success was due to the death. Of course it wasn’t. Batman and Jokers legendary battle returning to the screen would inevitably bring in a fortune. That too is common sense, but you can’t even deny that the death had some part to play. I believe the people that were drastically effected by his passing are those that spawned this juvenile “Battle of the Jokers” mentality. Coincidentally most of those people, that being the ones that so regularly obsess over realism and knock every Joker that’s not Heath down, don’t seem to know much about Joker to begin with, pointing to them being here because it’s the cool thing right now. It’s not a legitimate passion of theirs.

I also feel there’s a subliminal cord of sympathy there that’s influenced some of the masses. You may not consciously feel that his passing effected your opinion of the performance, but subliminally it’s a different story. I mean…Oscar caliber’s milking it to me. Wonderful performance, but that’s absurd. Of course this is a hypothetical, so it’s no real merit there, but still not unreasonable.

 

[MysterioMenace]

How? The film clearly shows at multiple points that he isn't afraid to get himself killed.



What a load of s**t. Just because I didn't like Jack's Joker automatically makes me a member of the bandwagon that only like the most trendy stuff and doesn't know crap about the character? Why don't you take a deep breath, take a step back and try to understand how downright stupid that sounds. This dumbass mentality that individual criticism always equates "trolling" and "bashing" has got to go.



I did. But if they don't subscribe to your hypocritical notions of what constitutes logic and reason, it's not exactly my problem.



And what makes YOU so sure that he was bluffing? What is YOUR proof about your own "MOST LIKELY SCENARIO"? Why don't YOU leave your accusations and double-standards at the door before demanding the same of others, pal?

My stance is based upon his actions throughout the film. There are numerous instances where he clearly doesn't give a rat's ass whether he is killed or not just as long as he gets his way. Examples:

After the truck flip, he comes out, enraged, starts shooting at everything mumbling "come on come on, I want you to do it, COME ON!" before shouting "HIT ME!!". In that scene he is almost suicidal. At that point in the film, though the Joker had an idea that Batman had his rules, he wasn't completely sure until Batman reveals his "one rule" in the interrogation room. Thus his desire for wanting Batman to kill him preludes his own realization of Batman's one rule.

He was crazy enough to consistently provoke Batman into killing him, and laughs while he pummels to his death when he thought he had succeeded. He puts a gun to his own head, hands it to Harvey and when Dent shows him his chances, he is elated rather than terrified "NOW we're talking!", which is clear proof of the fact that he wasn't bluffing that moment either. He couldn't have anticipated Dent leaving his fate to a coin toss. But not only he remains unfazed, he feels a moment of triumph. And when Dent checks which side of the coin came up, The Joker sticks the gun closer to his head, ready to accept the judgment of chance.

Now why don't you give me some of your own dose of logic and reason now, considering what a shining bastion of fair and balanced Batman fandom you are.

Never did I say that liking Heath instantly equates to bandwagon follower. Learn to read, Larry! I clearly stated that even I prefer Heath, but your brain-dead criticisms of Jack point to bandwagon lemming.

Wait…you’re calling me stupid. That’s hysterical stuff! t:

All that still doesn’t change the fact that it’s a hypothetical. You’re clearly not being fair when you make a idiotic criticism like this. You’re far from objective here. The entire point is that I’m not sure. The entire point’s that no one can be sure!!! No one knows!!! So it’s without merit. You can’t have a legitimate point when you literally don’t even know what you’re talking about. You’re making an assumption. You have no facts, and logically the most likely scenario, considering we’re shown the very same grenades in the bank scene, the ones that turn out to be trick smoke-bombs, is that they’re (too) smoke-bombs! Better question is…how ISN’T that logical? That’s clearly the most likely scenario. Moron! Please go play in traffic. Now run away and cry.

And just for added oomph, this so-called coward Jack Joker did the very same thing as Heath, that being stand there egging on Batman whilst he charged, except Batman was actually firing upon Jack!!! He’s far from ballless.

 

[Fenrir]

Never did I say that liking Heath instantly equates to bandwagon follower. Learn to read, Larry! I clearly stated that even I prefer Heath, but your brain-dead criticisms of Jack point to bandwagon lemming.

Who gave YOU the authority to judge and categorize people here? Get off your high horse before you hurt yourself, chum.

Wait…you’re calling me stupid. That’s hysterical stuff! t:

I see that you are quite happy with being branded as such. At least you're honest.

All that still doesn’t change the fact that it’s a hypothetical. You’re clearly not being fair when you make a idiotic criticism like this. You’re far from objective here. The entire point is that I’m not sure. The entire point’s that no one can be sure!!! No one knows!!! So it’s without merit. You can’t have a legitimate point when you literally don’t even know what you’re talking about. You’re making an assumption. You have no facts, and logically the most likely scenario, considering we’re shown the very same grenades in the bank scene, the ones that turn out to be trick smoke-bombs, is that they’re (too) smoke-bombs! Better question is…how ISN’T that logical? That’s clearly the most likely scenario.

You replied to a post of mine in which I stated that this Joker isn't afraid to bite the dust, that he doesn't care whether he gets killed or not as long as he gets his way, and I cited three major examples (there are two more) from the film to this effect. You disagree with me on one example, but the other two are irrefutable. My point still stands.

Moron! Please go play in traffic. Now run away and cry.

Very mature. Making dumbass generalizations, calling the people you look down on and demeaning them as "Freaking designer-labeled dorks" and "teenage emo punks" and here you are insulting me for...disliking a movie character? Who's the bigger "dork" now?

And just for added oomph, this so-called coward Jack Joker did the very same thing as Heath, that being stand there egging on Batman whilst he charged, except Batman was actually firing upon Jack!!! He’s far from ballless.

In what was perhaps one of the stupidest scenes in the entire film. Either Batman was so hopelessly incompetent that he even with the Batwing's advanced weaponry and targeting systems he couldn't lay a scratch on the Joker or the Joker called Batman's bluff in his attempt at intimidation, which makes him smart but not brave. Otherwise, the entire scene was ridiculous and doesn't make any sense.

Of course, the fact that Nicholson's Joker kept squealing like a little girl as his hold on the ladder slipped certainly proved that all he had were little ***got balls instead of big brave balls (kudos to who gets the reference ). Oooh, did I just talk bad about ol' Jacky-wacky? What're you gonna do about it, kiddo? Tear your clothes in agony like the Tasmanian Devil, scream at your computer screen and throw even more juvenile insults, perhaps with a bigger bolded text this time (you, know, for the "added oomph")?

 

[myway]

Hey Fenrir, don't let these guys get to you. Some people just love to cling to the past.

 

[Octoberist]

but there's nothing wrong with liking Jack either, myway. It's just how some people present their opinions that might drive others crazy.

I like both Heath and Jack!

 

[ironwez20]

Fenrir is right as much as i hate arguing on a superhero board i was just like to say that heath's joker was more iconic to the comic's and wasn't afraid of death. When batman was in the batplane about to shoot joker Yes he stood thier but he knew batman wouldn't kill him and after batman found out joker killed his parent's that's when joker was alittle shook and was afraid of dying hence the screaming from falling off the church. Tdk joker welcomed death with open arm's he wasn't scared of anything imo and when he fell off the sky scraper he didnt scream he laughed as if he enjoyed it so all in all heath's joker was way better imo.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

Same with Jack's. Nobody saw the poisoned make-up thing coming, nobody saw the hand-buzzer coming. They just knew what Joker decided to let them know.

And it's not as Joker was in love with Vicky. Nobody, including Batman, could predict a thing out of Joker's desire for her.

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.

Jack's Joker being a coward, which is not true and Jack's Joker being less brutal which is not true. I got that too.

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.

Yes. That was brutal. And Joker's personality made it hilarious at times. Because he was too happy and humorous about such an horrifying action.

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.

Oh yes. Electrocuting a guy. How "silly." But it is a brutal action and there wasn't any funny noises or cartoony eyes popping off the skull to make it cartoony.

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.

And many times people laughed at Ledger's Joker actions too.

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.

So you think after blowing the Batwing away, taking Vicky as a hostage and almost kill him, Batman was "joking" about the "I'm gonna kill you" line? A stretch I must say. Before or after the revelation - even revelation aside - it was clear for the Joker that Batman had every reason to kill him. Not to mention that Batman had killed for less important reasons.

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.

He was never terrified. At most concerned because, for the umpteenth time, for Jack's Joker, dying was pointless.

For Ledger's Joker, being killed by Batman was good because it symbolized his ultimate triumph. But Jack's Joker had no victory in Batman killing him. He knew Batman killed. No voctory = death being pointless. Of course he wanted to escape; for Jack's Joker being alive meant to keep being a pain in the ass for Batman; he had a lot to win being alive. It was far from being a matter of fearing death. Jack's Joker was too self-confident. Even when Batman was beating him he fought back. Far from your delusional accusation of "pissing his pants."

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.

Nope. He was giving away his money because death of people was far more important to him. Shallow? Only in the sense that Joker enjoyed being the core of attention. Just like Ledger's.

Another similarity.

And of course Joker had something to lose. Just like Ledger. When his plan with the two ferries failed, yes, he lost. He had something to lose there and he did lose it.

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?

Oh, you don't get Ledger's Joker yourself. Here: No, he knows it's not a problem that Batman kills him; Batman's number one rule is not to kill. He knows he has to push hard in order to make Batman kill. So no, he knows it's not going to be something that will happen just like that. He would want it to happen in order to corrupt Batman, but it's not an easy thing. No, he doesn't worry that Batman kills him, he would love it.

Anyway, more credit for Nicholson's Joker. When he challenged Batman in the Batwing, "come, you gruesome son of a b****," he was in real danger since nothing was stopping Keaton's Batman from killing him. He had no 'no killing' rule.

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.

If Joker thought Batman could be as corruptible as anyone else, he wouldn't have a special interest in corrupting him. But he knows Batman is a special case. 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.

If Batman was just like everybody else, Joker wouldn't go through all that effort in order to corrupt him.

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

There's no contradiction if you saw the movie first.

There's a simple misinterpretation if you call "pissing his pants" to something that's mere strategy to defeat your adversary.

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.

According to the movies both were quite unpredictable.Similarity. Both are clowns; the difference is just a matter of levels. Again, both unpredictable.

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

I addressed that difference myself. The Macho Joker Nicholson was.

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

Both Jokers despised the mob. Both of them wanted to control them and get rid of those who meant trouble.

Another similarity.

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.

Nicholson's Joker also saw Batman as a counterpart. A character that captured all the attention, just like him, but because he fights crime. The "Winged Freak" that needed to get "a load of me."

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.

Both Jokers had their own personal schemes that included defeating Batman. And please, fighting your adversary ideals is as cliché as revenge at this point.

My point, that you dodged, was that Nicholson's Joker couldn't have had a scheme involving to make Batman kill, since he had no problem in killing criminals.

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)

Did I call it "brutal"? Or was it another of your mental deleted scenes?

I call it Joker not minding to expose his life in front of Batman. Just like Ledger's Joker. Similarity. Many people saw the similarity between that scene and the HIT ME scene from TDK. Both Jokers were calling Batman to shoot and kill.

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.

Batman intimiodating him or notr, Joker didn'tr mind havinmg missiles fired at him. Brave Joker that didn't mind about his life as long as he could challenge the bat.

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?

I could only dream about bashers controlling themselves when a thread maker asks so.

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.

Can you prove that he knew? Jack Napier had killed so many people throughout his life and he knew perfectly who this masked man's parents were?

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

You're just being a basher in a thread that was opened for other purposes.

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.

You have created fictional scenarios about B89. Joker never was afraid of Batman and the movie proves so. He never pissed his pants or was begging for his life. If you can't tell, then might make you honest but not right.

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

I don't create false scenes in order to prove a flaw.

Read the thread again.

No, nothing there.

Even thought I find extremely weird that some misconception about Ledger was there and you didn't address it.

Please point out what those misconceptions were.

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.

If you read the thread I only made a list of similarities were I was not playing favourites.

It was only after your first bashing post that I was called to rectify your misconceptions about Jack's Joker. I played favourites only after you did. You won't blame me for playing the same game you started right?

Hallelujah!

Yeah brother. For a moment your "This...will not end well" post made quite an impression of you being honestly concerned about the future of the thread. Then you go and start the flame yourself, so this thread go the wrong way.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

He was just bluffing since he knew no mobster would want to die. He was never going to detonate those grenades, just use them as a threat.

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

Actually it was a deleted scene.

In other words it never happened, so my original point stands: Both Jokers didn't worry about money, just killing people.

After the truck flip, he comes out, enraged, starts shooting at everything mumbling "come on come on, I want you to do it, COME ON!" before shouting "HIT ME!!". In that scene he is almost suicidal. At that point in the film, though the Joker had an idea that Batman had his rules, he wasn't completely sure until Batman reveals his "one rule" in the interrogation room. Thus his desire for wanting Batman to kill him preludes his own realization of Batman's one rule.

That scene, so similar to the Batwing one, prioves that Ledger's Joker had a Batman who refused to kill. There's a barrier there to be broken. In Jack's Joker case, there wasn't any. Jack's Joker had many more possibilities of being killed and yet he challenged Batman to shoot the same as Ledger's Joker did.

 

[El Payaso]

Fenrir is right as much as i hate arguing on a superhero board i was just like to say that heath's joker was more iconic to the comic's and wasn't afraid of death.

Agreed. But neither was Jack's Joker.

When batman was in the batplane about to shoot joker Yes he stood thier but he knew batman wouldn't kill him

How exactly was he so sure that Batman wouldn't kill him?

Was there any reference to a non killing rule of any kind that Joker could use as a safety net?

and after batman found out joker killed his parent's that's when joker was alittle shook and was afraid of dying hence the screaming from falling off the church.

Batman told him he was going to kill him before telling him he killed his parents. And Joker's reply was "YOU IDIOT." Far from being afraid.

Tdk joker welcomed death with open arm's he wasn't scared of anything imo and when he fell off the sky scraper he didnt scream he laughed as if he enjoyed it so all in all heath's joker was way better imo.

Ledger's Joker had a much better reason to want death. That doesn't mean Jack's Joker was a coward. But he had no triumph in dying as Ledger's Joker had.

 

[animexcel]

Of course, the fact that Nicholson's Joker kept squealing like a little girl as his hold on the ladder slipped certainly proved that all he had were little ***got balls instead of big brave balls (kudos to who gets the reference ). Oooh, did I just talk bad about ol' Jacky-wacky? What're you gonna do about it, kiddo? Tear your clothes in agony like the Tasmanian Devil, scream at your computer screen and throw even more juvenile insults, perhaps with a bigger bolded text this time (you, know, for the "added oomph")?

The Joker knows a

Spoiler

squealer

when he sees one.

 

[mrbrownie]

...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...

This.

 

[cokebabies]

This...will not end well.

Good call.

 

[Drz]

Your post hints that the only reason Heath is getting that nomination is due to his death which clearly can get people upset, Bane could have said things in a more mannereble way so how about you two make out before both of you get banned. ;/

 

[Drz]

How about both of you stop arguing and move on to the ttopic itself, grow up both of you. Your perfectly allowed to state your opinions but no need to insult the other, and it doesn't matter who started it, just one of you stop it and be the man!

 

[MysterioMenace]

How about both of you stop arguing and move on to the ttopic itself, grow up both of you. Your perfectly allowed to state your opinions but no need to insult the other, and it doesn't matter who started it, just one of you stop it and be the man!

I'm done.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I’m still shocked that someone could sit here, proclaim that Jack’s Joker stems from 1940’s - late 1980’s, then say “Killing Joke” didn’t effect the interpretation much. That’s considered to be the obligatory Joker story, coincidentally falling into the timeframe you’ve given, the late 80’s. What are the odds? Again I don’t mean to offend, but I just can’t see you as being an experienced comic reader when you say something like that. It makes you look very green in my book. Not that I‘m some flawless comic book nerd encyclopedia, I make idiotic mistakes on a daily basis and can scarcely make a pop tart, but Burton himself said it had a profound effect on the film. So my question is…how can’t you see it? I’m curious on the specifics.

Either you're selectively reading what I'm saying, or you've got a reading comprehension problem. I acknowledged its influence on the origin story (I'm even highlighting it here for you just like I did in my original post ), but beyond that, I don't see anything in the film that's really influenced by the comic. There's nothing in the Joker's actions or personality that reminds me of it in that film, whereas I can see its influence all throughout TDK. I guess it could be argued that the use of the flower trick and Joker venom were influenced by TKJ, but I don't think that would be a good argument, since both of those things were being used before TKJ. And he didn't even use a flower to squirt the acid at Batman in TKJ, from what I recall.

I just can’t agree that Heath’s Joker is just as accurate as Jack’s.

That's because you seem to be judging both characters mainly on appearance instead of looking at their depictions as a whole.

He’s lacking gigantic portions of staple Joker lore. I can’t blame them for axing the laughing gas considering the fear gas in the former film, but that’s become such an iconic addition to his character.

There are plenty of comics where the Joker doesn't use the gas. One that I can think of just off of the top of my head is Arkham Asylum. Are such comics really lacking staple lore for not including the gas when it's not needed? Don't get me wrong, I love the Joker venom, but I'd hate for writers to feel obligated to include it in every single Joker story ever written. It would lead to a lot of pointless filler instead of the writers just telling the story that they set out to tell.

True that the largest departures were superficial, but they’re departures nonetheless. I just believe Heath’s Joker derives far more heavily from Batman #1 then you seem to and ultimately his caricature there, that being essentially just a straight-up homicidal maniac, was very short-lived. Actually only featured in his first appearance and (pretty much) that alone. I really find it far from the finest version of the Joker, rather probably the most one-dimensional. Thankfully they meshed it with other Joker traits, particularly dark comedy, otherwise I’d have been furiously disappointed with an overly-serious interpretation. More and more humor was injected the more and more appearances he garnered. He actually grew to become harmlessly mischievous, the real threat disappeared for a while. Chalk that up to the Comics Code. Thankfully O’Neil resurfaced the killer in the early 70’s, with added dark humor. This is the longest lasting incarnation of the character. There’s probably a reason for that…

Batman #1 influenced a few areas in TDK: Joker's appearance, his use of only guns and knives as weapons, his dressing up like a police officer, and leaving cards at the scene of the crime. This last one has been used many, many times since, so I'm not sure if it counts. Anyway, his personality, actions, and philosophy stem much more from the modern comics, IMO. In the first Batman comic, he was nothing more than a serial killer/jewel thief. He didn't really give a damn about Batman until Batman started meddling with his plans. In TDK, he's obsessed with Batman from the very beginning of the film, as his meeting with the mob shows. There was also plenty of humor from him in the movie, mingling the killer with the trickster, just like the Joker in the modern comics. And there's no need for the history lesson, I'm quite aware of all the trouble Seduction of the Innocent caused, and most posters on this board are aware of it too, I'm sure.

Now suddenly newb kids come along and bash that beloved Joker because it’s not realistic enough. That’s the cookie cutter argument anymore, huh? It’s always about realism these days. The Joker’s arguably always been the most iconic super villain in the vast annals of comic books. He’s become a household name, a pop culture icon. Before Heath Ledger, things like giant hammers, “bang” guns, and his acid-spitting flower were adored. These aren’t long-forgotten things of the past, they’re still featured in the most popular comics of today, proving they can be treated seriously and looked at as frightening. They don’t hinder the character, that add to his sadistic comedy and level of irony. Hush arch comes to mind, fairly recent example of his usage of gimmicks like these. They’re even featured in Killing Joke! I’ve even heard of people finding the Joker dancing to be out-of-place. Pssh! Ten to one that if Heath danced, they’d gobble it up like good little lemmings. He does skip for that matter, but besides the point. So why are these weapons or mannerisms suddenly deemed too unrealistic or corny by some fans? They’ve been staples of the character for decades and successfully written into some of the most popular Batman classics. No one had a problem with them beforehand. They weren’t considered cheesy a mere year ago! So…what’s the reasoning? Is it merely a realism kick that will die off eventually…or is it that notorious bandwagon? And if so, what spurred on that bandwagon?

You kind of answered some of your own questions with your opening statement of this paragraph. It's mostly the "newb kids" who haven't read a comic before 2008 that are demanding more realism from the Joker character. Those who've been reading about him for years and watching him in shows like TAS don't have a problem with his current portrayal. I have a feeling that when the buzz for TDK dies down (i.e. about a year from now), these people will be nowhere to be found, and hopefully, our comics won't suffer due to their whining. Don't get me wrong, I find depictions like the recent Bermejo GN to be interesting, but I wouldn't want that to replace the Joker I've known and loved for years.

Oh…don’t give me that “low” crap, Dad. Heh. I didn’t know the guy. I doubt you were on a close basis with him. Odds are not a soul on this entire site knew him personally. The guy was an actor, damned good one too, but not a hero. Don’t treat him with more then he deserves. So low? No…not low.

Of course I didn't know him. And the guy was no saint, just a damned good actor, like you said. However, if you demand that people "show some respect" for Jack (whom it's also likely nobody on these boards knows personally), then I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to do the same for Heath. Or is Jack a "better" person than Heath was? Or do you actually know him personally? I definitely don't. I think he's a great actor (loved him in A Few Good Men), but I don't see why he's deserving of my respect when Heath apparently isn't.

I believe the people that were drastically effected by his passing are those that spawned this juvenile “Battle of the Jokers” mentality.

I disagree. The comparisons were bound to happen whether Ledger lived or died. Even though I was just a small thing when Batman '89 came out, I can still remember people (my father, in particular) making comparisons to Cesar Romero's Joker, saying that they preferred Cesar's interpretation, or saying that Jack's was better. Any time there's a live action portrayal of the Joker, it's going to be compared to its predecessors, no matter what.

Coincidentally most of those people, that being the ones that so regularly obsess over realism and knock every Joker that’s not Heath down, don’t seem to know much about Joker to begin with, pointing to them being here because it’s the cool thing right now. It’s not a legitimate passion of theirs.

Exactly.

I also feel there’s a subliminal cord of sympathy there that’s influenced some of the masses. You may not consciously feel that his passing effected your opinion of the performance, but subliminally it’s a different story. I mean…Oscar caliber’s milking it to me. Wonderful performance, but that’s absurd. Of course this is a hypothetical, so it’s no real merit there, but still not unreasonable.

This might be the case to a very small extent, but I don't think it's the main reason for the buzz. You have to take the lack of competition into consideration here. Last year, there were many Oscar contenders that stood out, with films like No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Juno, etc. What's the competition for Ledger's superb portrayal of this classic villain? A lot of these movies that had Oscar speculation all over them are actually being released to lukewarm reviews. TDK raked in nearly a billion dollars and received almost unanimously positive reviews, especially in regards to Ledger's performance. That's going to be hard for the Academy to ignore, even if they're opposed to it on the grounds of it being a comic book film.

 

[Mister J]

Boy, these type threads always seem to exist as the proverbial powder keg. The potential for denigration into a mindless flamefest, steeped in antagonism, looms ominously. Like gravity, all it takes is a little push. I don't think I'll ever fully comprehend why individuals who claim to share the same general fandom so routinely resort to polarizing the matter with either insults or overwhelming bias. Some people on this board need an enema!

It wouldn't be unprecedented for this thread to go the way of the Dodo, but that would kinda suck. There is an interesting comparitive analysis to be made between the incarnations brought to life by Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger and the opportunity for such shouldn't be removed because some posters choose not to control themselves. Preferences for one version or the other are fine. It's the inflammatory, playground-style bull**** aimed at invalidation that simply isn't going to fly.

I'd like to thank those who were able to keep their heads in the wake of such inanity and respond to it with either silence, rationale ...or that spiffy 'report post' button. Numerous instances of corrective action have been handed down here as dissuasion against comparable activity.

Seriously, guys. Regardless of what side of the issue you fall on, we're better than this.

I'm done.

You sure are. For three days, in fact.
Drop the routine or it'll be significantly more next time. That's no joke.

 

[OctaviusINC]

I've loved Batman my whole life.

I loved Romero's Joker.

I loved Jack's Joker.

I loved Hamil's joker.

I loved Heath's Joker.

I love the Joker.

It's boring to have 1 take on the character.

You don't have to prefer one over the other. It doesn't prove that you're a bigger fan or something. We'll never get a 100% accurate portrayal of a comic character onscreen. We can come close, but you can't satisfy everyone. That's why this thread exists.

Everybody chill.

 

[Cain]

Oh yes. Electrocuting a guy. How "silly." But it is a brutal action and there wasn't any funny noises or cartoony eyes popping off the skull to make it cartoony.

He means the actual look of the charred corpse which is true it doesn't look like a real burnt corpse would. At the same time though aside from the fact that it was a PG-13 that was in production 20 years ago and didn't take place on elm st. this movie was meant to be stylized and a living comic book. It was meant to take over 40 years of Batman comics and turn it into an iconic product WB could sell. Burton drew the most from early Golden Age so Rotelli looks like something out of an EC comic cause that's the style. That's why Gotham is art deco. Here are some examples somebody posted over at a BOF a very long while ago

Therefore it made sense in the context of the world Burton/Furst visually created and looks like a Joker panel out of a comic book and not something happening in the real world.

And many times people laughed at Ledger's Joker actions too.

I laughed damn near everytime he was on screen.

Before or after the revelation - even revelation aside - it was clear for the Joker that Batman had every reason to kill him. Not to mention that Batman had killed for less important reasons.

Nah Fenrir has a point there Batman had not killed anybody until he found out who Napier really was. This is what leads into Batman Returns and why the character needed a mirror image (Catwoman) of himself to help him see what he has become. That's the character's arc in Burton's dualogy that Batman Forever continued even though it revamped almost everything else.

Anyway to speak on similarities at this point will be pointless but it's quite obvious they lie there. For many reasons

1) They both played the same character all they did was add their own spin. However the Joker is something greater than any actor and in bringing him to the screen there will always be similarities between intepretations. Like Batman he's no different than Robin Hood or James Bond in that regard. Hell they both used Romero's "hoo hoo hoo" at some point in their movies.

2) Nolan liked Burton's Batman movie he has said as much in interviews and it's also evident by the homages he paid it (Ie: using "I'm Batman" in BB, and all the ones in TDK). So naturally you'd see that too.

Ledger was obviously inspired by those before him but the magic is he brought growth to the role. He added a new element and that is why his performance is the best in any film this year. Plus thanks to the progression in comic films he was given a lot more to work with thematically.

His screen time was more minimal but had more impact because he wasn't spontaneous. That spontaneous Joker is one I like and one that Burton's represents but a Joker who was a plan all along is just as engaging. The performance with the mannerisms and everything is what took it over the top for me not so much his dialogue.

He was something completely different from what I'm sure anybody expected even the supporters and that's why it's iconic. Nicholson is iconic in his own right he made the Joker a pop culture phenom his lines from the movies have been quoted everywhere from sports events to The Simpsons, he is on the AFI greatest movie villains list as said he was nominated for a Golden Globe.

No question that is an iconic performance in it's own right just like Ledger's now is as well. It fun Joker to watch and there are much more out there that liked it than those who didn't. I'm one of those who did like it but I prefer Ledger's for the reasons I already said.

 

[Fenrir]

Same with Jack's. Nobody saw the poisoned make-up thing coming, nobody saw the hand-buzzer coming. They just knew what Joker decided to let them know.

You didn't? You must hang out with one dumb ass crowd who couldn't figure out the Joker had a plan to do something to the people very similar to his own accident with the Axis chemicals in the scene where he comes in and shouts "Can you ship a million of those? Ship'em all, we're going to take them out through a whole new door!".

And it's not as Joker was in love with Vicky. Nobody, including Batman, could predict a thing out of Joker's desire for her.

Perhaps Batman, yes, but the audience? Uhh, no. Immediately after the Joker's "Stop the press! Who is THAT? That girl's got style!" scene, it was immediately obvious that the Joker would be sharing a lot of screen time with Vale. He didn't love her, sure, but he most certainly was infatuated with her. That is why he was so speechless when Vale starts kissing him and "succumbing" to his desire. In fact, right before Batman interrupts him, as the camera focuses on the Joker, you could clearly see the feeling of joy on his face (as if he just had an orgasm, haha).

Jack's Joker being a coward, which is not true and Jack's Joker being less brutal which is not true. I got that too.

Wrong on both counts. Again.

Yes. That was brutal. And Joker's personality made it hilarious at times. Because he was too happy and humorous about such an horrifying action.

The part where he talks to the corpse was a bit unsettling, but the hand buzzer itself? Brutal? You call campy, cartoonish violence brutal? You must've been terrified of Tom and Jerry cartoons then.

Oh yes. Electrocuting a guy. How "silly." But it is a brutal action and there wasn't any funny noises or cartoony eyes popping off the skull to make it cartoony.

But the manner in which it was handled was cheesy as hell. The part where Antoine starts "burning", turning pink color with fire erupting from his collar? Hilarious. And his charcoal corpse? Looked fake as hell. For anything to be "brutal", it must be serious first and that scene came off as anything but.

And many times people laughed at Ledger's Joker actions too.

Of course. That only shows that he wasn't completely devoid of humor like so many Nicholson-apologists seem to rant on about.

So you think after blowing the Batwing away, taking Vicky as a hostage and almost kill him, Batman was "joking" about the "I'm gonna kill you" line? A stretch I must say.

Not joking exactly, but The Joker most certainly thought Batman was simply threatening him rather than being completely serious. Because The Joker knew that despite his dark nature, Batman was still essentially a hero and "you almost killed me and took my girlfriend hostage" is hardly a justifiable reason to kill someone.

Before or after the revelation - even revelation aside - it was clear for the Joker that Batman had every reason to kill him. Not to mention that Batman had killed for less important reasons.

"Less important reasons"? Such as?

He was never terrified. At most concerned because, for the umpteenth time, for Jack's Joker, dying was pointless.

It certainly didn't seem pointless to him when he started squealing when he started slipping off the ladders and then screaming like a little girl as he fell to his death. That was the defining moment which proved what a cowardly villain he was. He laughed while other people died of his chemicals, but when he truly came face to face with death, all his humor, all his toughness was suddenly ripped away and we see his true face.

For Ledger's Joker, being killed by Batman was good because it symbolized his ultimate triumph. But Jack's Joker had no victory in Batman killing him. He knew Batman killed. No victory = death being pointless. Of course he wanted to escape; for Jack's Joker being alive meant to keep being a pain in the ass for Batman; he had a lot to win being alive. It was far from being a matter of fearing death.

Please. The way he screamed while he fell or even the sheer terror on his face while his grip loosens on the ladder alone was proof that he terrified of death. It wasn't a look of "I wanna live because I want to cause more mayhem and be a pain in the ass to Batman" but rather a "oh s**t, I'm gonna die!".

Jack's Joker was too self-confident. Even when Batman was beating him he fought back. Far from your delusional accusation of "pissing his pants."

Fought back? When? Oh you mean the one moment when he tried to land a cheap shot at Batman by spitting out his fake teeth and distracting him? Some guts he had.

Nope. He was giving away his money because death of people was far more important to him. Shallow? Only in the sense that Joker enjoyed being the core of attention. Just like Ledger's.

Another similarity. [/quote]

Wrong. Ledger's Joker was never driven by the need to be the center of attention. He was not a media ****e like Nicholson. His action are driven entirely by only three things - to expose the hypocrisy of the common folk, to unleash anarchy and to corrupt Gotham's heroes like Dent and Batman.

And of course Joker had something to lose. Just like Ledger. When his plan with the two ferries failed, yes, he lost. He had something to lose there and he did lose it.

Ledger's Joker felt defeated in that scene, but what exactly did he lose aside from being proven wrong? Anything tangible or anything of value?

Oh, you don't get Ledger's Joker yourself. Here: No, he knows it's not a problem that Batman kills him; Batman's number one rule is not to kill. He knows he has to push hard in order to make Batman kill. So no, he knows it's not going to be something that will happen just like that. He would want it to happen in order to corrupt Batman, but it's not an easy thing. No, he doesn't worry that Batman kills him, he would love it.

After the truck flip, he comes out, enraged, starts shooting at everything mumbling "come on come on, I want you to do it, COME ON!" before shouting "HIT ME!!". In that scene he is almost suicidal. At that point in the film, though the Joker had an idea that Batman had his rules, he had no idea about Batman's "one rule" until it is revealed in the interrogation room. That is why the Joker lets out a surprising little "hmmm" when he turns around after Batman crashes the Batpod. He wasn't expecting Batman to not kill him. Thus his desire for wanting Batman to kill him preludes his own realization of Batman's one rule.

Anyway, more credit for Nicholson's Joker. When he challenged Batman in the Batwing, "come, you gruesome son of a b****," he was in real danger since nothing was stopping Keaton's Batman from killing him. He had no 'no killing' rule.

Then mind explaining why Batman, even with all that weaponry and targeting systems, didn't even land a scratch on the Joker?

If Joker thought Batman could be as corruptible as anyone else, he wouldn't have a special interest in corrupting him. But he knows Batman is a special case. 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. If Batman was just like everybody else, Joker wouldn't go through all that effort in order to corrupt him.

He did the same for Dent as well. And yes, he did think that Batman could be corrupted that is why he even tried in the first place. That is why he says "you TRULY are...incorruptible, aren't you?". Prior to that, The Joker thought it was possible to break Batman. But when Batman saves him, he is truly convinced there is no way he could ever corrupt Batman.

There's no contradiction if you saw the movie first.

There's a simple misinterpretation if you call "pissing his pants" to something that's mere strategy to defeat your adversary.

There is no misinterpretation when it is clearly obvious from the Joker's voice, his words and his actions that he was indeed afraid of Batman in that scene.

Both Jokers despised the mob. Both of them wanted to control them and get rid of those who meant trouble.

Another similarity.

Wrong. Jack's Joker wanted to sit in Grissom's seat. "Until Grissom resurfaces, I am the controlling his operations". That is why he didn't kill all the mob bosses then and there and only took out the ones who rebelled. But Ledger's Joker despised the mob. He thought of them as lowly criminals motivated only by money. That is why he killed the Chechen even though the Chechen supported him. And if Maroni had come to that meeting, The Joker would've killed him as well just like the Joker, but of course, the Italian was too smart to believe that the Joker was simply a henchman for hire. Another reason is that the mob represented another form of order in Gotham city whereas the Joker was an agent of chaos. He didn't want to assume control of the mob and its operations like extortion, gambling, drug trafficking etc. like Nicholson's Joker . He wanted to destroy it.

Nicholson's Joker also saw Batman as a counterpart. A character that captured all the attention, just like him, but because he fights crime. The "Winged Freak" that needed to get "a load of me."

He saw him as an adversary rather than a counterpart. That is why he had no problem in killing Batman, whereas Ledger's Joker outright says that he wouldn't kill Batman.

Both Jokers had their own personal schemes that included defeating Batman. And please, fighting your adversary ideals is as cliché as revenge at this point.

It would've been cliched if TDK copied that theme from someplace else. But we both know that's not the case.

My point, that you dodged, was that Nicholson's Joker couldn't have had a scheme involving to make Batman kill, since he had no problem in killing criminals.

He didn't have such a scheme because not only did his Batman had no problem knocking off criminals, but also because he himself was terrified of death (as proven in the final scene).

Did I call it "brutal"? Or was it another of your mental deleted scenes?

I call it Joker not minding to expose his life in front of Batman. Just like Ledger's Joker. Similarity. Many people saw the similarity between that scene and the HIT ME scene from TDK. Both Jokers were calling Batman to shoot and kill. Batman intimiodating him or notr, Joker didn'tr mind havinmg missiles fired at him. Brave Joker that didn't mind about his life as long as he could challenge the bat.

Then again, tell me, how come Batman doesn't even land a single scratch on him?

I could only dream about bashers controlling themselves when a thread maker asks so.

And I can only dream about hypersensitive whiners not getting worked up over individual criticisms about their precious characters by calling it "bashing" or "trolling".

Can you prove that he knew? Jack Napier had killed so many people throughout his life and he knew perfectly who this masked man's parents were?

It's clear that he knew who were Batman's parents when he says "I was just a kid when I killed your parents" which was true considering it was so many years ago. Otherwise, how did the Joker immediately know that the parents of Batman were someone whom he had killed many years ago and not someone recent, if he truly had killed so many people throughout his life?

You're just being a basher in a thread that was opened for other purposes.

No, I'm being honest in my opinion while comparing these two characters.

You have created fictional scenarios about B89. Joker never was afraid of Batman and the movie proves so. He never pissed his pants or was begging for his life. If you can't tell, then might make you honest but not right.

Wrong.

I don't create false scenes in order to prove a flaw.

Yeah, you must've watched another alternate reality version of B89 in which The Joker doesn't squeal and scream like a little girl when he plummets to his death.

No, nothing there.

Look at November Rain's post.

Even thought I find extremely weird that some misconception about Ledger was there and you didn't address it.

I did. But I don't get my panties in a bunch and call people "bashers" like you if someone dislikes a character I love.

If you read the thread I only made a list of similarities were I was not playing favourites.It was only after your first bashing post that I was called to rectify your misconceptions about Jack's Joker. I played favourites only after you did. You won't blame me for playing the same game you started right?

That's what I was talking about. The fact that you felt the need to jump on me to correct my "misconceptions" about Jack's Joker but not on November rain for her "misconceptions" about Ledger's Joker, clearly you showed you were playing favorites.

Yeah brother. For a moment your "This...will not end well" post made quite an impression of you being honestly concerned about the future of the thread. Then you go and start the flame yourself, so this thread go the wrong way.

I WAS honestly concerned about the future of the thread because I expected hardcore Burtonites like you who couldn't stand anything bad being said about their precious Joker and would turn this into a quote-athon. But that sure as hell wasn't going to stop me from posting my honest opinion, which was the purpose of this thread was anyway - "let's just point out the pluses and minuses of each one". And I certainly wasn't trolling because I explained my reasons for disliking Jack's Joker instead of simply posting "Heath is the best, Jack sucked!". It was NEVER even about posting similarities between the two Jokers in the first place.

 

[Fenrir]

He was just bluffing since he knew no mobster would want to die. He was never going to detonate those grenades, just use them as a threat.

What makes you so sure he was NOT going to detonate it? Must've been one of those "mentally deleted scenes" you keep raking on everyone about. The whole point of that scene was to show that The Joker was a different kind of criminal compared to the mob. Of course, he didn't detonate those grenades because they kept their distance, not because he was "bluffing". But there is nothing in that scene that suggested that he was bluffing or was not going to do it even if the mobsters made a move against him.

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

Wrong. He was crazy enough to detonate a massive explosion in a building while he was still in it - the MCU and the hospital. He didn't even wait to get to a safe distance. And your point about Joker not wanting to get killed except by Batman is utter B.S. He was ready to bite the bullet when Harvey does his coin toss in the hospital. And unlike your silly assumption that he was not serious about blowing himself and everybody up and only bluffing with the mobsters because he knew the mobsters wouldn't move a muscle, in this case he had absolutely no idea whether Harvey would judge his fate by a coin toss or which side would come up. Despite this, he is elated "ah, NOW we're talking" and how he sticks the gun closer to his head after Harvey tosses the coin. It showed that he really was sincere about getting killed.

That scene, so similar to the Batwing one, prioves that Ledger's Joker had a Batman who refused to kill. There's a barrier there to be broken. In Jack's Joker case, there wasn't any. Jack's Joker had many more possibilities of being killed and yet he challenged Batman to shoot the same as Ledger's Joker did.

Again, Ledger's Joker had no idea that Batman would NOT kill him after the truck flip.

 

[Doc Samson]

I just don't see why it's so impossible to love both versions for some people, they are both the Joker from the comics, without question. I, personally, like Nolan's vision for his movies as a whole, but that doesn't stop me from loving Burton's stuff, it's not like cheering for football teams. Honestly, because of Nolan's take on Batman's universe, it handcuffs him from some of the best aspects of Burton's stuff, and vice versa.

The Joker, like Batman himself, has plenty of interpretations and if you look far enough into the comics you can find an issue that will agree with your opinions no matter what side of the fence your on. I just think people take the comic source material a bit too literal at times, they change and manipulate anything at anytime to make the books sell. To discredit one over the other because it conflicts with issue #17 of some Batman comic from 1971 is ridiculous. Jack and Heath both portrayed the proper Joker for their particular films, if you switch them around, it wouldn't work in either movie, period