The Dark Knight TDK vs Batman '89 Joker Comparison

[deathfromabove]

my biggest problem with jack's version was it didnt seem to be one of jacks' best perfomances. when i compare the psychosis he posessed in films like the shining and even the departed his take on the joker seems a bit light. the only time i felt real menace or threat from the joker was the "wait till they git a load of me" scene. that 30 seconds is still damn near perfect .that and no matter how i tried i could only see jack nicholson. even keaton dissapeared more into his role IMO. add to that the wayne murder (damn hollywood revisionism) and the fact that jack was a bit chubbier and older than i feel the joker should be and i always felt a little let down.

thats really the same problem i had with batman '89 in general. i was a huge fan of tim burton, danny elfman, and jack but the movie always just seemed like it didnt go deep enough for me, even at age 13 or 14. now i will gladly hand some of that blame to jon peters and the powers that be over at bros warner but as a batman fan from birth, i always felt the mythology and characters deserved better than they got in 1989. of course this can all be chalked up to personal preference, although it isnt really debatable that the film had some real flaws.

now for the record i still love the movie, warts and all. i have just always felt it fell a bit below the personal bar i had for the characters on film.

disclaimer: now before anyone replies to tell me how wrong i am, its my opinion, an opinion i have held since june of 1989. feel free to disagree all you want but please do not try and convince me or anyone else that my opinion is wrong. feel free to list the ways in which your opinion differs from mine but do not make the mistake of thinking that there are right or wrong answers here.

opinions are like asses and if you mistake them for facts you too are an ass.

 

[Mr. Earle]

his relationship with bats was also somewhat weaker with them never sharing any 'true' screen time psyching each other out but maybe that was a reflection more on bale's inexperience in the role. There was nothing as drammatic as the scenes keaton shared with pfieffer, nicholson or de vito.

What about the street confrontation? What about the party? You are really claiming that DeVito's Penguin had any drammatic scenes with batman?
As for the Joker claiming to be completed by batman and all that, well Nolan didnt have 1000 comic issues of joker/batman history to base that on, but i think that i can forgive him for trying to establish this relationship in his movie instead of giving us a joker begins where the joker still doesnt know how to order his Martini and we would need 10 more movies to see him and his relationship with batman in full speed.

Ledger's joker is the one who resembles the comics one most which i suppose is what we want. But besides that, he is the deeper and more complex character.

Jack's joker was mostly based on Burton's and Jack's deranged minds + makeup.

Imma gonna go ahead and be a condescending dick, but whoever thinks that Jack's joker is closer to the comics one than heath's, or is better than heath's, then he/she should take off the nostalgia goggles.

 

[Mr. Earle]

When Batman defeated all of Joker's goons, the Joker went "You IDIOT!" he was far from being afraid. The "w-what are you talking about" line was said that way because Joker had his hand crushed after trying to punch Batman; something an afraid man wouldn't dare to do. Pissing himself would be "Please Mr. Bat don't kill me."

"I made you, you made me, lets forget all about it, huh?"

He said something along those lines. That seems like he was pissing his pants, doesnt it? Heath wasnt even trying to punch batman. Heath was 10 steps ahead in a huge poker game around gotham city.

Also, for me, he didnt lack in any way in funny killings, funny moments or brutality. I dont think that the comics joker is all that funny anyway. Heath's joker was funny in a black humor kind of way. And his funny killings were way smarter and darker than the comics or the burton ones and thats because Nolan had to make him realistic. Since he doesnt have Lucious Wolf woot to make him gadgets like squirting flowers or whatever, its only natural that he improvises.

On the other hand, yes, i am the one nagging about the lack of atmosphere in TDK (as opposed to BB) so maybe an abandoned amusement park used for the joker's hideout and a combination of realistic tricks and unrealistic arsenal would make it more colourful and more like the comic books. Of course, Nolan's gritty, dark, slimmy and realistic joker was a revelation!

But besides the gadgets and all that, the two are very different IMHO. Heath was a tornado. His cause was higher, his ways were smarter (THANKS TO NOLAN BROS WRITING) and his relationship with batman was spot on. Also, the quote: "Look what i did to this city with a few drums of oil and a couple o' bullets" sums it up for me.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Uhh, no. Jack's Joker had a hard on for Vicky Vale even before he connected Batman to her. This is evident in the scene where he's cutting the photographs.

Uhh, so? How does that change the fact that Ledger's Joker was a far more brutal character? What you're saying is an excuse for why Nicholson's wasn't, but Heath's was and that is what makes him a superior character.

Oh no? What about the final scene in the cathedral when Batman knocked out all the Joker's goons and then gave the Joker his own "dance with the devil in the pale moonlight line"? It was clearly evident that the Joker was s**tting his pants in that one on one confrontation when he sees Batman filled with fury "You killed my parents" and he goes "w-what're you talking about?".

Sounds a lot like Ledger's Joker, no?

Like I said, the falling from the building scenes of both Jokers show Nicholson's was a coward who was terrified at the prospect of death.

Uhhh...k?

Like I said, faithfulness to the source material does not always equate a better character. The Batman from B&R is a caricature and perfectly resonates with the pre-crisis comics and the 60s show. But that faithfulness doesn't mean that he is a better character than Burton's, or Nolan's Batman.

Yes.

Yes, but Nicholson's Joker had his own agenda on the side too. Ledger's Joker's entire motivation was completely based on his obsession with Batman. Nicholson's Joker saw Batman as an adversary; Ledger's Joker saw him as his counterpart, a mirror image, in a world filled with hypocrisy. So in that sense, though it may be a common point, the degree and reasons for their obsession with Batman is what makes them very much different.

I can say the same thing about people who unrelentingly defend the Burton films - To sound "cool" and "different".

Sorry El Payaso, but he is right IMHO.

Yes, but Nicholson's Joker had his own agenda on the side too. Ledger's Joker's entire motivation was completely based on his obsession with Batman. Nicholson's Joker saw Batman as an adversary; Ledger's Joker saw him as his counterpart, a mirror image, in a world filled with hypocrisy. So in that sense, though it may be a common point, the degree and reasons for their obsession with Batman is what makes them very much different.

I really like what you are saying, but Heath-Joker wasnt doing it for batman. He was obsessed with him, but he had his own agenda. Chaos (instead of a chick or being more popular than batman in the newspapers). Batman for him was all that you said though.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Then you haven't read all muy posts. TDK I defend it to death but I admit it, I consider BB quite flawed.

In what ways (in short) other than the Goyer lines?

Anyway, back on subject. I think that we might be comparing 60ies comics batman with the 00's comics batman. Each one was the Joker in his time. Now we see the batman and joker of those times as silly, but we have to admit that these were the characters at that age and they suited their times/customs/trades/fads.

Jack's joker was 80ies and 90ies while Nolan's is contemporary. He is also very, very smartly written by the Nolans which gives him a BIG bonus. Other than that, even the comics joker of our time isnt so definitive. Each writer gives him his own spin and the character will continue to evolve and mature to the point that in 20 years from now Grant Morrison's or Nolan's jokers will look "meh...too 00s".

My only hope is that the comics (which lets face it, are the source, the canon) acknowledge Nolan's work and incorporate some of his innovations that Grant Allmighty (irony) hasnt. Because Nolan's joker is ten times deeper and more interesting than that derailed train of a joker that slits his tongue and does things for no reason. I dont know, i just like it more when the nuts killer has a rationalisation, however crazy that is. But i suppose Nolan's Joker wont work so well in the comics because he cant be breaking out of Arkham every now and then to wreck havoc and discuss chaos with batman, it would get repetitive. Instead, the comics joker gets out of Arkham and does it for the lulz and for stealing batman's attention. There's more freedom for the writers this way.

But, Nolan made each villain a personalization of an idea. Maybe they could try that in the comics somehow instead of "every villains does bad things, but this one will freeze you, this one will spray you with acid and this one will shoot at you". I by no means imply that there is no characterisation or character development, but lets face it, Nolan showed them how its done!

 

[Mr. Earle]

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

So what do they have in common? Jack’s sadistically funny, bleached by chemical bath, and even using his trademark laughing gas.

The Killing Joke came out a year before the movie. How could it have been stemmed by Jack's joker? As Batmite explained, the only thing they have in common is the acid bath. OWNED.

him being the Wayne killer, which isn’t so much a departure as it is an addition.

Why dont we make him batman's father then? It would be an addition. Christ have mercy on the blasphemers!

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

Jack's was only superficially similar to the real joker. Heath's was the joker. Heath wasnt the Wayne killer, Nolan is more canon than Burton in every way!
How could Jack's be more accurate? Because he has the same haircut? But he is FAT!
But underneath the surface, Jack's is just a deranged and obsessed mobster, with all the passions and fears that go with that. His goal was to get rid of the batman because he was stealing the headlines from him and to kill Wayne because he dated "his" girl. How is that the joker? Because he used the palm gizmo and he used an abandoned factory as his lair just like the comics?

To El Payaso:
What if Burton wasnt so consistent in his writing,directing,etc? In one scene we see the joker standing up to batman in the batwing (and i agree with Fenhrir, it was a stupid scene) and the next he is afraid of him. At least Nolan was consistent. So maybe its Burton's fault and you hond on to the side that can give you arguements for him and Fenhrir uses the other side of the same coin (whether or not the joker is afraid) to give his arguements against. Also, you and MysterioMenace have some really nice ways to dodge some strong arguements.

The joker being a macho womaniser?
And what about the "addition" of the joker being the wayne killer? But on other hand the long hair on heath is a really big deviation for MysterioMenace.

 

[Seditionary]

Heres the end all of the whole discussion as far as im concerned. I've said this once and I'll say it again...

When the Joker confronts bruce wayne in vicky's apartment in batman 89'
Bruce: Let me tell you about this guy I know. Jack. Mean kid. Bad seed. Hurt people.
The Joker: I like him already.

then michael keaton breaks **** and says
Bruce: You wanna get nuts? Come on! Let's get nuts!
and then the joker JUST LOOKS AT HIM. and doesn't say anything and just shoots him. No clever comeback, no nothing.

That's when beetlejuice comes out of keaton and he out crazies the joker. That shouldnt' happen.

And someone on here made some art work explaining: Romero, the jester. Nicholson, the clown. Ledger, the joker.

 

[mrbrownie]

What about the street confrontation? What about the party? You are really claiming that DeVito's Penguin had any drammatic scenes with batman?
As for the Joker claiming to be completed by batman and all that, well Nolan didnt have 1000 comic issues of joker/batman history to base that on, but i think that i can forgive him for trying to establish this relationship in his movie instead of giving us a joker begins where the joker still doesnt know how to order his Martini and we would need 10 more movies to see him and his relationship with batman in full speed.

Ledger's joker is the one who resembles the comics one most which i suppose is what we want. But besides that, he is the deeper and more complex character.

Jack's joker was mostly based on Burton's and Jack's deranged minds + makeup.

Imma gonna go ahead and be a condescending dick, but whoever thinks that Jack's joker is closer to the comics one than heath's, or is better than heath's, then he/she should take off the nostalgia goggles.

I'm just curious about that particular reasoning, could you explain this?

 

[mrbrownie]

Sorry El Payaso, but he is right IMHO.I really like what you are saying, but Heath-Joker wasnt doing it for batman. He was obsessed with him, but he had his own agenda. Chaos (instead of a chick or being more popular than batman in the newspapers). Batman for him was all that you said though.

So that's why he basically committed gothamite genocide?

By your sentence I understand that his raison d'etre was get the girl, and out-popular Batman, SO he gases the entire city, annihilating his "public" so in that way, again, get the girl and out-popular Batman?

 

[mrbrownie]

The Killing Joke came out a year before the movie. How could it have been stemmed by Jack's joker? As Batmite explained, the only thing they have in common is the acid bath. OWNED.

"Although Burton was never a comic book fan, he was most impressed with The Killing Joke." - Tim Burton (2006). "Batman", Burton on Burton. London: Faber and Faber, 70-83.

Jack's was only superficially similar to the real joker.

So he doesn't or isn't:

• Laugh creepily.
• Make jokes, mainly black humor.
• Behave like a cartoon.
• Use joke toys as weapons.
• Do loony stuff.
• Kill people with gas.
• Disregards life, even his henchmen lives, as nothing important.
• Wants attention.
• Wants to piss off Batman.
• Battle Batman.
• Incredibly narcissistic.
• Incredibly insane.

Nolan is more canon than Burton in every way!
How could Jack's be more accurate? Because he has the same haircut? But he is FAT!

Nolan departs from canon numerous times in Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. Is that a disadvantage?

Is Joker being slightly overweight makes him less of a menace, less insane, less murderous?

Is Joker painting his face and hair, and having grin-expanding scars, instead of chemical scarring makes him less of a monster, less freaky, less funny?

But underneath the surface, Jack's is just a deranged and obsessed mobster, with all the passions and fears that go with that. His goal was to get rid of the batman because he was stealing the headlines from him and to kill Wayne because he dated "his" girl. How is that the joker? Because he used the palm gizmo and he used an abandoned factory as his lair just like the comics?

Sounds exactly like a certain character in a certain animated series, which used to be a mobster, is an attention ****e, wants to beat Batman in a Larger than life climatic battle, wants to appropriate anything that somebody else finds precious, uses joke toys as deadly weapons, and has had a abandoned factory and amusement park as lairs. OH! Almost forgot the most important thing, he wears a purple suit, has dark green hair, a huge red grin, and fell into a pool of chemicals really early in the series. I think he's one of the most loved characterizations of this being, The Joker, I think they call him.

The joker being a macho womaniser?
And what about the "addition" of the joker being the wayne killer? But on other hand the long hair on heath is a really big deviation for MysterioMenace.

Polarizing will get the main argument no where.

Look, if you keep this condescending and somewhat rude attitude, some of the really bias-less effort by Fenhrir to defend his opinion and preference of Heath's portrayal over Jack's will go directly to the drain. I mean no harm, just as you said on your first post, you're being a "condescending dick" and I think we had enough of that attitude. You bring good points, but in an ugly package. Cheers for your contribution, hope to see more.

 

[El Payaso]

"I made you, you made me, lets forget all about it, huh?"

He said something along those lines. That seems like he was pissing his pants, doesnt it?

The "let's forget about it" part does. But that was not what Joker said.

BATMAN: You killed my parents.
JOKER: What? What? What are you talking about?
BATMAN: I made you, you made me first.
JOKER: Hey, bat-brain, I was a kid when I killed your parents. I mean, I say "I made you" you gotta say "you made me." How childish can you get?

It sounds like Joker was first puzzled by Batman saying that, then he was calling him bat-brain and childish. Not what a man begging for his life would say. He was, nevertheless, making time to escape.

Heath wasnt even trying to punch batman. Heath was 10 steps ahead in a huge poker game around gotham city.

True. What's your point?

Also, for me, he didnt lack in any way in funny killings, funny moments or brutality.

True. That's exactly what I have said.

I dont think that the comics joker is all that funny anyway.

Well, you'd be amazed at how many times he has been. In fact the black humour is like the main traditional characteristic of his personality.

Heath's joker was funny in a black humor kind of way.

So was Jack's Joker.

And his funny killings were way smarter and darker than the comics or the burton ones and thats because Nolan had to make him realistic. Since he doesnt have Lucious Wolf woot to make him gadgets like squirting flowers or whatever, its only natural that he improvises.

Heath-Joker's ways were brilliantly done. I think we're not even discussing what a masterpiece TDK is.

On the other hand, yes, i am the one nagging about the lack of atmosphere in TDK (as opposed to BB) so maybe an abandoned amusement park used for the joker's hideout and a combination of realistic tricks and unrealistic arsenal would make it more colourful and more like the comic books. Of course, Nolan's gritty, dark, slimmy and realistic joker was a revelation!

But besides the gadgets and all that, the two are very different IMHO. Heath was a tornado. His cause was higher, his ways were smarter (THANKS TO NOLAN BROS WRITING) and his relationship with batman was spot on. Also, the quote: "Look what i did to this city with a few drums of oil and a couple o' bullets" sums it up for me.

Sorry El Payaso, but he is right IMHO.

About...?

I really like what you are saying, but Heath-Joker wasnt doing it for batman. He was obsessed with him, but he had his own agenda. Chaos (instead of a chick or being more popular than batman in the newspapers). Batman for him was all that you said though.

Both Jokers had their own agendas. Similarity.

Why dont we make him batman's father then? It would be an addition. Christ have mercy on the blasphemers!
Jack's was only superficially similar to the real joker. Heath's was the joker. Heath wasnt the Wayne killer, Nolan is more canon than Burton in every way!
How could Jack's be more accurate? Because he has the same haircut? But he is FAT!

Jack was a much more traditional Joker, which doesn't mean he was any more accurate than Heath's Joker. Heath was THE Joker in the real world. As you've said, in many ways even more impressive than his comic version. But they both have his set of inaccuracies. Joker's not the Wayne's killer, he's not a deformed smile, he's not a face painter and has no scars at both sides of his mouth.

But underneath the surface, Jack's is just a deranged and obsessed mobster, with all the passions and fears that go with that. His goal was to get rid of the batman because he was stealing the headlines from him and to kill Wayne because he dated "his" girl. How is that the joker?

How is it not? That's what the Joker has been throughout his comic life. I'm not sure if he wanted to kill Bruce because jealousy but because Bruce crossed the line talking to him like that.

To El Payaso:
What if Burton wasnt so consistent in his writing,directing,etc? In one scene we see the joker standing up to batman in the batwing (and i agree with Fenhrir, it was a stupid scene) and the next he is afraid of him.

That's simple: in the next scene he was not afraid of him.

At least Nolan was consistent. So maybe its Burton's fault and you hond on to the side that can give you arguements for him and Fenhrir uses the other side of the same coin (whether or not the joker is afraid) to give his arguements against. Also, you and MysterioMenace have some really nice ways to dodge some strong arguements.

Like what points?

The joker being a macho womaniser?
And what about the "addition" of the joker being the wayne killer?

Yes, the Joker wanting girls? What about it?

The addition of the Joker being the Waynes killer provided a solid reason for the characters hatred. Not a different type of change from having Ducard being Ra's al Ghul or Luicius Fox being Batman's helper.

But on other hand the long hair on heath is a really big deviation for MysterioMenace.

I'm not sure why you're addressing this MysterioMenace character's arguments on me. Any reason why you're trying to get us mixed? Please, talk to him about what he said, I have nothing to do with it.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

Knowing how much mobsters enjoy their life, Joker had to know they weren't going to do anything in order to get those grenades detonated.

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.

He detonated the hospital bomb when he was walking away. Had he wanted to die, he would have done it sitting on a chair.

But yes, allowing Dent to point his gun against him was meaningful for the Joker the same as having Batman killing him. It would mean a victory and the corruption of what once was incorruptible.

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

Except that he knew Batman number one rule was not to kill.

Jack's Joker, on the other hand, knew for sure that Batman could kill him when he was facing him on the street (the Batwing scene).

 

[Mr. Earle]

Look, if you keep this condescending and somewhat rude attitude, some of the really bias-less effort by Fenhrir to defend his opinion and preference of Heath's portrayal over Jack's will go directly to the drain. I mean no harm, just as you said on your first post, you're being a "condescending dick" and I think we had enough of that attitude. You bring good points, but in an ugly package. Cheers for your contribution, hope to see more.

It was my first post and i was kinda raging at that point. I am cool now.

Nolan departs from canon numerous times in Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. Is that a disadvantage?

Is Joker being slightly overweight makes him less of a menace, less insane, less murderous?

Is Joker painting his face and hair, and having grin-expanding scars, instead of chemical scarring makes him less of a monster, less freaky, less funny?

I referred to his weight since MysterioMenace bases most of his arguements on jack's appearence and jokes. Its matters only barely to me.

True. What's your point?

That he was better written, ergo he was a much more complex and better character.

About...?

About Jack looking scared.

Both Jokers had their own agendas. Similarity.

Similarity indeed. Just like Burton's penguin had his agenda and the comics penguin has his. Only that the comics penguin's agenda doesnt involve kidnapping Gotham's kids because he has childhood issues. Jack's agenda was massacre indeed, but he had other secondary targets like Vale because of his more human vices.

The addition of the Joker being the Waynes killer provided a solid reason for the characters hatred. Not a different type of change from having Ducard being Ra's al Ghul or Luicius Fox being Batman's helper.

Well rating all these changes with 10 being the more offensive and radical, i will give Fox a "1", Ras a "5" and JackJoker a "10".

The Ras one is one of my favourites actually. I consider it a major plus for Begins. I enjoyed the master-student relationship and the clash of ideals. It became interesting to see how Bruce finally forged his morals and stood his ground against his master when he found out about his ways. Ras was a kindred spirit up until then. In other words, it was well written. On jack's case, burton took the easy way: "lets make jack the wayne killer so batman will hate him". Some people may prefer jack's ways, but its obvious that Nolan did a better job at writing the joker. His joker was chaos, anarchy, "how do you fight someone with no rules without breaking my own", against "hurr hurr, he killed ma parents in the pale moonlight".

On another note, i agree with you that if Jack died, it would have meant nothing. LedgerJoker would achieve victory by getting himself killed by one of gotham's heroes. So its not Jack's fault that he didnt want to die, indeed, that would just mean the end of him. But he was scared of death. It showed when he was holding on to the ladder. It showed when he fell. Ledger's and Hamil's laugh at death's face and Hamil's had nothing to gain by dying.

Except that he knew Batman number one rule was not to kill.
Jack's Joker, on the other hand, knew for sure that Batman could kill him when he was facing him on the street (the Batwing scene).

But he wasnt sure. And anyway, his whole target was to get batman to rage hard enough to kill him. He wanted Batman to do it, whether he knew about the rule or not. That's why he was so happy when Batman dropped him of the tower. He had won (or so he thought).

And i agree with you, since burton's batman often killed, there was no one rule for jack to have a hope. In the comics the joker now knows about the one rule and just laughs in batman's face. He's gonna lose a few teeth at most. And the same will happen with Nolan's joker should Nolan do another movie with him in it.

 

[Rasputin911]

first of all- what does it matter if Heath's Joker wanted to die? How does that help the discussion? Relevence?

But anyone who says he was afraid of death didn't watch the film. He stood still while Batman zoomed right at him, he would have allowed Harvey to blow his brains out, and he cackled as he fell from the skyscraper. The verdict is in. Let's move on.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I love both. I grew up on Nicholson. Physically, stylistically, he is much more classically Joker than Ledger.

But Ledger's Joker is the first time, for me, that the Joker's personality and worldview has been perfectly incapsulated. I would say that BTAS came the closest previously. The limitations of a children's show and his relationship with Harley (who I love...but Joker would not tolerate her like he does in the show, even though they try to do so in the comics as well). He was also a bit erratic in his reactions to his own death. When the show wanted to portray him like a badass, they'd have him laugh at death. But when it was good for a laugh, they'd turn him into a sissy.

Nolan also nails, like BTAS did, the relationship between Batman and Joker. This is one of the few areas I think Burton fails at, in terms of fidelity to the comics (which means, as a story of it's own, the movie works just fine. But since we're talking comic accuracy...).

In Batman89, Joker and Batman are just two guys who really want to kill each other. Batman is an obstacle for the Joker, just a costumed freak that he has to bump off to move on with his plot. For Batman, (once he remembers) Joker is the man who killed his parents. That's not just an addition to the mythos, it fundamentally alters their entire relationship.

What Burton does nail, which Nolan omits because he chose the makeup angle, is Batman's direct responsibility for the creation of the Joker. I do give Nolan some credit however for making him indirectly responsible- for inspiring costumed freaks to start popping up.

I just feel like for Burton, Batman v Joker is a one-off deal. It's made personal by the Wayne killings, but it ends just as quickly as it begins, and Batman's off to the next villain. What I loved, head and shoulders above almost anything else in TDK, or any Batman movie ever for that matter, is "You and I are destined to do this forever."

Tragically, this will never come to pass. But even if Ledger was alive, Nolan wouldn't even have to literally bring Joker back for another movie. Just the idea - just the thought that Joker is still around, he's in Arkham plotting his next move, is an essential part of Batman lore. Even when the Joker's not in the story, I feel his presence always looms.

You lose something when he becomes just the first notch on Batman's supervillain belt.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I love both. I grew up on Nicholson. Physically, stylistically, he is much more classically Joker than Ledger.

But Ledger's Joker is the first time, for me, that the Joker's personality and worldview has been perfectly incapsulated. I would say that BTAS came the closest previously. The limitations of a children's show and his relationship with Harley (who I love...but Joker would not tolerate her like he does in the show, even though they try to do so in the comics as well). He was also a bit erratic in his reactions to his own death. When the show wanted to portray him like a badass, they'd have him laugh at death. But when it was good for a laugh, they'd turn him into a sissy.

Nolan also nails, like BTAS did, the relationship between Batman and Joker. This is one of the few areas I think Burton fails at, in terms of fidelity to the comics (which means, as a story of it's own, the movie works just fine. But since we're talking comic accuracy...).

In Batman89, Joker and Batman are just two guys who really want to kill each other. Batman is an obstacle for the Joker, just a costumed freak that he has to bump off to move on with his plot. For Batman, (once he remembers) Joker is the man who killed his parents. That's not just an addition to the mythos, it fundamentally alters their entire relationship.

What Burton does nail, which Nolan omits because he chose the makeup angle, is Batman's direct responsibility for the creation of the Joker. I do give Nolan some credit however for making him indirectly responsible- for inspiring costumed freaks to start popping up.

I just feel like for Burton, Batman v Joker is a one-off deal. It's made personal by the Wayne killings, but it ends just as quickly as it begins, and Batman's off to the next villain. What I loved, head and shoulders above almost anything else in TDK, or any Batman movie ever for that matter, is "You and I are destined to do this forever."

Tragically, this will never come to pass. But even if Ledger was alive, Nolan wouldn't even have to literally bring Joker back for another movie. Just the idea - just the thought that Joker is still around, he's in Arkham plotting his next move, is an essential part of Batman lore. Even when the Joker's not in the story, I feel his presence always looms.

You lose something when he becomes just the first notch on Batman's supervillain belt.

Great post and i totally agree on the bolded part

 

[El Payaso]

That he was better written, ergo he was a much more complex and better character.

Joker not punching Batman makes it the better written?

About Jack looking scared.

Well he wasn't. I still don't see that still where he looks like pissing his pants.

Similarity indeed. Just like Burton's penguin had his agenda and the comics penguin has his. Only that the comics penguin's agenda doesnt involve kidnapping Gotham's kids because he has childhood issues.

Comic's Penguin have had childhood issues and him being a criminal is related to those issues. I remember a comic book with Penguin kidnapping Sharkey, the guy that used to torture him as a child because of tyhe way his body looked (Sharkey called him Penguin).

Jack's agenda was massacre indeed, but he had other secondary targets like Vale because of his more human vices.

In fact if we examine what Jack's Joker did with Alicia (his "official girlfriend") it had something to do with deform her face into a Joker-y human piece of art. Very Joker and not very normal.

Well rating all these changes with 10 being the more offensive and radical, i will give Fox a "1", Ras a "5" and JackJoker a "10".

The Ras one is one of my favourites actually. I consider it a major plus for Begins. I enjoyed the master-student relationship and the clash of ideals. It became interesting to see how Bruce finally forged his morals and stood his ground against his master when he found out about his ways. Ras was a kindred spirit up until then. In other words, it was well written. On jack's case, burton took the easy way: "lets make jack the wayne killer so batman will hate him". Some people may prefer jack's ways, but its obvious that Nolan did a better job at writing the joker. His joker was chaos, anarchy, "how do you fight someone with no rules without breaking my own", against "hurr hurr, he killed ma parents in the pale moonlight".

Here it's just a matter of how you word it: "hey let's make Joker a post-9/11 face painter so everybody would think is modern and contemporary"; "let's make him Batman's opposite since opposite are always adversaries" "hurr hurr, I hate you because you kill and I don't". But my poor wording doesn't make it a bad idea.

Being the cause of his life and the creator of Batman is quite meaningful in spite of poor wording.

On another note, i agree with you that if Jack died, it would have meant nothing. LedgerJoker would achieve victory by getting himself killed by one of gotham's heroes. So its not Jack's fault that he didnt want to die, indeed, that would just mean the end of him. But he was scared of death. It showed when he was holding on to the ladder. It showed when he fell.

Maybe a random death he was scared of. He wasn't scared of dying attacked directly by Batman in front of Gotham (Batwing scene) but being defeated based on a stupid mistake in front of Vicky alone... it was not the way to go.

Ledger's and Hamil's laugh at death's face and Hamil's had nothing to gain by dying. But he wasnt sure. And anyway, his whole target was to get batman to rage hard enough to kill him. He wanted Batman to do it, whether he knew about the rule or not. That's why he was so happy when Batman dropped him of the tower. He had won (or so he thought).

Absolutely. That's what justifies his laughter; it was the ultimate victory.

And i agree with you, since burton's batman often killed, there was no one rule for jack to have a hope. In the comics the joker now knows about the one rule and just laughs in batman's face. He's gonna lose a few teeth at most. And the same will happen with Nolan's joker should Nolan do another movie with him in it.

That's the difference about the two Jokers. One's main concern is to make Batman break his number one rule.

 

[El Payaso]

first of all- what does it matter if Heath's Joker wanted to die? How does that help the discussion? Relevence?

That would make him a brave man. I think we all know that makes him a looney and that's the beauty fo it.

But anyone who says he was afraid of death didn't watch the film. He stood still while Batman zoomed right at him, he would have allowed Harvey to blow his brains out, and he cackled as he fell from the skyscraper. The verdict is in. Let's move on.

I agree. Both were crazy enough to stay there waiting for Batman to kill them.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Joker not punching Batman makes it the better written? .

I meant the fact that he was always 10 steps ahead. He didnt need to resort to punches. As a matter of fact he enjoyed being hurt.

 

[Dr Strange]

I am a huge fan of both interpretations of the Joker, they both bring the character to life in their own way, Nicholsons brought out the clownish killer (he summed up for me "the clown prince of crime").
Heath Ledger's potrayal was the sociopath anarchist killer who was genually frightening compared to Nicholsons.

 

[The Joker]

I meant the fact that he was always 10 steps ahead.

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.

 

[mrbrownie]

Feels like the storm is over, or are we just experiencing it's deceiving eye...

 

[gwynplaine]

my biggest problem with jack's version was it didnt seem to be one of jacks' best perfomances. when i compare the psychosis he posessed in films like the shining and even the departed his take on the joker seems a bit light. the only time i felt real menace or threat from the joker was the "wait till they git a load of me" scene. that 30 seconds is still damn near perfect .that and no matter how i tried i could only see jack nicholson. even keaton dissapeared more into his role IMO. add to that the wayne murder (damn hollywood revisionism) and the fact that jack was a bit chubbier and older than i feel the joker should be and i always felt a little let down.

thats really the same problem i had with batman '89 in general. i was a huge fan of tim burton, danny elfman, and jack but the movie always just seemed like it didnt go deep enough for me, even at age 13 or 14. now i will gladly hand some of that blame to jon peters and the powers that be over at bros warner but as a batman fan from birth, i always felt the mythology and characters deserved better than they got in 1989. of course this can all be chalked up to personal preference, although it isnt really debatable that the film had some real flaws.

now for the record i still love the movie, warts and all. i have just always felt it fell a bit below the personal bar i had for the characters on film.

disclaimer: now before anyone replies to tell me how wrong i am, its my opinion, an opinion i have held since june of 1989. feel free to disagree all you want but please do not try and convince me or anyone else that my opinion is wrong. feel free to list the ways in which your opinion differs from mine but do not make the mistake of thinking that there are right or wrong answers here.

opinions are like asses and if you mistake them for facts you too are an ass.

Good post.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Feels like the storm is over, or are we just experiencing it's deceiving eye...

LOL!!!

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.

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.

 

[mrbrownie]

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.

We have to consider that he had more time to study his enemies, and their threats weren't spontaneously catastrophic (except for Ra's, but he spent years training with him). And it's Joker's first run, he is an unexpected force.