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

[Travesty]

To be honest, the whole thing doesn't make any sense. It's a major plothole and completely unbelievable.

Haha, I undersatnd that, but you have make due with what we have, and Harvey did say he used himself as bait, because he felt Batman would do the right thing.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Yes, but all this thing with the kidnapping, cell phone breakout... that's just too much. It doesn't work. The Joker seems like an imp in many scenes of TDK. He can even fill a boat with explosives and no one notices this!

 

[Mr.?]

Can you tell me why they cut it form the script? Because I can! I read in an interview, that Nolan said he cut it, because he didn't like how Joker talked to his henchmen/goons. I'll look for a link in a second.

You can't say this for a fact. I don't know why The Joker did things that weren't explained to us, but I can go with what we have, and what we know, and that still doesn't even make sense, because I'm positive that Joker thought Harvey was Batman. It just makes more sense that he tried to capture/kill Harvey, RIGHT AFTER Harvey told people he was Batman. That was the ENTIRE reason that Harvey even said he was Batman, to put himself up for bait, cause he "knew [Batman] would do the right thing". They tricked Joker, not the other way around.


First of all, and I hate to say this, but the term is "moot", not "mute". Second, knowing that Dent and Rachel were in a warehouse, with a timed detonator, Joker knew that Batman would come in to interrogate him, before the detonator went off? Like I said, the plane was to kill Harvey, because he thought he was Batman, and the plan was still in effect, even though The Joker was captured by the cops. So The Joker was like, "just set it to 4hr15min, cause I know Batman will chase me, then I'll be in the cops cell for at least an hour, and then Batman will come interrogate me. Trust me, I have informants! And THEN, I'll tell him my plan about Harvey and Rachel, just so he has a SLIGHT chance to only save one. Yes, gentlemen, it is so simple".


I just got done watching the scene, and it doesn't change anything. Joker had his mouth open the entire time while watching The Tumbler, until he went "hmmmm". Same reaction to what I originally told.

It wasn't about exposing corruption, it was about corrupting the people fighting for Gothams good(ie.The incorruptible). It was about showing the people of Gotham, that even the good ones are still bad.

No, the Joker wanted to show Gotham it was corruptible, and he was willing to do anything, even put his life on the line, to get his message across. Why do you think he wanted Batman to either shoot him down, or run him over, in the Bat-pod, when he said, "I want you to do it...come one. hit me...come on hit me. HIT ME!"??? He wanted to show the people of Gotham that these so called "protectors" are corruptible, and he was willing to kill himself for that very message.

Even so it was cut, so that still can't be used as an example imo.

Nope he didn't think he was Batman from what im seeing. Joker knew Harvey was being transported it had nothing to do with him thinking it was Batman and even if he did he wouldn't be trying to kill Batman at that point. Harvey was on the move and it was Joker's opportunity to kill Harvey. They tricked each other (Gordon capturing Joker/Joker setting Dent and Rachel up as bait).

Whatever moot mute same thing. Yeah, not buying Joker putting them on a timer for absolutely no reason other than using them two as bait for the cops and Batman so he could escape. And even if they didn't arrive in time and the explosions went off it wouldn't have mattered because Joker still would have gotten out, the timer has nothing to do with it. His plan was to kill Harvey, but since he got caught he changed that from "use Rachel as bait" to "use Harvey and Rachel as bait" for Batman. If he killed Harvey ahead of time and got caught he still would have used Rachel as bait and if he didn't get caught he would have used her as bait. See what im getting at? Everyway you look at it Joker was using them two as bait for Batman and the cops.

What are you talking about? He doesn't sit there with his mouth open and stare at the Tumbler he looks at it then it hits the garbage truck and he says "hmmm" it was a reaction to the garbage truck getting demolished not the realization that "Hey Dents not batman after all" but whatever this is so trivial to be discussing.

No it was about creating chaos, simple as that. Then when Batman entered the picture Joker gained interest from him and used his love for creating chaos against Batman in an attempt to corrupt and turn him into what he hates. Joker corrupts one person...Harvey. So by your logic your saying he knew he would burn half of Harvey's face and kill his girlfriend and drive him crazy. But that can't happen right, since he knew Harvey was Batman and all. This idea of corruption wasn't introduced into Joker's motive until Harvey was burned. His motive is creating chaos and trying to destroy everything Batman believes in (The good in humanity, Being incorruptable, Being Selfless, etc.) He uses Gotham as a tool to try and convey the message to Batman that "People are only as good as the world allows them to be" "These civilized people will eat each other" "They will cast you out" and so forth.
The ferry situation was all designed to show Batman that they will destroy each other imo and ends up failing, Harvey was used as an example to Batman that good people can become corrupt. He didn't care about exposing Harvey to Gotham, he cared about the city being thrown into chaos after Harvey's true colors were revealed. Thats what he wants chaos on the streets of Gotham and to show Batman what he has been talking about all along is true.

 

[Travesty]

Yes, but all this thing with the kidnapping, cell phone breakout... that's just too much. It doesn't work. The Joker seems like an imp in many scenes of TDK. He can even fill a boat with explosives and no one notices this!

I agree, I thought the entire movie was pretty much rubbish, but the portrayal was even worse, IMO.

 

[[A]]

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

I'd say each Joker interpretation was the best for the movie they were in..

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I agree, I thought the entire movie was pretty much rubbish, but the portrayal was even worse, IMO.

I don't think the movie is rubbish, I was actually quite enthusiastic when I watched it for the first time but all this things hurt the movie so much because they betray the movie's basic premise, to be a "realistic" and "grounded" take on the Batman mythos or even as a gritty crime drama (sic!, ). Overall I give the movie 7/10 because it's entertaining - but deeply flawed. Like all Batman movies to this day, sadly (except for the Phantasm).

 

[Travesty]

Look, Mr.?, I'm done arguing with you, because you clearly keep treading back on topic/ideas we've already discussed over and over again. It doesn't matter what theory you or I have about what happened in-between all the non-sense in the movie, the fact remains, The Joker CLEARLY explained to Batman at the end of the movie, that his motives was directed towards Gothams soul, and even a fist-fight between the two, wouldn't stop him from getting his point across. Why do you even think the movie is called "The Dark Knight"? Batman took the blame of Dent, just so Joker wouldn't "win". If the entire quarrel was directed just on Batman, then he wouldn't have to take the blame on anything, he would have just blamed Dent for what he truly did. The movie was about The Joker going after Gotham, not Batman. Batman was just the person who was trying to stop it, but failed, therefore, he took the blame, and is why Gordon considers him a Dark Knight. "The Joker won, Harvey prosecution, everything he fought for. Done! Whatever chance you have of fixing this city, dies on Harvey's reputation. We put it all on him. The Joker took the best of us, and tore it down.".

And with that, I'm done arguing on what you think the Joker did, when in fact, you don't even understand the ending to the friggin movie.

 

[Mr.?]

Look, Mr.?, I'm done arguing with you, because you clearly keep treading back on topic/ideas we've already discussed over and over again. It doesn't matter what theory you or I have about what happened in-between all the non-sense in the movie, the fact remains, The Joker CLEARLY explained to Batman at the end of the movie, that his motives was directed towards Gothams soul, and even a fist-fight between the two, wouldn't stop him from getting his point across. Why do you even think the movie is called "The Dark Knight"? Batman took the blame of Dent, just so Joker wouldn't "win". If the entire quarrel was directed just on Batman, then he wouldn't have to take the blame on anything, he would have just blamed Dent for what he truly did. The movie was about The Joker going after Gotham, not Batman. Batman was just the person who was trying to stop it, but failed, therefore, he took the blame, and is why Gordon considers him a Dark Knight. "The Joker won, Harvey prosecution, everything he fought for. Done! Whatever chance you have of fixing this city, dies on Harvey's reputation. We put it all on him. The Joker took the best of us, and tore it down.".

And with that, I'm done arguing on what you think the Joker did, when in fact, you don't even understand the ending to the friggin movie.

See you can't say your done with arguing than try and insult me by saying I don't understand the ending....when I do. First off we weren't even talking about the ending we were talking about motive I say Batman has just as much to do with Joker's motive as does the idea of Joker bringing chaos wherever he goes. Joker attacked Gotham's soul by bringing chaos to the city which I have been saying all along but he also wanted to prove to Batman all the things he said about people/the city are true. Now in the ending he rigs the ferries to blow because A.) It creates chaos between the city's inhabitants and B.) He wanted to prove to Batman that "These civilized people will eat each other". I don't understand how your not seeing that it was designed to attack Gotham as well as to attack Batman's morals. Batman wanted to believe that these people wouldn't do that too each other and in the end he was right because they didn't.

Now as far as Harvey that was Joker showing Batman that "Madness is like gravity all it takes is a little push" and that chaos and anarchy in someone's life could effect them the way it effected Harvey. Joker wanted to prove that to Batman as well as expose it to Gotham because it would only create more unrest and chaos within the city. Joker said himself that his job is to "show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control thing really are". Joker does this by creating chaos around the city and attempting to tear down the best of the "schemers" (Batman, Harvey, Gordon). My point is Batman is a major part of Joker's motive in the movie and your acting as if thats not the case which is just ridiculous imo.

 

[Dark Guardian]

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

Well no, there really is no default, and he doesn't "Win" much of anything, other than admiration and respect. This isn't a contest, its people's opinions. Which if you'll note, is the whole point of this thread, to let people post their opinions, and you're not supposed to just jump on them and say they are wrong. It's an opinion, shouldn't have to be defended.

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.

It just would not work... You say that so definitively. As if you somehow know this for absolute fact. This is the problem with people who just defend TDK because its the hot thing, its the revered item, they just claim things without any real backing.
'Childish'? How do you consider a flower that squirts acid childish? It's still acid coming out of the business end, and I guarantee, it'll still eat through your face.

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?

Well its good to know you enjoyed it. That does not however make you that absolute arbiter of that which is funny and that which is not. You don't get to decide if the Joker was just as funny as the comics and declare that we are all wrong. I'm happy you liked it. I and quite a few others did not. That's what happens when different people with different expectations and different senses of humor view something.

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.

Really... hmm... lets see, I just picked up the trade paperback compilation of the very recent comic issues written by Paul Dini entitled Batman: Detective. Let's see... the Joker is... permawhite, uses his acid flower, as well as Joker toxin, he does use a gun, thats true, and he still makes jokes. Funny ones. Very much like the Joker Jack Nicholson portrayed. I don't see Heath Ledger's Joker in this comic. This current comic, as you put it.

So forget it it. It hasn't changed. No-one is stupid enough to just up and significantly change a character that's been around for as long as the Joker has. He's still using those 'childish' weapons of his, because they are the Joker's signature weapons, and that's not going to change.

So please stop deciding what is and is not identifiable as the Joker, because you're way off base. The comics, you know... the ones that have been around since 1930, prove you wrong.

 

[Mr.?]

I like that they substituted the victims having smiles on their faces from the toxin with the Joker painting their faces and giving the the smile with his knife, thought that was a nice touch.

 

[returntovoid]

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.

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.

Great posts Travesty and Dark Guardian! I couldn't agree more!

These two posts really sum up my opinion on why I think Jack played a better Joker than Ledger.

 

[returntovoid]

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

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

What Batman comic book is that panel from???

 

[Ryan]

Ohhh El Payaso, where would you be without my posts? You spend more time trying to disect my postings (as you did many months ago in the "who likes bb better the tdk thread) then just simply posting your own messages, free of critiquing mine. I'm not sure what your hope is? That I'll see the light, your light, and change my mind? Not a chance.
The 60's Joker was, what it was. Campy, corny, and fun to kids and adults alike. I don't know anybody that didn't love seeing Romero or Gorshin's appearances on Batman over less interesting characters like King Tut. Again, for what that show was marketed as, Romero fit the bill. Batman 89's Joker was overweight, older then Batman and killed Bruce Wayne's parents? I don't think so. I can overlook Ledger not having perma white skin when faced with those injustices in that movie. Sure, Ledger didn't use joy buzzers, laughing gas or smiling fish, but again its about the beginning of these characters. Who knows what he would have evolved into in 3rd film? Again, El Payaso, your opnion in not the final word for everyone. You may have the final post (of which I'm abandoning this thread as its getting way off topic), but that doesn't make your opnions anymore valid then mine. Maybe take a lesson from Travesty. While we both have distinct opnions, we can respect other. Just as you liked the Dark Knight, I found Batman begins to be the much superior Batman film, due to the fact that its mainly about..gulp....Batman....my favourite character. Anyways, go ahead and see if you can prove me wrong and actually make posts without targeting other people's opnions.

 

[El Payaso]

Ohhh El Payaso, where would you be without my posts?

Proving other people wrong. t:

You spend more time trying to disect my postings (as you did many months ago in the "who likes bb better the tdk thread) then just simply posting your own messages, free of critiquing mine.

Mh. But that's what you're doing now, critiquing my posts and the way I write them, aren't you?

I'm not sure what your hope is? That I'll see the light, your light, and change my mind? Not a chance.

Everybody in here posts their opinions and many of them quote other people, so I guess you're assuming all of them are trying to get conversions? I say, let's leave the religious-like paranoia and the personal remarks which only brings anger and derailment, and let's focus on the actual subject:

The 60's Joker was, what it was. Campy, corny, and fun to kids and adults alike. I don't know anybody that didn't love seeing Romero or Gorshin's appearances on Batman over less interesting characters like King Tut. Again, for what that show was marketed as, Romero fit the bill. Batman 89's Joker was overweight, older then Batman and killed Bruce Wayne's parents? I don't think so.

So your logic is "it's okay if it was marketed as such." Okay. I don't remember B89 being marketed as a movie that's 100% faithful to comic books with a young a slim Joker.

I could make a list about many things that Romero's Joker got wrong (having a moustache for a starter), the same as you, randomly, list things like being older than batman (what comic book states that Joker must be the same age as Batman?) or overweight (how is being slim absolutely essential for the Joker? And it's not like Nicholson was a Marlon Brando-type of fat guy either).

And no, Joker didn't kill Bruce's parents in comics the same as Ras al Ghul didn't train Bruce Wayne and the weay Bruce didn't have his eyes opened by a childhood friend called Rachel. Or the same as Joker not creating Two-Face. But hell, every superhero movie has had changes. Sandman didn't kill uncle Ben either, etc etc etc.

I can overlook Ledger not having perma white skin when faced with those injustices in that movie. Sure, Ledger didn't use joy buzzers, laughing gas or smiling fish, but again its about the beginning of these characters. Who knows what he would have evolved into in 3rd film?

So you can ignore the same kind of things in Ledger but not in Jack because you found Jack's version to be too bad? What's thew logic in that? "I hated Jack's Joker so much I am prepared to overlook the flaws in any other version." It's like me saying, I can overlook any of Jack Joker's flaws because at least his Joker didn't have a moustache like Romero.

And no, if Nolan wanted that classic angle for his Joker he wouldn't have waited until a sequel tod evelop them. He just took the character and turned it into a realistic referent; a terrorist/anachist.

Again, El Payaso, your opnion in not the final word for everyone. You may have the final post (of which I'm abandoning this thread as its getting way off topic), but that doesn't make your opnions anymore valid then mine.

The question is why do you feel like it is that way? Stop feeling threatened by other people's opinion; nobody's thinking that their opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

And if you feel like the thread is going off topic, stop making personal remarks yourself and you'll be contributing to keep it on topic.

Maybe take a lesson from Travesty. While we both have distinct opnions, we can respect other.

Maybe take a lesson from me and don't go personal and discuss the actual topic instead.

Anyways, go ahead and see if you can prove me wrong and actually make posts without targeting other people's opnions.

Actually my first post here wasn't a reply to anyone.

The very concept of not addressing other people's opinions in a discussion board is hilarious.

 

[Travesty]

Another thing I forgot to mention, that was just brought to my attention, were The Jokers deathtraps/ultimatums. None of these exhibited any Joker traits, as they all seemed to be 50/50 chances: Save either Rachel or Dent, Save the good people or the criminals, I'll burn my HALF and you get to keep yours, I'll blow up a building or take off your mask. All of these ultimatums were un-Joker like, and should have been given to Two-Face, seeing as how everything was a 50/50 chance. Even The Jokers plans in TDK didn't seem like something you would normally get from the character. And that was a point I was trying to make, but got lost there for a second. These terrorist threats, and the chaos he brought to Gotham, didn't fall in line with what The Joker is truly about, and was more fitting for Two-Face.

And like I said earlier, his victims weren't part of a joke or gag. That comic from above, shows what I'm talking about: The Joker comes in, starts gassing his victims, and they die laughing....literally. THATS JOKER! You either die laughing, or you're part of a joke/gag. In TDK, I can really only think of two instances that actually seemed to fall into this idea. a.) The "pencil trick", where he uses a regular pencil to kill his victims, but makes a slight joke out of it. That's not that bad. b.)When he threw Rachel out the window, and right before Batman says, "let her go", while Joker replies, "ohhhh, poor choice of words, hEHAha". Now that is pretty good! All of his other victims were used to show a message, which wasn't even a joke to begins with.

 

[MysterioMenace]

From what I’ve encountered, most comic fans, what I’d consider so-called true Batman fans as the comic book is his authentic medium, nor is the true fan card something I tend to smile upon ever, tend to prefer Jacks version of Joker. It’s very far from dead. Perhaps not the more popular film version any longer, but that doesn’t inherently make him unpopular, merely just not the majority preference today. You have to account for the fact that Heath is merely newer on top of that. Freshness doesn’t equate to durability. People in 1989 used to say Jack would never be surpassed every bit as often as you’ll hear the very same about Heath now. Most fans I come across like both depictions, of which I’d be one of them. But the diehard Heath Joker fan base, which really can only be described as this sort of trend, is somewhat interpreted by many comic followers as what Twilight fans are to today’s vampire fan base; embarrassing!

A lot of Batman fans today seem to forget that Batman was created in 1939, the Joker only a year later. They don’t bother to educate themselves upon the history of the popular crime fighter and his iconic cast of villains, but rather just to formulate their negative opinions based only around what their own personal experience has been, which is very minuscule to the length of the characters evolution itself; some 70 years! Take Batman; The Brave and the Bold and the extreme hate it seems to spawn from the more modern followers. “Batman isn’t supposed to be campy anymore, that’s not accurate!” sort of mentalities are so rigidly prepubescent. Hate all you like, by all rights to each their own is a wonderful way to live, but dislike it for actual reasons and not out of pure ignorance. I take in the whole scope of the characters past, unlike most today who only seem to go back to Frank Millers almost satirically over the top The Dark Knight Returns, attempt to learn as much as possible, and then I make my preferences. This narrow-minded and dogmatic sort of Batman fan has really become the pimple on the nose of Prom Night.

From my perspective, it’s never been about the actors. Ultimately I could care less about them. It’s the caricature that takes precedence. The Joker is everlasting! The thing is…most Heath shippers tend to live only in the now and allow their logic to be clouded by their borderline unhealthy love. This is an incredibly resilient caricature. It’s archetypal really. No single actor can endure past that. Long after they’re long forgotten, with only a dwindling cult following, the Joker character will still be running on strong legs. Every artist has to make peace with the fact that oftentimes along with extreme success; the art will outlast or outrank the popularity of the artist. Heath Ledger didn’t make the Joker; the Joker made Heath Ledger. And not to sound disrespectful, though I find anyone that brings up the death in any light but slave-like mournfulness gets unfairly crucified by the overly-obsessive and girlishly sensitive (what I’ve coined) Nolanites, the Joker has already outlasted Heath in the most literal of senses. That speaks volumes. No single actor will ever always be considered the definitive Joker. Those that believe Heath will be aren’t looking at the bigger picture. History tends to repeat itself. Twenty years from now we could be having this very same conversation, but in place of Jack vs. Heath it’ll be Heath vs. the popular new kid on the block.

And that’s already been proven. Preferences come and go based upon the times we’re living in. It's all social. What’s popular today is dated tomorrow. He’s gone through so many transformations throughout the ages that no depiction of the Joker is necessarily more accurate than any other. It all comes down to personal preference, meaning no one is right or wrong in which they like better. Some, like me, like them on par with each other and don’t view this as some sort of immature competition. Heath Ledgers version of the Joker stems more from the original Bill Finger and Bob Kane debut, when he was less of this homicidal sadist comedian and more so just this one-note murderer. That was very short lived but is nonetheless the true background. While his does include almost all the evolutions, I would say the foundation to The Dark Knights Clown Prince of Crime is what I’d consider the much more shallow and premature 1940 Bob Kane version; that one-noted killer with far less of that vicious sense of humor. Next was the severely toned Comics Code edition, one that was really more so this juvenile nuisance of a criminal than any legitimate threat. Finally and undeniably the longest lasting Joker would be Dennis O’Neil’s early 70’s amalgam of the original violent maniac and the tamed clownish comic, blended together into a character surpassing what the two ever were separate. And while Heath does take from this as well and despite the made-up gangster background story, that’s really what Jack’s 1989 film version far more so draws from and arguably why (in my personal experience) most avid and learned Batman fans tend to appreciate him more than your average Dark Knight fanboy.

Batman 1989 has every bit of pseudo-intellectualism in its Joker character, it’s merely not (arguably pretentiously) explained to the viewer. People today don’t want to look for their meanings in cinematic sessions; they want it to be spoon-fed to them. And that’s exactly what Nolan did with his characterization of the Joker, which comes off more so as a case study than any sort of narrative, being responsible for my simultaneous love and irksomeness of Ledgers Joker character. That’s no more apparent then right here, when most people who egotistically proclaim to get the character really just copy and paste the Nolan Joker mantra.

You hear comments from Ledger fans about how they seem to believe they understand the Joker, but they’re really regurgitating nothing more than unoriginal broken record replays (again and again) of what Christopher Nolan believes his interpretation of the Joker to be. It’s become so repetitively plagiarized. All you hear are the same “Jack played the Joker; Heath was the Joker” comments that originally stemmed from Kevin Smiths review. Then there’s the agent of chaos tangents without as much as a single thread of genuine original thought. Well…here’s my take on Joker;

I think most people are missing the point. He’s not defined by murder and that now ever-overused chaos description. There are thousands of fictional villains that are lethal. They’re a dime a dozen. By no means is that any sort of unique or groundbreaking concept. Yet he is arguably the most recognizable and popular comic book villain of all-time; perhaps just plain old villain of all-time. What separated him from the masses was the clown persona, something Nolan seemed to somewhat overlook. Some now criticize the more gimmick-driven Mr J., with his oversized hammers and bang guns, as being not nearly as frighteningly intimidating. Heath hardly retained a shred of it...the only possible exception being the pencil trick, coincidentally being probably the most memorable Dark Knight moment. This was, however, what made Joker far more horrifying in my eye and added far more depth. He wasn’t murdering like any Joe serial killer, the Ace of Knaves was having fun! He adored murder, playing some sort of sardonic game with taking lives, not acknowledging any real-world consequences or remorse. In this odd and oftentimes non-admitted way, the character is liberating to read. You don’t want to admit he’s actually and genuinely funny aloud, but deep down…you know he’s doing things you only wish you could. He makes killing charismatically intoxicating. How many figures in fiction actually make you question your own ethics? It’s in how or why he murders, feeding that horrifying dark sense of humor, which defined him. He’s symbolically this clown for a reason; the dichotomy of comedy. The Joker's mocking mouth taps into the grim recesses of the human psyche. After all, at the core, most humor has an element of cruelty to it...which he ruthlessly embodies and exploits. For that no actor will ever reach his status in the world. Too many people focus on the actors, but these film roles will always be more remembered, not because they were Jack Nicholson or Heath Ledger, but because they were the Joker.

 

[Travesty]

^

I wish I could formulate my thoughts and ideas like that. That may just be, the best post I have seen on SHH, yet! Bravo, good sir.

 

[MysterioMenace]

^

I wish I could formulate my thoughts and ideas like that. That may just be, the best post I have seen on SHH, yet! Bravo, good sir.

Thank you so much for your kind words. I’m expecting to be beaten by the cliché Ledger fans, so it’s nice to see something positive. Hah! But by no means does this mean I dislike Ledger. I loved Dark Knight, but not at the expense of Batman (1989). I get so bothered when Nolan fanboys make completely wrong claims of Burtons original film not being accurate at all. I've heard insane things like Batman was never gothic, he never killed people, or that his Joker wasn't crazy. Someone said that the only reason people allow Jack to win them over is because his personality is more comic accurate. Well…why shouldn’t that be a degree of grading? I think that’s really undervaluing the comic books. After all, without them…we wouldn’t have any Joker on screen. That deserves a level of respect. While I don’t feel that every little detail has to be identical to the page, you do have to retain a certain level of recognizable traits and characteristics. While I do think Heath certainly had that, compared to Jack…he’s just not nearly as comic book Joker. I could have used a lot more laughing and a lot more pencil trick moments, to name a few. And I don’t think that the comic book accuracy grading scale should be shunned or looked down upon at all. That's just absurd! In fact, I think that’s about the only logical way to scrutinize the two portrayals.

 

[Travesty]

Thank you so much for your kind words. I’m expecting to be beaten by the cliché Ledger fans, so it’s nice to see something positive. Hah! But by no means does this mean I dislike Ledger. I loved Dark Knight, but not at the expense of Batman (1989). I get so bothered when Nolan fanboys make completely wrong claims of Burtons original film not being accurate at all. I've heard insane things like Batman was never gothic, he never killed people, or that his Joker wasn't crazy. Someone said that the only reason people allow Jack to win them over is because his personality is more comic accurate. Well…why shouldn’t that be a degree of grading? I think that’s really undervaluing the comic books. After all, without them…we wouldn’t have any Joker on screen. That deserves a level of respect. While I don’t feel that every little detail has to be identical to the page, you do have to retain a certain level of recognizable traits and characteristics. While I do think Heath certainly had that, compared to Jack…he’s just not nearly as comic book Joker. I could have used a lot more laughing and a lot more pencil trick moments, to name a few. And I don’t think that the comic book accuracy grading scale should be shunned or looked down upon at all. That's just absurd! In fact, I think that’s about the only logical way to scrutinize the two portrayals.

Very true. And it's funny, because when I talk about the two versions, I normally try and use the term "TDK-Joker" and "B89-Joker", so people will know I'm talking about the character, and not necessarily about the actor.

 

[Cain]

The juxtaposition associated with the character is what I missed most about TDK and something that makes me prefer the '89 version more since it was retained. The fact that a playful looking dapper prankster like himself is capable of such devious actions is what makes the character work most for me.

I look at the character in the comics and yes he uses a giant hammer but to bash your brain in not to hit a giant nail, yes he uses a squirting flower but to spray you with acid and not cool water. I see the TDK Joker and just based on his appearance alone I know this guy is somehow warped.

I see the '89 Joker and I don't know what to think just based off his appearance alone I wouldn't even come close to thinking he's capable of parading and dancing to pop music around a bunch of dead corpses he's responsible for or have a conversation with a corpse that he just charred. To me that's a true wild card and why prefer it, it's much closer to the character I adore from the comics than any other live action interpretation to date.

 

[Mr.?]

I like Heath's Joker better, but Nicholson still did great in the role too.

 

[C. Lee]

Proving other people wrong. t:

That's why you are a troll. If someone has an opinion that differs from yours...you feel the need to prove them wrong.

The question is why do you feel like it is that way? Stop feeling threatened by other people's opinion; nobody's thinking that their opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

Actually....that's describing you.

Stop with the superior attitude that other people's opinion if different from yours is wrong and must be corrected. Stop nitpicking people's posts apart. You are not proving your point or gaining fans...you are showing yourself to be petty and self rightous.

The point of these boards is to have fun...except when the fun someone has is by attacking other posters.

 

[El Payaso]

Thank you so much for your kind words. I’m expecting to be beaten by the cliché Ledger fans, so it’s nice to see something positive. Hah! But by no means does this mean I dislike Ledger. I loved Dark Knight, but not at the expense of Batman (1989). I get so bothered when Nolan fanboys make completely wrong claims of Burtons original film not being accurate at all. I've heard insane things like Batman was never gothic, he never killed people, or that his Joker wasn't crazy. Someone said that the only reason people allow Jack to win them over is because his personality is more comic accurate. Well…why shouldn’t that be a degree of grading? I think that’s really undervaluing the comic books. After all, without them…we wouldn’t have any Joker on screen. That deserves a level of respect. While I don’t feel that every little detail has to be identical to the page, you do have to retain a certain level of recognizable traits and characteristics. While I do think Heath certainly had that, compared to Jack…he’s just not nearly as comic book Joker. I could have used a lot more laughing and a lot more pencil trick moments, to name a few. And I don’t think that the comic book accuracy grading scale should be shunned or looked down upon at all. That's just absurd! In fact, I think that’s about the only logical way to scrutinize the two portrayals.

I basically agree with you, MM. With both of your posts.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I think Ledger Joker is a deadend from the storytelling perspective. I mean what could he have done in the next movie? Proving his point again? Nicholson's Joker seemed to be more diverse in his interests, so more potential.

But that's just my impression.

 

[bane]

Nicholson's best roles are in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "The Shining".
Ledger's best roles are in "Brokeback Mountain" and "The Dark Knight".