Who Still Likes Jack's Joker Or Thinks He's Better Than Heath's Joker?

[returntovoid]

I don't want any TDK hyper-fans attacking this thread, let's keep this thread as much civilized as possible.

Now don't get me wrong, Heath Ledger did a great job as The Joker.

But to be honest, I prefer the Jack Nicholson Joker. His characterization as The Joker was more like the classic Joker of the comic books, he used all those deadly toys like the joy buzzer and laughing gas to kill people.

 

[El Payaso]

As far as I can remem,ber Jack's Joker had a recpetion from audiences and critics that has not much to envy from Legder's.

I agree, Jack was the classic Joker; a clown that kills, with a black sense of humour and a collection of deadly toys. I still see many similarities between both; I consider the Gotham parade a "social experiment" where the Joker himself, after being denounced as the one poisoning random people in Gotham, reversed his unpopularity throwing money to feed people's greed. He made his point (whereas Ledger's Joker didn't - but that's not part of the performances but the writer's ideas), Gotham is so corrupted that people would attend to his very death in order to grab a bunch of dollars.

But I have nothing but admiration for Ledger's Joker; the new envisionment of the character is frightening because it's so close to a real life terrorist that is impossible to deny. As Ledger said himself, there was no point in doi8ng the same approach again.

 

[The Joker]

Jack was fantastic. Loved every second of him. But nothing tops Ledger's Joker for me.

He is truly the best.

 

[Ryan]

I'm sorry. I never enjoyed Nicholoson's as the Joker. I'm not sure if it was the performance or I simply could never get into an aging, balding Joker. Heath's performance wasn't perfect, but I knew when I saw that jail cell picture of Heath on Empire magazine that this was going to be something special.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Ledger is better

 

[mothy]

to me, ledger is the joker. truly a landmark villain in this type of film and thoroughly deserving of the oscar. like nicholson said, ledger brought it to another level. he is the benchmark now. and just like heath, i have nothing but respect for jack's portrayal.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Jack Nicholson is one of the strong points of the Burton movie. I prefer him to Ledger, I like his "Cesar Romero's/Dick Sprang Joker's evil twin brother" approach. And I've always liked it when the Joker was a kind of mob boss.

 

[Cain]

I love Jack's Joker reminds me and humors me as much as the Joker featured in a lot of my favorite stories (Ie: the original Englehart run, Joker's 5 Way Revenge). Ledger's Joker was cool and brought something new in some parts but it didn't really remind me of The Joker like Nicholson's Joker did.

 

[El Payaso]

Nicholson is a great actor, and he had some good moments, but overall his Joker didn't do it for me. Joker being obsessed with artwork and thinking he's an artist. His romantic obsession with Vicki Vale. Being the killer of Batman's parents. The constant dancing to Prince music. And Nicholson was a bit too short and chubby to be the Joker.

Erhmm... "romantic"? What was romantic about it exactly.

And well Joker was no more the Waynes' killer than he was the one creating Two-Face, right?

And yes, classic Joker thinks he is an artist, that's been shown many times in comics.

Ledger's Joker struck all the right chords, and what he lacked with the traditional Joker toys, he made up for in scarier theatrical methods like the pencil trick, or the bomb in the thug's stomach, or broadcasting the torture and murder of the imposter Batman etc. These were much more effective than a joy buzzer or acid squirting flower.

As long as I can remember the joy buzzer, the pencil, the cellphone-bomb and the Smilex gas killed people Joker wanted to kill. How were some of them any more effective than the other ones? Some of them were Joker classic weapons, some others weren't.

 

[MrQuinn]

Jack's Joker is decent, definitely. My only *real* problem with him, is that he's too fat in my opinion. If he was a slimmer, lankier guy, I think it would have been a lot better. They did wonderful with the smile concept, and the costuming, and Jack himself did a fairly wonderful job acting. I think my favorite scene has to be right when Jack returns to the office, and you just see his silhouette standing in front of the desk, donning the overcoat and brimmed hat, followed by that infamous line....well you know it That was awesome.

Now, despite Jack's pretty decent performance (and ixnaying the chubby aspect), I still think I liked how Heath handled it better. Jack didn't flat out blow me away like Heath did (of course, I was what...uhhh, 5? when I saw Batman 89), but to be fair I watched 89 shortly after I had seen TDK just to refresh (it had been AGES since I watched 89) and to be honest, I liked Jack's performance a whole lot more than I remember. but like I said, something about Heath's just gripped me. In all honesty, i think his Joker is the only reason I'll rewatch TDK at all.

 

[Ryan]

For me, Romero grabbed my imagination as a child, and Ledger reignited it again in the Dark Knight. Nicholson, in my opnion, failed to take the character to any new direction that would erase what the comics and Romero had done in my childhood. I would say the same for what had Adam West had done for me as Batman as Bale had done in Batman Begins. The only thing that the Burton films had done, is what I had known all along, which is, demonstrated that Batman is the coolest hero in comics to the masses.

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

I still prefer Jack, to me HE IS Joker. The insane clown from the comic books of my era. I thought Heath was brilliant but to me he created a very intelligent psychopath masked as the Joker. It was something else and to me, I'm sorry but I never bought that, though I repeat, I thought he was brilliant in what he did.
But like Bale's Batman he talked too much and sounded way much sane and intelligent than the Joker I've read while growing up. But the beauty of these movies (all 6) and performances is they reflect several times in comic books and eras and they are ALL valid.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

****

 

[donk70]

I'll take Jack's Joker over Ledger's anyday.

 

[The Joker]

I've only read one story where Joker used the artist motif:

It's there. It's from the comics. It's valid.

 

[Dark Guardian]

I still much prefer the Joker played by Jack Nicholson. Its not so much that Jack Nicholson played him (although that certainly helped, and his acting talent is the reason he was able to pull it off) as much as the character written in the movie. That Joker is the actual comic book version that everyone knows. He's actually funny, and you would laugh if he wasn't killing people. He's sharp, he's dressed up all fancy and he's hilarious.
I prefer that, and apart from Mark Hamill and the Animated Series Joker, nothing will ever be better/more enjoyable to watch for me.

I honestly don't understand the attraction to Heath's Joker, as excellently acted as the part was. The character that whomever wrote into the screenplay, is just not the Joker. He's a guy who kills people and has a scar on his face, so he covers it with makeup.

 

[Travesty]

I thought Heath slipped into character more, but Jacks Joker was FAR better, IMO. I don't think TDK-Joker brought anything groundbreaking or "new" to the table, in fact, it diminished on what we already know about the character. The only "wild card" in TDK, was that we didn't have a back-story for The Joker. Other then that, it was trying to live up to what the character embodies, and fell far short from what makes The Joker-Joker. There wasn't anything "trademark", that told us this was THE Joker, other then his purple suit and vague, drugstore make-up. The Joker we all know and love, is perma-white, and uses a slew of nifty Joker gadgets, to not only overcome his opponents, but to make a gag out of killing people.

In most stories that has The Joker, regardless if it's cheese or serious, we would always see Joker psych out his victims by making them think they were about to die with these gadgets, only to have them become a huge joke, making light of the situation, and catching the victims off guard, right before he went ahead with his true motives(to kill). This was never truly represented in TDK, and a HUGE reason to why I think TDK-version took away from the basic core of the character. The Joker is a killing trickster, and finds his gadgets to be truley funny, and helps represent his truly psychotic side, although, TDK-version didn't really showed this at all.

Joker gadgets are basically his tools of destruction, or I should say, his weapons to combat against 'ol Batsy, while also having a laugh to his foes and random victims. His gadgets, are what makes the character stand out the most, and what truly represents him as a whole. I would say they represent The Joker, just as much as Batarangs, grapple guns, and The Batmobile represent Batman. TDK, not only failed to come up with anything new, they took away from what we all know and love. Instead, TDK gave The Joker regular guns, knives, grenades, and bazookas. Now, The Joker could, and has used, these weapons in past comics and cartoons, but to make it his only tool of destruction, is a lackluster attempt to ground the character in a more "realistic" environment. Any villain could use the weapons, but they should only be used in the mix of his stylized gadgets. I was never asking for TDk to come out with the same-old-same-old Joker gadgets(joy buzzer, Joker venom, etc), but to fail in not coming up with anything original for the character, other then real world, terrorist-weapons, was such a disservice to what the character is all about.

If TDK-Joker actually had some signature weapons at his disposal, then I could probably overlook the non-perma-white skin. But, seeing as how that was already a let down, on top of The Jokers arsenal, makes me think this is one of the worst versions/representations of the character to date. Sure, the dynamics between Joker and Batman wasn't half bad, but it's hard to even think what I'm watching on the screen is The Joker to begin with, as his "masterplan" could have been pulled off by any of Batmans villains(ie. Riddler, Penguin, Catwomen, Two-Face, etc). It felt more like Osama Bin Joker, then the actual Joker! Again, Heath did an AMAZING job at slipping into the character, but the character itself wasn't written properly to make me believe that they brought anything new to the table, when in my opinion, they took away so much more. While Nicholson didn't slip into character more, at least his version felt more true to the source material. I wanted a more serious version of The Joker, but I wanted them to remember what truley defines the character, and once again, I think TDK fell far short of the mark.

Was Jacks performance perfect? No, but it was more inline with the character then TDK-version, and was FAR better, IMO.

 

[Dark Guardian]

I thought Heath slipped into character more, but Jacks Joker was FAR better, IMO. I don't think TDK-Joker brought anything groundbreaking or "new" to the table, in fact, it diminished on what we already know about the character. The only "wild card" in TDK, was that we didn't have a back-story for The Joker. Other then that, it was trying to live up to what the character embodies, and fell far short from what makes The Joker-Joker. There wasn't anything "trademark", that told us this was THE Joker, other then his purple suit and vague, drugstore make-up. The Joker we all know and love, is perma-white, and uses a slew of nifty Joker gadgets, to not only overcome his opponents, but to make a gag out of killing people.

In most stories that has The Joker, regardless if it's cheese or serious, we would always see Joker psych out his victims by making them think they were about to die with these gadgets, only to have them become a huge joke, making light of the situation, and catching the victims off guard, right before he went ahead and went by his true motives(to kill). This was never truly represented in TDK, and a HUGE reason to why I think TDK-version took away from the basic core of the character. The Joker is a killing trickster, and finds his gadgets to be truley funny, and helps represent his truly psychotic side, although, TDK-version didn't really represent this at all.

Joker gadgets are basically his tools of destruction, or I should say, his weapons to combat against 'ol Batsy, while also having a laugh to his foes and random victims. His gadgets, are what makes the character stand out the most, and what truly represents him as a whole. I would say they represent The Joker, just as much as Batarangs, grapple guns, and The Batmobile represent Batman. TDK, not only failed to come up with anything new, they took away from what we all know and love. Instead, TDK gave The Joker regular guns, knives, grenades, and bazookas. Now, The Joker could, and has used, these weapons in past comics and cartoons, but to make it his only tool of destruction, is a lackluster attempt to ground the character in a more "realistic" environment. Any villain could use the weapons, but they should only be used in the mix of his stylized gadgets. I was never asking for TDk to come out with the same-old-same-old Joker gadgets(joy buzzer, Joker venom, etc), but to fail in not coming up with anything original for the character, other then real world, terrorist-weapons, was such a disservice to what the character is all about.

If TDK-Joker actually had some signature weapons at his disposal, then I could probably overlook the non-perma-white skin. But, seeing as how that was already a let down, on top of The Jokers arsenal, makes me think this is one of the worst versions/representations of the character to date. Sure, the dynamics between Joker and Batman wasn't half bad, but it's hard to even think what I'm watching on the screen is The Joker to begin with, as his "masterplan" could have been pulled off by any of Batmans villains(ie. Riddler, Penguin, Catwomen, Two-Face, etc). It felt more like Osama Bin Joker, then the actual Joker! Again, Heath did an AMAZING job at slipping into the character, but the character itself wasn't written properly to make me believe that they brought anything new to the table, when in my opinion, they took away so much more. While Nicholson didn't slip into character more, at least his version felt more true to the source material. I wanted a more serious version of The Joker, but I wanted them to remember what truley defines the character, and once again, I think TDK fell far short of the mark.

I couldn't agree more, you hit the nail on the head, bingo, QFT, Amen and any other positive affirmations of the truth of your statement I may have missed.
Although you know who's going to follow up this post don't you? One of the TDK Uber Fans... The ones who deluge everyone with statements of TDK's 'masterpiece quality' and Batman 1989's 'cheesiness' and such...

 

[mothy]

The character that whomever wrote into the screenplay, is just not the Joker. He's a guy who kills people and has a scar on his face, so he covers it with makeup.

if you think that, then you don't understand the character. ledger was very much the joker. the joker of today and there were elements of past jokers as well.

joker's characteristics and behaviour remains the same. you are merely looking at the origin of his appearance and ruling everything associated with the character out.

his permawhite is now the facial scars. he cannot take that off. it's fresh, and absolutely faithful to the core character.

 

[Brother Jack]

Heath without question. He didn't give a performance as much as he became the character, it was the true artistry of acting in motion. Jack was fun but he basically played a heightened version of himself -- I think he's done far better work.

Not only that but Ledger's characterization of the Joker was much superior. It was like a blend of many different types of Jokers into one cohesive character that was different yet of the source material. Jack only did about one singular incarnation, that which was closest to his own personality.

 

[Dark Guardian]

if you think that, then you don't understand the character. ledger was very much the joker. the joker of today and there were elements of past jokers as well.

joker's characteristics and behaviour remains the same. you are merely looking at the origin of his appearance and ruling everything associated with the character out.

his permawhite is now the facial scars. he cannot take that off. it's fresh, and absolutely faithful to the core character.

\
Behavior remains the same... Hurm... Uses guns, knives, explosives. Very few jokes, very little laughter. Really now? This is the same behavior as the comic books?

As for facial scars somehow replacing permawhite... you don't just update something like that. You don't just change a core piece of a character because you want to. That would be like retconning the fact that Bruce's parents were murdered in favor of them being hit by a car. That's not called a fresh look or an update, thats changing the source material. Many would equate that as a bad thing. Considering we are actually trying to adapt the comic book character here, instead of just making something up that somewhat resembles the character.

P.S. I so called it.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Everyone's argument of "it was closer to the comics" etc. is a lame argument. if you feel sticking right to the comic is soo important than by means every comic movie should be directed by zack snyder now.

Heath took the joker character and brought it somewhere new and impressive never before seen and probably never will be seen. Jack was good as well but not as good,i think even he would maybe admit that.

if you sole argument for jack being better is that his character was closer to the comics than really why are you watching movies? just stick to the comics...or watch watchmen.

 

[mothy]

if you sole argument for jack being better is that his character was closer to the comics than really why are you watching movies? just stick to the comics...or watch watchmen.

indeed. they're having nicholson win by default based on that.

Behavior remains the same... Hurm... Uses guns, knives, explosives. Very few jokes, very little laughter. Really now? This is the same behavior as the comic books?

just as the user happy jack said - "it was like a blend of many different types of jokers into one cohesive character that was different yet of the source."

yes, ledger's joker prefers the use of knifes. taking on any situation armed only with a knife is very much in line with the joker's fearless attitude. in nolan's world, you would not arm him with childish tools. it just would not work.

i thought his humour was of a perfect balance. for example, take the joker's twisting of clichés - "i believe whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you stranger" and "slaughter is the best medicine." not only were these funny and disturbing at the same time, but they also showed the intelligence of the character.

also, joker made men kill each other with a broken pool stick; the one who lived got to join his "gang." this is just joker wanting to see these people kill each other, for his own enjoyment. who's to say the survivor even got to join, or live for that matter?

read any current comic book that features the joker. he is now that openly sadistic and less clownish. he has been changed from "clownish killer" to "creepy psychopath." it's still the joker. ledger was very much identifiable as the joker.

 

[david icke]

I do enjoy watching Jack's joker, he's pretty funny at times. and he does embody many classic characteristics.
But, Ledger's joker is just so much more interesting to me.
Jack's Joker starts off as a pretty standard psycho mobster, he already has a few screws loose. When he is dropped into the chemicals he just becomes a variation on what he already was. A more colourful psycho, who covers up the dent to his physical vanity by being more outlandish.
He starts off as a astandard mobster and basically just makes the powerplay move on Grissom that he would have done anyway in time.

Ledger's joker comes out of nowhere though. We see him go from working on his own, hiring crooks and killing them all off so he can reap the mob's money for himself to get their attention. We see him start off from absolutely nothing to taking over mobster after mobster's turf.
Whereas Jack Joker started off as second in command to the crime boss, he already had all his men lined up, we don't get to see his rise to power. The less interesting story, regardless of what they did or did not do in the comics.
Actually, they did follow Batman no1, so that would be more accurate, the joker begins alone there too, incurring the mobster's wrath and killing one off who has threatened to kill him.

edit: I didn't like that about Mask of the Phantasm either, showing the Joker's origin as being just another mobster, immediately makes the character less interesting.

 

[Ryan]

I guess that is why I feel that Heath did bring something new to the character that Nicholson did not. True, Nicholson probably played it truer to the comic book verison but again, playing something that is truer to the comic verison can also be said about Romero's verison. The fact that Heath did not play the character as he has been represented in most movies,tv shows and comics, by definition means that he took the character in a new direction. Less gimmicky (permanant white skin, joy buzzers) and more "reality based" (makeup, knives). Its for that reason that I enjoyed the NEW take on the character (well that and he wasn't over 10 years older then Batman and 100 pounds overweight).
As these films are supposed to be about the beginning of Batman and more or less the Joker, perhaps in a third film the Joker would have evolved and had more traditional gimmicks and been more in your face insane. Watching Heath's last scene in TDK, where he uncontroablly laughs perhaps suggested that his character would have gone back to most people vision of the Joker. Guess we'll never know. I would love it if one day Nolan would do a comic of what was proposed for Batman 3 had Heath lived.