The Dark Knight TDK vs Batman '89 Joker Comparison

[The Joker]

Well Nolan wanted to show why the Joker is Batman's nemesis.

He could have done that without showing Batman to be incapable of keeping up with the Joker until the end.

You are the one talking about being faithful to the comic book characters here. You're giving Nicholson's Joker flak for it. Well this is one for the Joker/Batman relationship in TDK.

Gotham and Batman were unprepared for something like this. He was a villain without rules, one not intimidated by violence, one not interested in money or power.

"Tell your men they work for me now. This is my city"

Joker clearly wanted Gotham City, and regarded it as his. His to corrupt. His to toy with. So I'd call that a form of power.

Thats why our still inexperienced Batman was beaten by him for most of the film.

That's my point though. Ra's, Scarecrow, and Falcone were all taken down by Batman when he was barely a wet weekend in the cape and cowl.

But Joker, who was a loner, and who murdered his way to the top, was able to run rings around Batman all thru the movie.

Pretty sure that if Nolan ever made another film with Batman facing the joker, batman would be equal to him.

It should have been that way in TDK, IMO. Batman was only starting out in Begins, but he nailed Falcone and his drug smuggling, took down Scarecrow and put the kibosh on the set up in Arkham, and foiled Ra's and his league of Shadows, the very people who TRAINED him everything he knows.

But a psycho in clown make up can run roughshod over Gotham, and Batman can only play catch up to him. Like I said, it's one of the few complaints I have about TDK, and it certainly didn't ruin the movie for me. But it was a flaw in the Batman/Joker relationship.

Besides, even in the comics, its not like the Joker is caught in the first page. He always manages to blow half of gotham before batman manages to lock him up again.

Lets not be silly now. That goes for every major Batman villain. If they got captured on the first page, it'd make for a short comic book.

 

[Octoberist]

I will always love Jack for Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cucou's nest, and The Shining.

His Joker was designed, in my opinion, for scene chewing (which is not bad). His Joker is like an homage to his career and a gig that he thought was fun. That's why I don't mind if Heath took over the mantle of 'The Joker' in the history books. Jack has tons of movies behind him, so he's fine, while Heath barely started his legacy..

 

[percoset]

That was actually one of the very few complaints I had about this movie.

The Joker being way ahead of the authorites was fine, because he always is in the comic books. But never have I read a Joker story where Batman was so overwhelmed and outsmarted by Joker at practically every turn. Even when Batman captured Joker at the end, Joker got a last laugh by revealing that he corrupted Harvey Dent.

Batman was running around like a headless chicken against the Joker in TDK. I didn't like that at all. They never ever seemed like equals. Batman was always playing catch up.

And considering he took down Falcone, Scarecrow, and Ra's and his League of Shadows, but he couldn't keep up with one lone gun who crawled his way up the Gotham Underworld using "A few drums of gas and a couple of bullets", it just didn't sit right, IMO.

I accepted it because it was the first time Batman faced a force like the Joker. He truly did not know what to expect.

 

[The Joker]

I accepted it because it was the first time Batman faced a force like the Joker. He truly did not know what to expect.

Does Batman know what to expect when he faced him first time in the comic books? Or any of his psychotic villains who have illogical motives? No. But he's not left behind in the dust trying to stop them.

In keeping with the topic of this thread, take the way it was done in Batman '89 for example. The Joker was causing mass murder by tainting Gotham's products with his smilex toxin. But Batman, thru detective work, manages to crack the poison code. He didn't capture the Joker, but he at least managed to put a spanner in the works for Joker's schemes, and prove that he can match the Joker's intelligence.

 

[mrbrownie]

LOL!!! Well Nolan wanted to show why the Joker is Batman's nemesis. Gotham and Batman were unprepared for something like this. He was a villain without rules, one not intimidated by violence, one not interested in money or power. How could anyone deal with such a man? Thats why our still inexperienced Batman was beaten by him for most of the film. But by the end you can see that batman has caught up with him. He knows what to expect ("with the joker its never simple") and he actually manages to beat him. Its just that joker got the last laugh with Dent.

Pretty sure that if Nolan ever made another film with Batman facing the joker, batman would be equal to him. Besides, even in the comics, its not like the Joker is caught in the first page. He always manages to blow half of gotham before batman manages to lock him up again.

Beat me to it. Nice post

 

[percoset]

Does Batman know what to expect when he faced him first time in the comic books? Or any of his psychotic villains who have illogical motives? No. But he's not left behind in the dust trying to stop them.

But he's not left behind. He comes up with the sonar in order to hunt the man down.

 

[The Joker]

But he's not left behind. He comes up with the sonar in order to hunt the man down.

That was at the end though. And it was Lucius who invented that technology, and Lucius who helped him use it. Just like the way Lucius invented everything else Batman uses.

Again, Lucius being Q to Batman never bothered me at all in the movies. But in the comics, Batman creates his own stuff.

 

[Mr. Earle]

"Tell your men they work for me now. This is my city"

Joker clearly wanted Gotham City, and regarded it as his. His to corrupt. His to toy with. So I'd call that a form of power.

Good point. Hadnt thought of that.

That's my point though. Ra's, Scarecrow, and Falcone were all taken down by Batman when he was barely a wet weekend in the cape and cowl.
But Joker, who was a loner, and who murdered his way to the top, was able to run rings around Batman all thru the movie.

You do have a point, but its still a comic book movie. In real life for sure, a league of ninjas that has spent years on planning how to destroy a city, who have infiltrated the mob, the judicial system, everything, would have been more difficult to beat.

But the point is, that just how Luthor is a bigger threat to Superman than Metallo or Parasite (awefully powerful villains), the same goes with the Joker and Batman. The joker was smart to the point of hax, but that is the whole point with him. He is insane, smart, and has no rules. Everybody else is out there looking for something. Batman found out what that was through detective work and beat them.
Ras wanted to use the microwave emitter on the water mains and Falcone was a crime boss interested in money and smuggling. Surely the Joker is a bigger threat than a crime boss, any crime boss! He was indeed a force of nature in TDK. So powerfull!

Now, i agree with you, maybe batman should have upped his game more towards the end. I mean, he cheated (sonar) to find the joker. Sure the sonar provided an interesting fight scene and exposition about how far should you go to meet your goals, but ultimately, Batman cheated.

Anyway, as the joker said, this will go on forever, so i would expect that in future confrontations Batman would be more ready. Besides, its not like Ras didnt do any damage. He freed all of Arkham and gased a major part of the city in the process! It isnt like Batman stopped him easily. May i remind you that Gordon helped him out by blowing the train tracks?

Beat me to it. Nice post

Thank you!

 

[metalhead_dave]

It should have been that way in TDK, IMO. Batman was only starting out in Begins, but he nailed Falcone and his drug smuggling, took down Scarecrow and put the kibosh on the set up in Arkham, and foiled Ra's and his league of Shadows, the very people who TRAINED him everything he knows.

But a psycho in clown make up can run roughshod over Gotham, and Batman can only play catch up to him. Like I said, it's one of the few complaints I have about TDK, and it certainly didn't ruin the movie for me. But it was a flaw in the Batman/Joker relationship.

Think about the methods and goals of the villains though. When it came to the mob and Scarecrow, they were pretty much carrying out what they were doing and it didn't involve any immediate catastrophy. The mob deals was the kind of stuff Batman prepared for... the status quo that Batman was going to bring down by showing up. And Scarecrow's actions didn't have any immediate catastrophic effects Batman had the time he needed to foil him.

As far as Ras is concerned he might have been better funded and better trained than the Joker... but his ultimate goal rested on one act resulting from tons of preparation... which was destroying the city using the Microwave emmitter. That was his wad that he was blowing.

The Joker was an entirely different animal. His ultimate goal was simpler in a way... keep causing carnage until the people of Gotham "eat each other." That's what I figured his master plan was... but it wasn't resting on one action. Whether it was getting Reese killed, the ferries blown up, or Dent corrupted... it didn't matter to him which action did it, he was just trying to cause as much mayhem as possible until the city broke. It was a much different type of criminal than Batman faced.

And he obviously understood Batman a hell of a lot earlier than Batman understood him. I mean who else did The Joker think was going to find all those cops bound and gagged at that one goons apartment? So in the way Batman understood Falcone and Ras... the Joker had Batman studied and knew his actions.

But Batman did get on the curve by the end of the movie... it was just a bit too late.

 

[The Joker]

Good point. Hadnt thought of that.
You do have a point, but its still a comic book movie. In real life for sure, a league of ninjas that has spent years on planning how to destroy a city, who have infiltrated the mob, the judicial system, everything, would have been more difficult to beat.

Arghhhh!!! Lets not talk realism. It's a dirty word around these parts

You're right, it is a comic book movie. Not knocking that at all. We're talking about the comparison of how the Joker's been portrayed in two different movies, right? Ultimately the debate here has been faithfulness to the source. This was not one of them regarding the Batman/Joker relationship.

That's all. It was a minor complaint for me, but still a flaw.

Batman is supposed to be one of the smartest, most resourceful heros around. But he just couldn't keep up with Joker until the end, and by then most of the damage was done. He failed to save Judge Sorello, Commissoner Loeb, Rachel, Harvey Dent, and ended up becoming a criminal outcast. I think the morale of Gotham was the only thing that was left intact. I couldn't even completely credit him with the victory over the ferries, even though he stopped Joker from detonating them himself, it was the people on the boat who had the real victory over Joker by proving they wouldn't sink to his level and kill eachother.

May i remind you that Gordon helped him out by blowing the train tracks?Thank you!

True. But that was Batman Begins, so it wasn't a big deal, IMO. He had already proved himself several times already in the movie.

In TDK, he had a string of failures against the Joker by the end of the movie.

 

[mrbrownie]

Does taking advantage every resource in his disposition, even people more knowledgeable than him, makes a man less smarter or less amazing?

It's Batman's early run, how much time do you think Lucius has left, a couple of years?

 

[The Joker]

Think about the methods and goals of the villains though. When it came to the mob and Scarecrow, they were pretty much carrying out what they were doing and it didn't involve any immediate catastrophy. The mob deals was the kind of stuff Batman prepared for... the status quo that Batman was going to bring down by showing up. And Scarecrow's actions didn't have any immediate catastrophic effects Batman had the time he needed to foil him.

As far as Ras is concerned he might have been better funded and better trained than the Joker... but his ultimate goal rested on one act resulting from tons of preparation... which was destroying the city using the Microwave emmitter. That was his wad that he was blowing.

And Batman was still facing completely overwhelming odds at the beginning of his career. He was one man taking on a corrupt city under the thumb of Falcone, and Ra's and his League of Shadows. One man versus all of that.

And he won. He saved the city, saved Rachel, and in his spare time won back control of Wayne Enterprises

But in TDK, he couldn't keep up with a man who was announcing on TV and in newspapers etc that he was going to kill people, and then going and doing it.

The Joker was an entirely different animal. His ultimate goal was simpler in a way... keep causing carnage until the people of Gotham "eat each other." That's what I figured his master plan was... but it wasn't resting on one action. Whether it was getting Reese killed, the ferries blown up, or Dent corrupted... it didn't matter to him which action did it, he was just trying to cause as much mayhem as possible until the city broke. It was a much different type of criminal than Batman faced.

I know. And Batman realized this after Alfred gave him a pep talk about the ruby thief he encountered years ago. Even Maroni pointed it out to him. Even Rachel pointed it out to him. "You think that's going to stop the Joker killing people?". I mean Batman was so overwhelmed by this one man that he was going to hang up his cape and cowl. That's bad. Again, it took Alfred giving him a pep talk about enduring, and then Harvey taking the bunny for being Batman, that knocked some sense into him.

And he obviously understood Batman a hell of a lot earlier than Batman understood him. I mean who else did The Joker think was going to find all those cops bound and gagged at that one goons apartment?

Exactly my point. Joker was Batman's superior in this movie. That's the flaw.

But Batman did get on the curve by the end of the movie... it was just a bit too late.

Very late. Rachel and Dent were dead, and Batman became a fugitive.

 

[metalhead_dave]

Exactly my point. Joker was Batman's superior in this movie. That's the
flaw.

Very late. Rachel and Dent were dead, and Batman became a fugitive

You feel that he was superior in the movie. I feel they were equals by the end of the third act. Batman caught up while there was still fallout from Joker's earlier actions, but he FINALLY prevented the Joker from causing MORE catastrophy, be it the death of the hostages at the hands of the Swat, the death of the Swat at the hands of the fake hostages, the death of the people on the ferries, the release of the criminals that Dent put away, whatever loss of hope that could have resulted from Dent's actions, hell even the death of Reese. After the Joker escaped, Batman DID step up his game.

TDK reminds me alot of the Man Who Laughs only that the Joker killed one person very close to Batman in TDK.

I think it would be an interesting idea for the third movie though that BECAUSE of the Joker... Batman decides to step his game up even more and devote just about ALL of his time into being Batman... especially when it comes to other freaks. He'll obsess to stop them where they stand so he doesn't get another Joker outbreak.

 

[The Joker]

You feel that he was superior in the movie. I feel they were equals by the end of the third act.

Ok, I agree with that. When I said Joker was his superior in the movie, I should have said for most of the movie. You're right, they did get on a bit more equal footing by the end. But it shouldn't have taken that long, IMO.

And even then Joker had a victory by corrupting Harvey and forcing Batman to become a criminal.

After the Joker escaped, Batman DID step up his game.

Agreed.

I think the loss of Rachel, and Harvey's disfigurement prompted that. Joker crossed the line personally with Batman. And I did like that Batman didn't beat the hell out of Joker for killing Rachel when he caught up to him.

Much like in the comics when he crippled Barbara Gordon, killed Jason Todd, and murdered Gordon's wife. Batman never beat him up for any of those deeds when he caught him.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Arghhhh!!! Lets not talk realism. It's a dirty word around these parts

You're right, it is a comic book movie. Not knocking that at all. We're talking about the comparison of how the Joker's been portrayed in two different movies, right? Ultimately the debate here has been faithfulness to the source. This was not one of them regarding the Batman/Joker relationship.

That's all. It was a minor complaint for me, but still a flaw.

Batman is supposed to be one of the smartest, most resourceful heros around. But he just couldn't keep up with Joker until the end, and by then most of the damage was done. He failed to save Judge Sorello, Commissoner Loeb, Rachel, Harvey Dent, and ended up becoming a criminal outcast. I think the morale of Gotham was the only thing that was left intact. I couldn't even completely credit him with the victory over the ferries, even though he stopped Joker from detonating them himself, it was the people on the boat who had the real victory over Joker by proving they wouldn't sink to his level and kill eachother.



True. But that was Batman Begins, so it wasn't a big deal, IMO. He had already proved himself several times already in the movie.

In TDK, he had a string of failures against the Joker by the end of the movie.

Its always like that. The hero fails at first and then he finally beats the villain. Hey, at least he saved Dent during the party and the truck sequence. And he did stop the joker on the tower, cause had he not shown up, the joker would have blown them anyway.

I mean Batman was so overwhelmed by this one man that he was going to hang up his cape and cowl. That's bad.

The movie was interesting because of that. Because Batman was challenged to this point! And it was smart of the joker to do that. Surrender or i ll keep killing people. Would you rather watch a movie in which batman beats the villain and everything is just as its supposed to be? What made this movie and Begins for that matter is that Batman went through hell and back and finally made it through. So you are either asking for a movie where batman pwns everyone and nobody challenges him enough, or for a bigger threat to cause him to falter as much as the joker did. But who? The joker is supposed to be his nemesis. Darkseid?

And as metalhead_dave said the joker's plan was easy. Just keep destroying things to make the city break. It didnt rely on one or two things. The joker's plan was easier to do and harder to stop.

You feel that he was superior in the movie. I feel they were equals by the end of the third act. Batman caught up while there was still fallout from Joker's earlier actions, but he FINALLY prevented the Joker from causing MORE catastrophy, be it the death of the hostages at the hands of the Swat, the death of the Swat at the hands of the fake hostages, the death of the people on the ferries, the release of the criminals that Dent put away, whatever loss of hope that could have resulted from Dent's actions, hell even the death of Reese. After the Joker escaped, Batman DID step up his game.

Indeed he did. And he took the blame at the end because thats how Nolan wanted the story to end. He could have had batman standing victorious on a rooftop looking at the batsignal, but instead he chose this powerful ending that explains why batman really is a dark knight and why we, his fans prefer him over other heroes. Because he is freaking badass. Because the sacrifice he is making is not being a hero. Saving the city by tainting his own name!

I think it would be an interesting idea for the third movie though that BECAUSE of the Joker... Batman decides to step his game up even more and devote just about ALL of his time into being Batman... especially when it comes to other freaks. He'll obsess to stop them where they stand so he doesn't get another Joker outbreak.

Its what is happening in the comics right now and i hate it. Its gotten one dimensional. There is no Bruce Wayne anymore, just BatDick!

 

[metalhead_dave]

And even then Joker had a victory by corrupting Harvey and forcing Batman to become a criminal.

See I disagree with you there, because corrupting Harvey seemed like just another act to bring Gotham to total anarchy. Just something else to add to the pile. The Joker's victory wasn't corrupting Dent, or even killing the people he killed, it was Gotham finally going insane with him... which didn't happen.

Everything he did was all part of causing enough mayhem until the city broke. Corrupting Dent wasn't really a victory... it was just a means.

 

[metalhead_dave]

Its what is happening in the comics right now and i hate it. Its gotten one dimensional. There is no Bruce Wayne anymore, just BatDick!

Woah woah woah... let's not say anything we can't take back, Bill.

I hate Batdick too... but I'm remembering Melkay's idea of Wayne actually getting "lost in this monster of his" to where it becomes unhealthy and he has to get his **** together and create a balance between Wayne and Batman. And I figure that being a result of the Joker would be a good idea.

He becomes SO good and SO effecient at stopping future freaks... but at the same time, it's unhealthy. He finds himself canceling important meetings, canceling his appearances at events and such, and spending time improving the cave and training when he's not whooping Mad Hatter's ass.t: Part of it could be resulting grief for Rachael's death, he's become determined to not let another Joker incident ever happen again.

I'm not saying make that the status quo for how Batman ends up, I'm just saying it's a decent character arc for Bruce Wayne in the third movie and he has to deal with it and come out of it stronger. And if anyone can pull something off like that, it's Nolan.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I will always love both films equally, theres just so many reasons why.

 

[The Joker]

Everything he did was all part of causing enough mayhem until the city broke. Corrupting Dent wasn't really a victory... it was just a means.

Batman: "The Joker chose you because he wanted to prove that someone as good and as decent as you could fall"
Harvey: "And he was right"

Sounded like a victory to me.

 

[deathfromabove]

Batman: "The Joker chose you because he wanted to prove that someone as good and as decent as you could fall"
Harvey: "And he was right"

Sounded like a victory to me.

certainly a victory but the joker's masterplan still failed. he wanted to "win gotham's soul" and ultimately he did not. just as his first masterplan has failed in all the other major joker stories, including his first appearence and its recent retelling, the man who laughs, as well as the killing joke whose influence is most felt in tdk joker's soul and much of his modus operandi for forcing madness and chaos.

by making joker such a slippery, unpredictable, and seemingly omnipotent foe( hmmmmn satan?) nolan actually manages to make the joker feel threatening. i think the learning curve that bruce goes through with the joker's type of criminality/threat is portrayed perfectly. of course the joker has the upper hand for most of the film! how else would he pose a threat? this is batman's arch nemesis after all. he has to be challenged otherwise there is no drama. no tension. but by the end of the film batman has adapted his methods for this new type of foe. he knows by the end of the film that he has to risk and sacrifice much more than he thought (including, perhaps, his status as hero) in the face of this new, largly ideological, threat to gotham.

 

[The Joker]

Its always like that. The hero fails at first and then he finally beats the villain. Hey, at least he saved Dent during the party and the truck sequence.

I don't count the truck sequence because the Joker planned to be caught, and had his men waiting to take Harvey and Rachel prisoner straight afterwards. It was all planned.

And as for the party, I say Batman was just lucky Harvey was in his penthouse when Joker decided to strike. Had he been elsewhere, I wonder would Batman have failed like he did with Loeb, and the Judge? Most likely, IMO.

And he did stop the joker on the tower, cause had he not shown up, the joker would have blown them anyway. The movie was interesting because of that.

I already mentioned that. And as I said, I can't even contribute the whole success there to Batman, because the people on the ferries had the real victory over Joker by proving they wouldn't sink to his level by blowing eachother up.

Would you rather watch a movie in which batman beats the villain and everything is just as its supposed to be?

I'd rather watch a movie where the hero is shown to be able to match the villain, like in practically every superhero movie.

What made this movie and Begins for that matter is that Batman went through hell and back and finally made it through.

Wrong. The difference between this movie and Begins is that Batman was shown as an equal to his enemies in Begins. He had a tough time beating them for sure, but he wasn't outsmarted by them at every turn.

The villains were shown as smart and dangerous without making Batman look inferior.

So you are either asking for a movie where batman pwns everyone and nobody challenges him enough, or for a bigger threat to cause him to falter as much as the joker did. But who? The joker is supposed to be his nemesis. Darkseid?

That is not what I'm asking for. Have you been reading what I've been saying?

I want a movie where the hero is shown as competent and a match for his adversary. Not just at the end, but all the way thru. It should be an evenly matched battle of wits and intelligence. Neither adversary should come off looking weak or vastly inferior.

Take my Batman '89 example. Batman was able to show he was a match for Joker by thwarting his mass murder scheme by cracking his poison code. He didn't capture Joker, but he did throw a spanner in Joker's plans, and showed he could match Joker's intelligence. Nice bit of detective work shown on Batman's behalf, too.

And as metalhead_dave said the joker's plan was easy. Just keep destroying things to make the city break. It didnt rely on one or two things. The joker's plan was easier to do and harder to stop.

I know all that. The difference is that Batman didn't rise to the challenge until the end, after he'd lost Rachel, Dent, and whole bunch of other innocents. All thru the movie he couldn't keep up with the Joker.

Fact. And it's an inaccurate despiction of the Batman/Joker relationship. Something you've been crowing about all thru this thread regarding Nicholson's Joker. Are you trying to excuse some changes? One set of rules for one, and another set for another?

Doesn't work that way, and you know it. And inaccuracy is an inaccuracy. And this was a big one.

Indeed he did. And he took the blame at the end because thats how Nolan wanted the story to end. He could have had batman standing victorious on a rooftop looking at the batsignal, but instead he chose this powerful ending that explains why batman really is a dark knight and why we, his fans prefer him over other heroes. Because he is freaking badass. Because the sacrifice he is making is not being a hero.

Well, since he failed at everything else in the movie, he really had no other choice but to salvage what little was left.

Now I'm not knocking the movie's ending, but that was the reality of the situation. "The Joker took the best of us. He won". Why? Because Batman failed to stop all the evil Joker did all thru the movie.

The only way to stop Joker from winning was to cover up Harvey's crimes.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Woah woah woah... let's not say anything we can't take back, Bill.

What did i say?

Batman: "The Joker chose you because he wanted to prove that someone as good and as decent as you could fall"
Harvey: "And he was right"

Sounded like a victory to me.

Yeah but batman denied him his victory because he took the fall and people never found out about Two-Face.

 

[The Joker]

certainly a victory but the joker's masterplan still failed. he wanted to "win gotham's soul" and ultimately he did not. just as his first masterplan has failed in all the other major joker stories, including his first appearence and its recent retelling, the man who laughs, as well as the killing joke whose influence is most felt in tdk joker's soul and much of his modus operandi for forcing madness and chaos.

Oh I know that. But the person above claimed corrupting Harvey was no victory. It clearly was. Not the ultimate victory Joker wanted, but he did prove someone good and decent like Harvey could fall.

by making joker such a slippery, unpredictable, and seemingly omnipotent foe( hmmmmn satan?) nolan actually manages to make the joker feel threatening.

Joker has been portrayed like that for years in the comic books, and not at the expense of Batman's competence as a hero.

 

[metalhead_dave]

What did i say?

I was just being over dramatic while trying to explain that I didn't want a Batdick vibe... not your fault. And I was showing off my inner nerd by using Mr. Earle's first name.t:

 

[Mr. Earle]

I was just being over dramatic while trying to explain that I didn't want a Batdick vibe... not your fault. And I was showing off my inner nerd by using Mr. Earle's first name.t:

Call me by my first name again and i will have you fired from Wayne Ind. in no time mister!

Spoiler