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

[Cain]

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".

I think The Shining is overrated not even in Kubrick's top 5 and I think Jack was better in Easy Rider, Chinatown, The Last Detail, Carnal Knowledge and Prizzi's Honor than he was in The Shining. I just realized though Ledger did become something else when he took on this role.

The character written for The Dark Knight was interesting and just the departure in character type he needed to officially become a legend. I guess you could say when people heard Nicholson announced to play The Joker it seemed like more of a no brainer than when most people heard of Heath Ledger for the role.

In that sense it makes it an even more powerful showcase of his skill because he completely lost himself in it. I always had faith in him cause I trust a director to make the right call when he casts someone and Nolan has been pretty good at that with little flaws. The only thing I would say though is that I don't think anybody expected him to be as dedicated to the role as it was and it completely shows on screen, he's a dynamo.

I prefer Nicholson's Joker to me once again that is The Joker while to me Ledger's Joker is just some amalgam of a lot of Batman rogues (A lil Joker, A lil Zsaz, A lil Two-Face, A lil Bane etc.) not bad but not really THE JOKER but a cool re-imagining.

I believe that Nicholson pretty much walked through his role in BATMAN meaning that it wasn't something that required much effort in his part in comparison to Ledger. It wasn't a real challenge it was something he could've phoned in it also just so happens that's what was so perfect about the performance.

But technically speaking I think Ledger's performance is way better. More experimental and required more imagination from both the actor and the director. To me Nicholson's character WAS The Joker in so many ways once he came out of that acid bath I can't really say that about Ledger's except for a couple of moments.

 

[returntovoid]

I wish I could formulate my thoughts and ideas like that.

Me too.

That may just be, the best post I have seen on SHH, yet! Bravo, good sir.

Indeed, MM wrote a really well thought out post and I couldn't agree more with it.

 

[Dark Guardian]

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


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.

I have been waiting to say this, but have resisted the urge. Thank you C. Lee.

 

[Oddzball]

Ledger's Joker was a very interesting ruthless sociopathic killer. What he was NOT was centralized around jokes and pranks to a ruthless sociopathic killer mode.

And theme is key here. The Joker sees 'The Joke' in almost everything. He generally lives it, breathes it tries to keep it going. Except when he's the butt of it.

Ledger's Joker lacked that aspect. Yes, all the live action Jokers are guys in make up. You could SEE Caesar Romero's damned mustache under his make up. But it was supposed to be more than a disguise. It wasn't in TDK.

 

[Oddzball]

What Batman comic book is that panel from???

I could very well be wrong, but I think it's from a World's Finest book. The scene just screams Mort Weisinger to me.

 

[El Payaso]

The character written for The Dark Knight was interesting and just the departure in character type he needed to officially become a legend. I guess you could say when people heard Nicholson announced to play The Joker it seemed like more of a no brainer than when most people heard of Heath Ledger for the role.

In that sense it makes it an even more powerful showcase of his skill because he completely lost himself in it. I always had faith in him cause I trust a director to make the right call when he casts someone and Nolan has been pretty good at that with little flaws. The only thing I would say though is that I don't think anybody expected him to be as dedicated to the role as it was and it completely shows on screen, he's a dynamo.

I prefer Nicholson's Joker to me once again that is The Joker while to me Ledger's Joker is just some amalgam of a lot of Batman rogues (A lil Joker, A lil Zsaz, A lil Two-Face, A lil Bane etc.) not bad but not really THE JOKER but a cool re-imagining.

I believe that Nicholson pretty much walked through his role in BATMAN meaning that it wasn't something that required much effort in his part in comparison to Ledger. It wasn't a real challenge it was something he could've phoned in it also just so happens that's what was so perfect about the performance.

But technically speaking I think Ledger's performance is way better. More experimental and required more imagination from both the actor and the director. To me Nicholson's character WAS The Joker in so many ways once he came out of that acid bath I can't really say that about Ledger's except for a couple of moments.

Basically, yes. But that "cool re-imagination" was really cool.

 

[bane]

I think The Shining is overrated not even in Kubrick's top 5 and I think Jack was better in Easy Rider, Chinatown, The Last Detail, Carnal Knowledge and Prizzi's Honor than he was in The Shining. I just realized though Ledger did become something else when he took on this role.

The character written for The Dark Knight was interesting and just the departure in character type he needed to officially become a legend. I guess you could say when people heard Nicholson announced to play The Joker it seemed like more of a no brainer than when most people heard of Heath Ledger for the role.

In that sense it makes it an even more powerful showcase of his skill because he completely lost himself in it. I always had faith in him cause I trust a director to make the right call when he casts someone and Nolan has been pretty good at that with little flaws. The only thing I would say though is that I don't think anybody expected him to be as dedicated to the role as it was and it completely shows on screen, he's a dynamo.

I prefer Nicholson's Joker to me once again that is The Joker while to me Ledger's Joker is just some amalgam of a lot of Batman rogues (A lil Joker, A lil Zsaz, A lil Two-Face, A lil Bane etc.) not bad but not really THE JOKER but a cool re-imagining.

I believe that Nicholson pretty much walked through his role in BATMAN meaning that it wasn't something that required much effort in his part in comparison to Ledger. It wasn't a real challenge it was something he could've phoned in it also just so happens that's what was so perfect about the performance.

But technically speaking I think Ledger's performance is way better. More experimental and required more imagination from both the actor and the director. To me Nicholson's character WAS The Joker in so many ways once he came out of that acid bath I can't really say that about Ledger's except for a couple of moments.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but Ledger's performance was really fearless, he just brought many little nuances to the charater, not that Jack's Joker didn't, it's just no one expected that from Heath.I was a supporter of Robin Williams(as the Joker) and when I heard that Ledger was casted as the Joker I was really shocked, I was expecting some big Hollywood star to fill in Jack's shoes.I've seen Ledger in BBM and that's a performance I will never forget, but I didn't suspsect he would've loose himself so much in the role of the Joker, that I won't be able to recognize him. I guess many people had the same thoughts as me and that's why they were so impressed.Whenever i see a performance by Jack I expect nothing less than greatness, maybe that's why his Joker didn't imressed me as much, because i've seen his best roles in other movies(One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,The Shining & Chinstown).I would say his role in the Departed fits the Joker much more than what we saw in B89, IMO.

 

[Ryan]

Thank you C. Lee. Much appreciated.

 

[david icke]

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

I'm sorry I can't be as into this post as some have been, but I found some of it patronising, in regards to assuming that people who prefer or think the Ledger Joker is a better interpretation don't know about BM comic history, or are not willing to accept different interpretations of BM. I feel that you may be guilty of playing with the facts to suit your own opinion.

So, the Ledger Joker is only the psycho killer from BMno1? He only displays clown like tendancies with the pencil trick?
What about when he's toying with the copycat Batman in his video? The people at the Dent fundraiser? Leaping about on the big pile of money before setting it alight? Driving the truck and laughing like a maniac and expressing how much he 'loves his job'? He is acting the clown all the way through the movie.
He didn't look like he was having fun with all that and more?
So, you need joy buzzers, big hammers etc to be a clown? Ah...I think you either ignored the facts of the movie to uphold your argument or did not get it.
Ledger's joker took many aspects from the Joker's long history and was adapted to be more real world, the spirit is there in bucketloads.

Tbh I did not know Jack's Joker was supposed to be held up as some kind of timeless classic of a performance. It was brought up constantly when TDK came out, but I never read of this kind of regard in any movie magazine or book before this.
I am a movie fan, and have heard endless praise for many of his movie performances, but Batman was never brought up as the one he would be remembered for.
It's fine, it's very funny in places, but it's not one of his best imo.
But anyway, that's a matter of opinion.

As for Batman killing in the movies. We have been discussing this in the movies/comparison thread, he never killed like that in the comics, his 'killings' were always in self defence or 'collaterol damage'(as TTTC put it).
He was never out for blood on a revenge kick, blowing up a factory inteding to kill the Joker and his goons, shooting at the Joker with intention to kill. He only started doing that after knowing the joker killed his parents. They turned Batman into a standard 80s revenge movie killer and changed the character into something more standard and commonplace.

edit: btw in defence of El Payaso, I think he was joking about with the way he is perceived with his 'proving someone else wrong' comment. He may be more tenacious than most on the boards when it comes to getting into a debate of opinions, but i don't see that he's doing anything different than anyone else on the boards. We all have our momenst of wading in with our long held opinions only to have them challenged, or have challenged other fans ops with our own long held ops.

 

[The Joker]

What Batman comic book is that panel from???

One of the campy Joker comics from the 60's.

 

[The Joker]

No, I understand that every villain has different "motives" to their crimes, but my point was that most of Batmans villains could have done the same things that Joker did in TDK.

How could any villain have had the motives that Joker had in TDK? How many of Batman's enemies tried to break people's spirits just to prove they're just like them deep down?

That's a motivation taken from the Killing Joke.

Nothing had definable "Joker motives". To me, The Joker enjoys chaos for the sake of it, with no motives, unless trying to get Batman's attention.

Joker's has had tons of motivations beyond mere chaos. Some of his most classic stories had him with a specific goal:

- The Laughing Fish: He wanted to patent all the fish in Gotham for a profit by making them have smiley faces like him.
- The Joker's Five way Revenge: Joker murders several of his former gang members who betrayed him.
- No Man's Land: Joker kidnaps all the new born babies in Gotham in order to destroy moral and hope in Gotham City

I could go on and on....

Did you watch BTAS? Joker had loads of motivations and goals in that, too:

- The Last Laugh: Joker using laughing gas to steal from Gotham
- The Laughing Fish: Same as above
- Harley and Ivy: Joker tries to steal the Harlequin diamond
- Make 'em Laugh: Joker gets revenge on comedian judges who voted him out of a comedy contest
- Joker's Wild: Joker wants revenge on a business man who used his image to make a casino
- Harlequinade: He tried to nuke all of Gotham with a bomb

None of these had anything to do with getting Batman's attention, or just creating chaos for the hell of it.

In TDK, he had a clear motive to his chaos and destruction. Sure, it touched upon The Joker-Batman relationship,but that wasn't the main idea around TDK. I like a Joker who doesn't have motives, who only likes chaos, but is psychotic himself.

Then you only like one type of interpretation of the Joker.

And Joker's motive was not always clear in TDK. Initially he wanted Batman out of the way by trying to force him to unmask and turn himself in. But when he discovered how much fun it was challenging Batman, he changed his mind. He found the idea of a world without Batman "So boring".

No, we've seen Batman use a TON of different gadgets throughout his comic book career, some of which, include actual guns.

Guns are not gadgets. And Nolan's Batman is not a killer, so that rules out using them.

What are these ton of other gadgets that are mandatory to his character?

But the reason why he commonly uses his regular arsenal, is because those are the ones that define the character the most.

No, those are his basic arsenal.

Regular guns and knives don't define Joker.

Nothing defines the Joker. He has a plethora of weapons. He's not The Penguin, Catwoman, Scarecrow etc. He's not confined to trick umbrellas, a whip, or fear gas.

Haha, I know, but the point to having the parade, was to get Batman's attention. That's another reason why I think B89s-Joker is better. He still promoted chaos and destruction, but there wasn't anything to it, other then to get Batmans attention, and that's all The Joker is about(ie. chaos and destruction, and to "play around" with Batman).

Wrong.

Joker wanted to get Batman's attention in B'89 because he wanted revenge because he felt Batman was responsible for his fall into the chemicals. He wasn't enthralled by Batman challenging him. He hated Batman's very presence in Gotham. He wanted him dead. He didn't find him intriguing, interesting, or fun.

The Joker/Batman relationship in TDK was spot on.

As for the cop thing, it seems that every Bat-movie has dumb cops, hence, the need for a Bat-Man.

Ah now come on, there's dumb, and there's mind numbingly stupid. A criminal announces where he'll be on TV, and not one single Cop is there to arrest him.

Ridiculous!

The cops had the building surrounded where The Joker was in TDK, with helicopters, cops, snipers, SWAT teams, and they still couldn't get to The Joker, only Batman could.

Three things:

1. They held off because of the hostage situation
2. Batman started taking out all the SWAT teams storming the building when he realized the clowns were the hostages
3. They did get to the Joker after they saved the hostages and took out Joker's men

 

[returntovoid]

How could any villain have had the motives that Joker had in TDK? How many of Batman's enemies tried to break people's spirits just to prove they're just like them deep down?

Travesty is not saying that every Batman villain is about chaos and destruction.

What Travesty said is that any Batman villain could be capable of chaos and destruction if they wanted to cause it.

 

[MrQuinn]

Everyone keeps saying Ledger's Joker lacked the whole "joke" aspect. A few people have said he lacked "Seeing the joke in everything". I beg to differ. Nolan's anarchist take on the Joker in TDK basically screams that he sees life itself as a joke. He views possessions, both physical and moral, as complete jokes (hence lighting the money that he stole from a thief on fire). He did everything in the movie out of pure spite, just to mock everyone in Gotham. He goes out of his way to look like a complete dirty goofball, only to then prove he's maniacal and isn't scared of anything, even Batman beating the hell out of him, even death. His blatant disregard toward humanity and life itself proves to me that he just views the entire world as one big joke, and he's out to prove to everyone what a big joke it really is.

I agree, that he wasn't "clowning" around and such (although, there were some points,(his whole intro scene, the nurse scene was key, the party scene during his search for Dent). Just because he didn't go around "buzzing" people or didn't pull out a huge bang gun, doesn't mean he didn't find everything around him funny.

It's a very different take, for sure. but I think it's still quite Joker-ized, if you just get passed the classic Clown Prince standards. Besides, I appreciate the new take because it was both daring and out there, and it was actually a very pleasant surprise. If it was just Ledger in a regular pressed purple suit waving a ridiculous gun around and giggling, well....what do you think? The whole Batman series at the moment has been a lot different from day one, to me, this just falls in place.

and this has nothing to do with anything, but why is this thing telling me to spell check the word " isn't " ? It's not highlighting it to spell check in the quotations, but only where I used it earlier in the post. I'm not understanding this.

 

[The Joker]

Travesty is not saying that every Batman villain is about chaos and destruction.

What Travesty said is that any Batman villain could be capable of chaos and destruction if they wanted to cause it.

But chaos and destruction is a huge umbrella heading. It comes in so many shapes and forms. It's like saying all of Batman's villains are murderers, or are all insane.

Everyone keeps saying Ledger's Joker lacked the whole "joke" aspect. A few people have said he lacked "Seeing the joke in everything". I beg to differ. Nolan's anarchist take on the Joker in TDK basically screams that he sees life itself as a joke. He views possessions, both physical and moral, as complete jokes (hence lighting the money that he stole from a thief on fire). He did everything in the movie out of pure spite, just to mock everyone in Gotham. He goes out of his way to look like a complete dirty goofball, only to then prove he's maniacal and isn't scared of anything, even Batman beating the hell out of him, even death. His blatant disregard toward humanity and life itself proves to me that he just views the entire world as one big joke, and he's out to prove to everyone what a big joke it really is.

I agree, that he wasn't "clowning" around and such (although, there were some points,(his whole intro scene, the nurse scene was key, the party scene during his search for Dent). Just because he didn't go around "buzzing" people or didn't pull out a huge bang gun, doesn't mean he didn't find everything around him funny.

It's a very different take, for sure. but I think it's still quite Joker-ized, if you just get passed the classic Clown Prince standards. Besides, I appreciate the new take because it was both daring and out there, and it was actually a very pleasant surprise. If it was just Ledger in a regular pressed purple suit waving a ridiculous gun around and giggling, well....what do you think? The whole Batman series at the moment has been a lot different from day one, to me, this just falls in place.

and this has nothing to do with anything, but why is this thing telling me to spell check the word " isn't " ? It's not highlighting it to spell check in the quotations, but only where I used it earlier in the post. I'm not understanding this.

Well said

 

[MysterioMenace]

I'm sorry I can't be as into this post as some have been, but I found some of it patronising, in regards to assuming that people who prefer or think the Ledger Joker is a better interpretation don't know about BM comic history, or are not willing to accept different interpretations of BM. I feel that you may be guilty of playing with the facts to suit your own opinion.

So, the Ledger Joker is only the psycho killer from BMno1? He only displays clown like tendancies with the pencil trick?
What about when he's toying with the copycat Batman in his video? The people at the Dent fundraiser? Leaping about on the big pile of money before setting it alight? Driving the truck and laughing like a maniac and expressing how much he 'loves his job'? He is acting the clown all the way through the movie.
He didn't look like he was having fun with all that and more?
So, you need joy buzzers, big hammers etc to be a clown? Ah...I think you either ignored the facts of the movie to uphold your argument or did not get it.
Ledger's joker took many aspects from the Joker's long history and was adapted to be more real world, the spirit is there in bucketloads.

Tbh I did not know Jack's Joker was supposed to be held up as some kind of timeless classic of a performance. It was brought up constantly when TDK came out, but I never read of this kind of regard in any movie magazine or book before this.
I am a movie fan, and have heard endless praise for many of his movie performances, but Batman was never brought up as the one he would be remembered for.
It's fine, it's very funny in places, but it's not one of his best imo.
But anyway, that's a matter of opinion.

As for Batman killing in the movies. We have been discussing this in the movies/comparison thread, he never killed like that in the comics, his 'killings' were always in self defence or 'collaterol damage'(as TTTC put it).
He was never out for blood on a revenge kick, blowing up a factory inteding to kill the Joker and his goons, shooting at the Joker with intention to kill. He only started doing that after knowing the joker killed his parents. They turned Batman into a standard 80s revenge movie killer and changed the character into something more standard and commonplace.

edit: btw in defence of El Payaso, I think he was joking about with the way he is perceived with his 'proving someone else wrong' comment. He may be more tenacious than most on the boards when it comes to getting into a debate of opinions, but i don't see that he's doing anything different than anyone else on the boards. We all have our momenst of wading in with our long held opinions only to have them challenged, or have challenged other fans ops with our own long held ops.

Perhaps my post was too tedious for you, because I clearly say that Ledgers Joker does take from all interpretations of the character, but far more from the original appearance, which Christopher Nolan has even been quoted as saying. Apparently you missed that. The fact of the matter is that culturally things have become anticipated of the Joker. He’s expected to be sickly comical at times, which Ledger indeed was occasionally. The 1940’s Clown Prince of Crime, translated identically, would probably not go over well. He was originally played too straight and that’s just not what’s become associated with the definitive Joker. But the fact remains that I’m not spinning anything! Ledger is blatantly played more seriously or far less sadistically humorous than the Joker of both today’s comics and Batman 1989. That much should be obvious. It’s just not debatable.

Clowns are gimmicky. Elements of his arsenal have become staples of the caricature. I’ve always argued that at first glance the Joker is about as mismatched with Batman as you can possibly get. They don’t look like they should have anything to do with each other. There’s no exemplary history behind bats vs. clowns. It requires some analysis to see the brilliance of why this arch rivalry really has endured to become possibly the most iconic duel in fictional history. The dichotomy is the stuff of poetry with the dark being the light and the color representing the cruelty, but it’s far more then the clichéd good vs. evil theme. The Jokers brilliance only makes sense to some and ultimately only a genius (albeit mad) mind could keep Batman on his toes. Mr. J. is the finest example from the dark knight’s rogue’s gallery. Bruce will incisively and meticulously study every single attribute and character trait you carry to nothing short of an obsessive compulsive degree. He’s always the paranoid detective. Once he finds your weakness, he’ll willfully exploit it. This is where he excels, the ever overused prep time argument indeed has a solid ground. Well…the Joker embodies unpredictability. You can only truly count on one thing from him; anything! How do you study something that has no set pattern? There’s oftentimes no rhyme or reason to his actions. He thrives on spontaneity. This is how he’s always able to pull one over on Batman while others cannot. He’s not physically much of any threat. He’s not really the physically fighting sort, yet he’s Gotham’s greatest mass murderer. He utilized tools through his elements of surprise…and that’s how he gets on top of Batman. These so-called corny oversized hammers and trickery weapons may not look like much, but they really underline his personality to a crucial degree. They’re his twisted and warped mind come to tangible realization. Anyone can use a gun. As he’s said, “The death of Batman must be nothing short of a masterpiece.”

Technically speaking that "Batman never intentionally killed" is not accurate. Detective Comics #29, July 1939, “The Batman seizes a fire extinguisher on the wall and..’You are too late, my foe. Watch! The fiery death’ flings it at Dr. Death, knocking the deadly tube to the floor where it swiftly ignites into a blazing inferno!!!” Dr. Death goes on to die, at least the temporary comic book death. Seems pretty intentional to me! Detective Comics #30, August 1939, “But as Mikhail puts his head through the window..there is a sickening snap as the cossack’s neck breaks under the mighty pressure of the Batman’s mighty foot.” You could argue that that’s not purposeful, but I’d then say that Batman was stupidly careless. Detective Comics #32, October 1939, “The Batman pauses before the open tombs of the vampires, ‘Never again will you harm any mortal being!’” In this panel, he’s shown literally shooting the vampire while he rests. Detective Comics # 33, Nov. 1939, “Kruger’s shot goes wild. The Batman holds his breath and flings a gas pellet. As Kruger slumps unconscious, the plane plunges downward toward the bay! The Batman dives as the plane hits the water, taking Kruger with it. A few hours later, the home of Bruce Wayne, ‘..and the body of Kruger was recovered from the water.’” Now who’s trying to spin things? If you don’t think that’s intentional, I ask…what exactly did the Batman expect was going to happen when you throw a gas pellet into a airplane cockpit? Batman #1, Spring 1940, “Much as I hate to take human life, I’m afraid this time it’s necessary!” Batman then goes on the machine gun and literally noose Hugo Strange’s monster men.

In fact, I got so tired of hearing the ignorant Burton hate-crowd try to defend their misinformed criticisms, much like the whole “Batman never killed” is now falling on “Batman never intentionally killed,” that I actually once scanned in panels from 1939 – 40’s Detective and Batman comics just to attempt to educate people. What I discovered was that Tim Burton actually replicated, to the best of his ability, exact scenes from the original issues. So I photo shopped the old panels next to their counterparts from Batman 1989 just to prove a point. Sadly, because I’m somewhat of a technophobe, I lost all these examples in a computer crash a few months back. It’s on my agenda to make them again and to make sure I back them up. I hate to sound like some sort of know-it-all…but I know way more than the average bear on Batman. To be quite honest, I don’t think it’s that I know so much as much as it’s so few know Batman’s actual printed history.

And why shouldn’t someone finally call the Heath shippers out in a fair way? By no means do I feel every Heath fan should be painted with the same brush, I’m a fan of his performance, but there’s really no denying the fad-like fans of contemporary time. We’re talking the prepubescent punks that skimmed through Dark Knight Returns once or twice, think they’re a walking Batman textbook, and then bash anyone that doesn’t think Heath Ledger should be crowned the best and final Joker act. Going by what’s actually the authentic Joker in all his inceptions, the comic book clown, by no means is Ledger ideal to anyone that’s well-versed in the lore. Sure he's great, but I don't think any film Joker has been reasonably ideal to what the Joker on page has been. Look at how many times you see the very same comments again and again. This very thread proves that. It’s gotten so predictable that I’ll put twenty bucks down now that the next Heath vs. Jack thread will have at least five Heath fans say the chaos spiel and that he didn’t play but rather was the character. There’s hardly ever a creative through amongst the entire hive minded cult.

They’re obsessed with this playground mentality competition, when freaking Caesar Romero is even technically accurate! That’s what the pet peeve to many of the fans is. It’s not about what they do and don’t like. Everyone is entitled to opinion. I don’t think any mature adult cares if everyone agrees with them or not, it’s when people start making asinine claims that Jack isn’t accurate to what’s really the Joker or that he’s not the so-called real Clown Prince. It comes down to how well you know the mythos and how some base their oftentimes juvenilely argumentative opinions off of ignorance. That is quite irksome. They’re too consumed by what is and isn’t vogue right now and not what the Dark Knight caricature actually was. They watched the behind the scenes Dark Knight special features and copy and paste everything out of poor Chris Nolan’s mouth like the walking copyright violations they are. Sure it’s harsh, but the truth is that it’s also…not a lie. And if anyone is spinning things and denying, with all due respect…look in the mirror, buddy, because it’s not me.

 

[Travesty]

But chaos and destruction is a huge umbrella heading. It comes in so many shapes and forms. It's like saying all of Batman's villains are murderers, or are all insane.

And that's the point. Of course TDK-Joker was about chaos and destruction, much like his comic book counterpart, BUT, what it lacked, was how he went about it. The Joker loves to kill people, while making a joke about it. He uses gadgets, or tools, to make a murderous act funny. Now, he doesn't always have to use his gadgets, but if he doesn't, then there needs to be some punchline or joke to when he makes his kill. Thats what sets him apart from Two-Face or Riddler, etc. There was no underlying joke to anything he did, except for the pencil trick, or when he threw Rachel out the window. Other then that, everything he did could be done by ANY of Batmans villains. Nothing set him apart, other then his purple suit and make-up.

You know the old saying, "if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck..."? Well, TDK-Joker looked like Joker, but he didn't really act like Joker.

 

[david icke]

Perhaps my post was too tedious for you, because I clearly say that Ledgers Joker does take from all interpretations of the character, but far more from the original appearance, which Christopher Nolan has even been quoted as saying. Apparently you missed that.

Well, it wasn't exactly the most concise of posts and you made a big song and dance about the fact that he was mainly like the psycho of BM no1 and only did one clown like move in the pencil trick. So if you did say that you kind of veered from one pov to another that contradicted it.
I know they used BM no1 for some stuff but Nolan gave Ledger the Killing Joke to read in prep for the part.

The fact of the matter is that culturally things have become anticipated of the Joker. He’s expected to be sickly comical at times, which Ledger indeed was occasionally. The 1940’s Clown Prince of Crime, translated identically, would probably not go over well. He was originally played too straight and that’s just not what’s become associated with the definitive Joker. But the fact remains that I’m not spinning anything! Ledger is blatantly played more seriously or far less sadistically humorous than the Joker of both today’s comics and Batman 1989. That much should be obvious. It’s just not debatable.

No, it's not set in stone, it is debatable, I already quoted some scnes where he is 'sadistically humourous', and there are many more that someone else has quoted too.

Clowns are gimmicky. Elements of his arsenal have become staples of the caricature. I’ve always argued that at first glance the Joker is about as mismatched with Batman as you can possibly get. They don’t look like they should have anything to do with each other. There’s no exemplary history behind bats vs. clowns. It requires some analysis to see the brilliance of why this arch rivalry really has endured to become possibly the most iconic duel in fictional history. The dichotomy is the stuff of poetry with the dark being the light and the color representing the cruelty, but it’s far more then the clichéd good vs. evil theme. The Jokers brilliance only makes sense to some and ultimately only a genius (albeit mad) mind could keep Batman on his toes. Mr. J. is the finest example from the dark knight’s rogue’s gallery. Bruce will incisively and meticulously study every single attribute and character trait you carry to nothing short of an obsessive compulsive degree. He’s always the paranoid detective. Once he finds your weakness, he’ll willfully exploit it. This is where he excels, the ever overused prep time argument indeed has a solid ground. Well…the Joker embodies unpredictability. You can only truly count on one thing from him; anything! How do you study something that has no set pattern? There’s oftentimes no rhyme or reason to his actions. He thrives on spontaneity. This is how he’s always able to pull one over on Batman while others cannot. He’s not physically much of any threat. He’s not really the physically fighting sort, yet he’s Gotham’s greatest mass murderer. He utilized tools through his elements of surprise…and that’s how he gets on top of Batman.

Really don't need a history/quasi-psychology essay on BM and the Joker in here, you're not the only person to have read the comics and understood them, i would stick to the point, which is coming up....and here..we...go...

These so-called corny oversized hammers and trickery weapons may not look like much, but they really underline his personality to a crucial degree. They’re his twisted and warped mind come to tangible realization. Anyone can use a gun. As he’s said, “The death of Batman must be nothing short of a masterpiece.”

Yes, that is obvious, but you don't need big hammers or joy buzzers to be a clown, the trickster of literature, which is what the Joker is in the long tradition of things.

Technically speaking that "Batman never intentionally killed" is not accurate. Detective Comics #29, July 1939, “The Batman seizes a fire extinguisher on the wall and..’You are too late, my foe. Watch! The fiery death’ flings it at Dr. Death, knocking the deadly tube to the floor where it swiftly ignites into a blazing inferno!!!” Dr. Death goes on to die, at least the temporary comic book death. Seems pretty intentional to me! Detective Comics #30, August 1939, “But as Mikhail puts his head through the window..there is a sickening snap as the cossack’s neck breaks under the mighty pressure of the Batman’s mighty foot.” You could argue that that’s not purposeful, but I’d then say that Batman was stupidly careless. Detective Comics #32, October 1939, “The Batman pauses before the open tombs of the vampires, ‘Never again will you harm any mortal being!’” In this panel, he’s shown literally shooting the vampire while he rests. Detective Comics # 33, Nov. 1939, “Kruger’s shot goes wild. The Batman holds his breath and flings a gas pellet. As Kruger slumps unconscious, the plane plunges downward toward the bay! The Batman dives as the plane hits the water, taking Kruger with it. A few hours later, the home of Bruce Wayne, ‘..and the body of Kruger was recovered from the water.’” Now who’s trying to spin things? If you don’t think that’s intentional, I ask…what exactly did the Batman expect was going to happen when you throw a gas pellet into a airplane cockpit? Batman #1, Spring 1940, “Much as I hate to take human life, I’m afraid this time it’s necessary!” Batman then goes on the machine gun and literally noose Hugo Strange’s monster men.

Yes, 'As much as I hate to take a human life, I'm afraid this time it's necessary'.
When BM shoots at the Joker from the Batwing, it's not necessary at all, he has already got rid of the threat to people's lifes in the balloons.
It's also not necesary when he blows up the factory with all the goons inside.

And as i said also, those deaths can come uder self-defense(DrDeath is most certainly this as he is about to throw the chemical at BM, he merely knocks it out of his hand) or colateral damage during an adventure, like the guy in that plane.
Non-humans don't count, ie vampires.

The point is, in the comics Batman is never portrayed as someone who goes out seeking blood, a bloodthirsty killer like the Punisher. He might be careless, or unthinking as to his foes fate as he fights or defends himself, but he does not go out on killing sprees in the name of revenge like he did in Burton's Batman.
there is a big difference, if you can't see that , I don't think there is a simpler way of expressing it tbh.

In fact, I got so tired of hearing the ignorant Burton hate-crowd try to defend their misinformed criticisms, much like the whole “Batman never killed” is now falling on “Batman never intentionally killed,” that I actually once scanned in panels from 1939 – 40’s Detective and Batman comics just to attempt to educate people. What I discovered was that Tim Burton actually replicated, to the best of his ability, exact scenes from the original issues. So I photo shopped the old panels next to their counterparts from Batman 1989 just to prove a point. Sadly, because I’m somewhat of a technophobe, I lost all these examples in a computer crash a few months back. It’s on my agenda to make them again and to make sure I back them up. I hate to sound like some sort of know-it-all…but I know way more than the average bear on Batman. To be quite honest, I don’t think it’s that I know so much as much as it’s so few know Batman’s actual printed history.

Reading all the books and seeing all the movies does not mean you understand them, so don't worry, i don't think you are a know it all yet.
I just think you are missing some of the finer points about some things and tbh, going around thinking you know it all and hating others opinions that deviate from your own as you automatically think no-one knows Batman more than you, can preclude you from a better understanding of some points you may have missed.

And why shouldn’t someone finally call the Heath shippers out? By no means do I feel every Heath fan should be painted with the same brush, I’m a fan of his performance, but there’s really no denying the fad-like fans of contemporary time. We’re talking the prepubescent punks that skimmed through Dark Knight Returns once or twice, think they’re a walking Batman textbook, and they bash anyone that doesn’t think Heath Ledger should be crowned the best and final Joker act. Going by what’s actually the authentic Joker in all his inceptions, the comic book clown, by no means is Ledger ideal to anyone that’s well-versed in the lore. Look at how many times you see the very same comments again and again. This very thread proves that.

So, you think folk on these boards who have different opinions than you are automatically folk who do not have your extensive 'wisdom' and 'knowledge'?
Get a grip man.

It’s gotten so predictable that I’ll put twenty bucks down now that the next Heath vs. Jack thread will have at least five Heath fans say the chaos spiel and that he didn’t play but rather was the character. There’s hardly ever a creative through amongst the entire hive minded cult. They’re too consumed by what is and isn’t vogue right now and not what the Dark Knight caricature actually was. They watched the behind the scenes Dark Knight special features and copy and paste everything out of poor Chris Nolan’s mouth like the walking copyright violations they are. Sure it’s harsh, but the truth is that it’s also…not a lie. And if anyone is spinning things and denying, well…look in the mirror, buddy, because it’s not me.

It's not the truth, you don't know the truth, youre assuming a lot about other people's habits and lifes, and seem to think no-one can possibly knwo as much as you.
I was going to ask why you make sure your word fonts are always at least twice as big and bold as everybody elses, but i think i now know. you think you know it all, and have such important things to impart and 'educate'(your word) folk with, that you must surely be heard and shout your way throuigh making a point, instead of merely presenting the facts, your opinion, and keeping it concise.
If you were relaly that confident about your opinions, and 'facts', you wouldn't feel the need to shout it out and write about it in such an overbearing manner.

Just stick to the point big man, everyone will read your posts and respond if they have a reply or a debate for you.
We're all BM fans here, there's no need to think of yourself as the big expert.

 

[The Joker]

And that's the point. Of course TDK-Joker was about chaos and destruction, much like his comic book counterpart, BUT, what it lacked, was how he went about it. The Joker loves to kill people, while making a joke about it. He uses gadgets, or tools, to make a murderous act funny. Now, he doesn't always have to use his gadgets, but if he doesn't, then there needs to be some punchline or joke to when he makes his kill. Thats what sets him apart from Two-Face or Riddler, etc. There was no underlying joke to anything he did, except for the pencil trick, or when he threw Rachel out the window.

Leaving his victims with a carved on smile is making a joke about it. It's just far more brutal than spraying them with a gas or poison that gives you an instant smile. Setting Lau on fire on top of a mountain of money he tried to protect, dressing up as a nurse before bombing a hospital, putting a bomb in a thug's stomach....all twisted humour.

You know the old saying, "if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck..."? Well, TDK-Joker looked like Joker, but he didn't really act like Joker.

I completely disagree with that opinion. He was extremely Joker like in virtually every way. From the aformentioned murder style, to broadcasting his terror on TV, to his Laughter is the best medicine circus truck, to dressing up as a nurse, to the pencil trick, to spewing out some of the best witty lines ever put on film.....he truly was the Joker. And if audience reaction is anything to go by, he made them laugh as well as gasp in shock.

That's the Joker.

 

[MysterioMenace]

Well, it wasn't exactly the most concise of posts and you made a big song and dance about the fact that he was mainly like the psycho of BM no1 and only did one clown like move in the pencil trick. So if you did say that you kind of veered from one pov to another that contradicted it.
I know they used BM no1 for some stuff but Nolan gave Ledger the Killing Joke to read in prep for the part.

No, it's not set in stone, it is debatable, I already quoted some scnes where he is 'sadistically humourous', and there are many more that someone else has quoted too.

The vast majority of your so-called examples are more so of personality behavior then they are of clownish actions. Anyone can be sarcastic; the Joker is so much more. That’s a very narrow analysis of the role. I suppose perhaps the nurse outfit could also fit into the pencil trick diagnosis, but quips aren’t classified as literal clownishness. Nolan universe Scarecrow makes just as many! And don’t blame me for your illiteracy, to which your writing abilities also hint. Clearly others saw my post and meanings clear as day, hence the praise. There’s no contradiction in saying that Heath Ledger drew from all interpretations, but that the largest percentage is the straight killer 1940’s debut. It’s just the truth, to which Christopher Nolan has even attested. That doesn't mean the clown isn't there, it's just not the majority of what some expected. Things aren’t merely black or white; it’s not one or the other but rather a mixture of percentages.

And if you knew Batman half as well as you’re trying to imply you’d also know that Heath Ledger admitted to not reading the Killing Joke when it was given to him.

Really don't need a history/quasi-psychology essay on BM and the Joker in here, you're not the only person to have read the comics and understood them, i would stick to the point, which is coming up....and here..we...go...

My apologies for trying to take pure useless entertainment and make it educational! I must have some nerve.

Yes, that is obvious, but you don't need big hammers or joy buzzers to be a clown, the trickster of literature, which is what the Joker is in the long tradition of things.

You’re right! But the Joker is both far more than just a clown and…they certainly don’t hurt. That’s the point of argument. Since the release of Dark Knight, some now battle that more prop oriented dark humor does harm the character, which I think only stems from this relatively recent Nolan-inspired realism movement. I’ve always felt that that really undermines why most were drawn into the comic book genre in the first place. They’re not looking for complete and utter realism; you’d be a fool to expect that from something like a comic book. The audience is looking for entertaining modern mythology. The fact is that people don’t dress up like Bats and drive tanks either, yet I’ve encountered people who don’t want the Riddler to be in so much as a dark green suit because it’s not “real-world” enough. Wow! When regular attire you’re likely to see on the street isn’t practical enough, we’re starting to go overboard with realism. I stand by the fact that Heath could have really benefited from some more props.

Yes, 'As much as I hate to take a human life, I'm afraid this time it's necessary'.
When BM shoots at the Joker from the Batwing, it's not necessary at all, he has already got rid of the threat to people's lifes in the balloons.
It's also not necesary when he blows up the factory with all the goons inside.

And as i said also, those deaths can come uder self-defense(DrDeath is most certainly this as he is about to throw the chemical at BM, he merely knocks it out of his hand) or colateral damage during an adventure, like the guy in that plane.
Non-humans don't count, ie vampires.

The point is, in the comics Batman is never portrayed as someone who goes out seeking blood, a bloodthirsty killer like the Punisher. He might be careless, or unthinking as to his foes fate as he fights or defends himself, but he does not go out on killing sprees in the name of revenge like he did in Burton's Batman.
there is a big difference, if you can't see that , I don't think there is a simpler way of expressing it tbh.

First and more importantly, Batman feeling it’s necessary does not mean that it’s not intentional. In fact, that means the murder was his entire goal. It’s entirely intentional! You logic is so convoluted here.

And that’s a matter of opinion. The Joker had just moments ago attempted to gas the entire cities civilians to death. By 1939’s comic book Batman ethical code, that’s entirely necessary grounds for attempting to finish Joker off once and for all! I hate to sound silly…but what the hell are you smoking?!? The better question is how weren’t Batman’s attempts both in defense of the city and himself?

And the vampire comment, something I totally predicted you’d say, is also opinion. Contemporary Batman doesn’t kill. Period! While perhaps vampires aren’t human, murder is murder. The current Batman would never do something like that. That speaks volumes!

Reading all the books and seeing all the movies does not mean you understand them, so don't worry, i don't think you are a know it all yet.

In my second block of your quotes, you clearly say I'm "not the only person to have read the comics and understood them." Be real! No one in their right mind would say I don’t understand Batman. You don’t understand or even so much as want to read my psychoanalysis of the Joker, also quoted above. Your fickle and fanboyishly contradictory nature is now both proven and also highlighting that really…should your thoughts be paid much attention to? You come off more so like you're just trying to argue out of pure boredom. Your not providing anything to your case that no one else already hasn't touched upon whatsoever.

I just think you are missing some of the finer points about some things and tbh, going around thinking you know it all and hating others opinions that deviate from your own as you automatically think no-one knows Batman more than you, can preclude you from a better understanding of some points you may have missed.

So, you think folk on these boards who have different opinions than you are automatically folk who do not have your extensive 'wisdom' and 'knowledge'?

Get a grip man.

I can’t help but notice that you only pay attention to what you want to read instead of what actually is written. You’re either entirely missing or intentionally missing moments where I say I like the Dark Knight depiction and really consider them equal, Jack being better for some things, Heath better for other elements. I also said that it’s not about opinion, but rather opinionated mentalities and ignorance. How does me claiming you’re more than entitled to hate Jack all you so like make me the opinionated one? That’s backwards and what they called the notoriously hard to deal with boomerang personality. Any way you act and I call you on you’ll just say I am right back; no matter how inaccurate everyone else sees that you are. It’s the adult way of masking “I know you are but what am I?” playground material. Debating with you means that no matter how much I win...I'll never win. And really it's not a competition in my eye, but I can't say I believe the same for you. In fact, you’re pretty much proving my entire point on the whole Ledger Gestapo, so ultimately…thank you! There's no better example than a live one.

It's not the truth, you don't know the truth, youre assuming a lot about other people's habits and lifes, and seem to think no-one can possibly knwo as much as you.
I was going to ask why you make sure your word fonts are always at least twice as big and bold as everybody elses, but i think i now know. you think you know it all, and have such important things to impart and 'educate'(your word) folk with, that you must surely be heard and shout your way throuigh making a point, instead of merely presenting the facts, your opinion, and keeping it concise.
If you were relaly that confident about your opinions, and 'facts', you wouldn't feel the need to shout it out and write about it in such an overbearing manner.

Just stick to the point big man, everyone will read your posts and respond if they have a reply or a debate for you.
We're all BM fans here, there's no need to think of yourself as the big expert.

I’m not assuming that people constantly use the same Nolan-stolen descriptions. There’s proof of that in this very thread. I’m not assuming that many Ledger fans are of the opinion that he’s the one and only Joker and thus the role should be retired; there was some website dedicated to getting signatures for some poll that wanted Heath to be the last and considered the only Joker. That’s just absurd and really undervaluing the character itself. I’m not assuming that many people are ignorant of the factual history of Batman continuity when they bash Burtons Batman with comments like “Batman never killed” or “Batman was never gothic.” That is ignorant and plain incorrect! I’m not making any vast generalization; I’m not claiming it’s all Nolan fans. As I’ve stated again and again, perhaps it’ll finally sink in as I’m clearly growing annoyed with your selective reading bull, I myself loved Dark Knight! I just don’t feel Ledger is the King Joker or ideal in any way. I most especially don’t feel the need to praise Heath at the expense of Jacks performance. But you’ve truly got to be blind to not see that this is often the case for many Dark Knight fanboys. I’m far from the only person to say it…I’m just trying to make it fair and balanced as most of us seem to like Dark Knights Joker.

And I think it’s pretty self-evident that I’m a Batman expert, egotistical though it may be. And clearly I’m not alone in thinking so. But what I’m not doing is stating that I’m the only Batman expert around here, which is something you’re assuming of me. Again with the boomerang personality. There are many wonderful and passionate Batman fans that are very well-versed around here that probably know as much, if not more, then I do.

 

[MrQuinn]

another tired argument, the whole "batman never killed" thing. yes, he killed in his early depictions. yes, some, if not all, were intentional. The character of Batman has been developed since. Captain America doesn't run around telling people to "beat up gooks" nowadays, does he? The early depictions (in the 30's, 40's...) I feel shouldn't be hardcore referenced. It was a different time and things were not at all the way they are now. Characters have since been further developed to give them their own appeal to their own audiences, not just to amp up americans in a time of war or depression.

Off topic, I know. Just irritating.

On another note, Jack Nicholson in the Departed handed the kid a comic book asking if he liked comics, I think it would of been funny if he had handed the kid a comic with Joker on the cover

 

[MysterioMenace]

another tired argument, the whole "batman never killed" thing. yes, he killed in his early depictions. yes, some, if not all, were intentional. The character of Batman has been developed since. Captain America doesn't run around telling people to "beat up gooks" nowadays, does he? The early depictions (in the 30's, 40's...) I feel shouldn't be hardcore referenced. It was a different time and things were not at all the way they are now. Characters have since been further developed to give them their own appeal to their own audiences, not just to amp up americans in a time of war or depression.

Off topic, I know. Just irritating.

On another note, Jack Nicholson in the Departed handed the kid a comic book asking if he liked comics, I think it would of been funny if he had handed the kid a comic with Joker on the cover

Well…I’m somewhat mixed on your post. I definitely agree that it’s a tired argument. Words cannot express how exhausted I am of hearing people say he didn’t once kill. I don’t think because it was so early and short lived in his inception that it’s thusly somewhat null and void though. It’s still a relevant and accurate part of his authentic history. These characters have sure gone through a lot of depictions, but I don’t think newer necessarily means the version with more depth. Most everything revolving around the comic book superhero or villain is an extension of the origin story, most all of which were written back in the day. Funnily enough, the Joker would be coincidentally one of the few exceptions. So you could argue that the real psychology was there from the get-go, it just wasn’t as analyzed or overt at the time. You have to remember that comic books were viewed very poorly for a time. In fact, the assumption was that only children and the mentally handicapped were avid readers. A lot of kids today write off any comic that’s older then the 80’s as going to probably be cheesy. I think that’s really unfair. After all, what would probably be considered the Batman, the 70's O'Neil revival, was really just a take-back to the 1939 gothic Batman, minus the murder.

A lot of times what you’ll find in the beginnings of any lasting pop culture character or something like popular sitcom is that the earliest stages were actually quite different from what we ultimately ended up considering the classic (which does not exactly mean oldest) version. Themes come and go with the times the character endured. People forget that comics are not only works of artwork, visually and literarily, but it’s also a business. The stories or atmosphere of the books tend to reflect the time from the real-world in which it was made. They sometimes would be blatantly topical, almost propaganda, like Capt. America punching out Hitler on his debut cover. They had to sell! With that comes trial and error. Some things work and become an important aspect of the character while others fall to the wayside. You also have things work for one generation and utterly fail with the next. It can then come back into style decades later too. Batman using guns would be a good example. I don’t think it’s inherently less evolved, in fact I could see it argued that a Batman that kills could spawn just as intelligent stories, merely different. Somewhere along the road, Bob Kane just decided that they were going to pursue the more ethnical Batman instead of the more homicidal as he felt it to be more character accurate and somewhat sadly and not often admitted, these decisions on which way to take a character were oftentimes more based around what’s more likely to sell instead of what’s the actual superiorly legitimate writers route to take. Thankfully it worked out in Batman’s case, but I don’t think that makes the debut Batman useless. I actually find it pretty darn fascinating.

I always found it something sort of funny. Most Burton bashers criticize his Batman in Batman (1989) and Batman Returns and most Burton lovers carp about Nolan’s Joker. The coincidence is that they both (though an amalgam of many versions) primarily come from that Golden Age depiction.

 

[david icke]

The vast majority of your so-called examples are more so of personality behavior then they are of clownish actions. Anyone can be sarcastic; the Joker is so much more. That’s a very narrow analysis of the role. I suppose perhaps the nurse outfit could also fit into the pencil trick diagnosis, but quips aren’t classified as literal clownishness. Nolan universe Scarecrow makes just as many! And don’t blame me for your illiteracy, to which your writing abilities also hint. Clearly others saw my post and meanings clear as day, hence the praise. There’s no contradiction in saying that Heath Ledger drew from all interpretations, but that the largest percentage is the straight killer 1940’s debut. It’s just the truth, to which Christopher Nolan has even attested. That doesn't mean the clown isn't there, it's just not the majority of what some expected. Things aren’t merely black or white; it’s not one or the other but rather a mixture of percentages.

I am not illaterate! I am so totally utterly absolutely somewhat laterate. btw you spelt illaterate wrong.

But, anyway, neither of us are up for the Nobel prize for literature any time soon , so let's go easy on each others oh so important assays.

Imo, he is acting the clown constantly throughout, it is his chosen mo. Even throwing around those bs stories about his scars is acting the clown, he is doing it to amuse himself, only he knows the truth.

Saying the nurse's outfit was anohter clown type behaviour...you are still attributing clownish behaviour to only props! And you talk about narrowness...jeez...
Let me guess your fav comedian is Carrot-top, or that guy who goes onstage and smashes a melon open with a big hammer right?
Not bill hicks, or Lenny Bruce, because, props are the most important faceat of a clown/comedian/jester right? Not the use of the mind in subverting the audeiences expectations, like setting a big pile of money on fire, or trying to tell a somewhat sympathetic story while holding a knife to someone's face? He is a clown of the mind***k.

If you hire a clown for a kid's birthday party, you expect the props, the balloons, the squirting flower, maybe even a big hammer.
The props were for a simpler interpretation of the joker, when the comics were considered for kids. edit: That's not to say they can't be used for an adult take, of course not, but this is where they originated. To focus on the props as the defining clown gesture is a little simplistic, sorry.

You cited Jack as being more akin to the 5 way revenge story, tell me what props does the joker use in this story that defined the character for the modern age? One prop, an exploding cigar. much like the pencil trick in TDK. Same level of propness. Props are not the point of the joker, they are just another method of the trickster if he so chooses to use them. He would be a trickster woithout them, the real power is his mind.

And if you knew Batman half as well as you’re trying to imply you’d also know that Heath Ledger admitted to not reading the Killing Joke when it was given to him.

Em, your original point was that Nolan was mainly basing the character on Batman no1, my point was that he considered The killing joke to be of such an important influence on his script that he gave Ledger the book rightaway. Irrelevant if Ledger read it or not.
I love how you've turned this into a competition on who is the biggest expert on Batman instead of actually reading and understanding a conversation, which would help in a debate.

My apologies for trying to take pure useless entertainment and make it educational! I must have some nerve. :doh

Well, we all know this, that was my point. it was like you stopped during the debate to write an essay about something the fans already know, it wasn't necesarry.
If you want folk to shower you with praise on your intellectual brilliance on the subject of Batman/The Joker, start up a blog and put the link in your sig, instead of posting supersized blockbuster font essays inbetween trying to make your points.

You’re right! But the Joker is both far more than just a clown and…they certainly don’t hurt. That’s the point of argument. Since the release of Dark Knight, some now battle that more prop oriented dark humor does harm the character, which I think only stems from this relatively recent Nolan-inspired realism movement. I’ve always felt that that really undermines why most were drawn into the comic book genre in the first place. They’re not looking for complete and utter realism; you’d be a fool to expect that from something like a comic book. The audience is looking for entertaining modern mythology. The fact is that people don’t dress up like Bats and drive tanks either, yet I’ve encountered people who don’t want the Riddler to be in so much as a dark green suit because it’s not “real-world” enough. Wow! When regular attire you’re likely to see on the street isn’t practical enough, we’re starting to go overboard with realism. I stand by the fact that Heath could have really benefited from some more props.

I'm not scared of the outlandish, but only if it serves the story. As i said above, the Joker's most important story, the one that redefined him for the modern age after him being pretty harmless for decades, '5 way revenge', featured one prop. How would TDK or '5 way' have benefited from more props?
It's about serving the story, not filling it with special effects.



First and more importantly, Batman feeling it’s necessary does not mean that it’s not intentional. In fact, that means the murder was his entire goal. It’s entirely intentional! You logic is so convoluted here.

No, it isn't. read the DrDeath story agian, Batman uses the fire extinguisher to knock the weapon DrD was going to throw at him , out of his hand. Self Defence.
You yourself said Batman was being careless and such in the fights. There is a difference between that and going out for blood like the Punisher which BM never did.

And that’s a matter of opinion. The Joker had just moments ago attempted to gas the entire cities civilians to death. By 1939’s comic book Batman ethical code, that’s entirely necessary grounds for attempting to finish Joker off once and for all! I hate to sound silly…but what the hell are you smoking?!? The better question is how weren’t Batman’s attempts both in defense of the city and himself?

Btamn was out for blood because the Joker killed his parents. Once he found out he went out for his blood. Before he found out, he was all for saving Napier's life when he was falling into the chemicals.
Batman is not the Punisher, burton turned him into the Punisher in the second half of teh movie.

And the vampire comment, something I totally predicted you’d say, is also opinion. Contemporary Batman doesn’t kill. Period! While perhaps vampires aren’t human, murder is murder. The current Batman would never do something like that. That speaks volumes!

Ok, this is too funny to reply to seriously.

In my second block of your quotes, you clearly say I'm "not the only person to have read the comics and understood them." Be real! No one in their right mind would say I don’t understand Batman. You don’t understand or even so much as want to read my psychoanalysis of the Joker, also quoted above.

I love how you assume I did not read your amazing Joker essay just because i didn't immediately subscribe to your fan club.
Tbh, it was fine, just not relevant, if you could take on board a little constructive critisicm though...I think it could have used some props.

If you fell you are an expert and understamnd Batman, fine, be happy with that, i never said you didn't.
But, I will say you don't understand some points i have raised, those pertaining to Batman's reason for killing in the movie, it was all about revenge. I didn't spell it out in my first post, but it should have been obvious to anyone watching that movie and paying attention.
You may understand Batman, but you didn't understand the very unlike Batman Burton presented. It wasn't about protecting the people of Gotham, it was about killing the guy who killed his parents.

Your fickle and fanboyishly contradictory nature is now both proven and also highlighting that really…should your thoughts be paid much attention to? You come off more so like you're just trying to argue out of pure boredom. Your not providing anything to your case that no one else already hasn't touched upon whatsoever.

No, I just don't like big heads trashing other people's opinions as though they have the whole world sewn up and understood.

I can’t help but notice that you only pay attention to what you want to read instead of what actually is written. You’re either entirely missing or intentionally missing moments where I say I like the Dark Knight depiction and really consider them equal, Jack being better for some things, Heath better for other elements. I also said that it’s not about opinion, but rather opinionated mentalities and ignorance. How does me claiming you’re more than entitled to hate Jack all you so like make me the opinionated one? That’s backwards and what they called the notoriously hard to deal with boomerang personality. Any way you act and I call you on you’ll just say I am right back; no matter how inaccurate everyone else sees that you are. It’s the adult way of masking “I know you are but what am I?” playground material. Debating with you means that no matter how much I win...I'll never win. And really it's not a competition in my eye, but I can't say I believe the same for you. In fact, you’re pretty much proving my entire point on the whole Ledger Gestapo, so ultimately…thank you! There's no better example than a live one.

I enjoy watching Jack's joker, not as much as Ledger's though, not by a mile, and i'm a big fan of both nicolson and the joker.
Believe it or not i read all your post.
I have a problem with someone on a big fonted high horse trashing others opinions, and assuming they don't pay attention to, or read the books properly.

Again, you're assuming you know everyone's minds and that they think I'm 'inaccurate'.

I wasn't going to say, but I just got a personal message from someone in the thread thanking me for posting that response to you.
Now, I'm not basking in that like you did with your compliments. the reason I brought it up is because it shows that you do not know what everyone is thinking.

Listen, and I'm being serious here. I can be a bit of a big head too, I don't like it when i am, but i think you are headed on a bad path to megalomania.
You can't go around assuming you know what everyone else is like or are thinking, it's not healthy.
I would also drop the 'Batman-expert' persona you have of yourself in your mind.
You very well may have read every comic featuring BM, but that does not mean you understand everything about them.
If you are on the message boards to merely 'educate' people, and not respect that other people have opinions just as valid as yours, you will just irriatate people.

I’m not assuming that people constantly use the same Nolan-stolen descriptions. There’s proof of that in this very thread. I’m not assuming that many Ledger fans are of the opinion that he’s the one and only Joker and thus the role should be retired; there was some website dedicated to getting signatures for some poll that wanted Heath to be the last and considered the only Joker. That’s just absurd and really undervaluing the character itself. I’m not assuming that many people are ignorant of the factual history of Batman continuity when they bash Burtons Batman with comments like “Batman never killed” or “Batman was never gothic.” That is ignorant and plain incorrect! I’m not making any vast generalization; I’m not claiming it’s all Nolan fans. As I’ve stated again and again, perhaps it’ll finally sink in as

hold on a minute...see...

I’m clearly growing annoying

We can all be illaterate! Yay! ok, on with the show, I did read this btw...

with your selective reading bull, I myself loved Dark Knight! I just don’t feel Ledger is the King Joker or ideal in any way. I most especially don’t feel the need to praise Heath at the expense of Jacks performance. But you’ve truly got to be blind to not see that this is often the case for many Dark Knight fanboys. I’m far from the only person to say it…I’m just trying to make it fair and balanced as most of us seem to like Dark Knights Joker.

I just don't think it's healthy to generalise on why people hold their opinions.

And I think it’s pretty self-evident that I’m a Batman expert, egotistical though it may be. And clearly I’m not alone in thinking so. But what I’m not doing is stating that I’m the only Batman expert around here, which is something you’re assuming of me. Again with the boomerang personality. There are many wonderful and passionate Batman fans that are very well-versed around here that probably know as much, if not more, then I do.

I don't know man, I think you need another hobby to take the heat off your brain on this one, this Batman expert stuff is just making you sound horribly arrogant.
I don't care if you have read every BM comic, I'm just going by what you type up. I would stick to the points of debate instead of interjecting irrelevant essays to prove your 'expertise' into posts.
There are many experts on BM and comics on these boards, i've been on here since 2006 and have never once read anyone so intent on banging their own drum and proclaiming it.
They usually let their concise points speak for themselves, and get all the more respect for it.

What I'm trying to say in a non-essay nutshell is,,,take it easy brother! Just present your own opinions and don't be generalizing about other folks, especially on here.

I mean, the examples you cited were pretty extreme... htose guys with that Ledger should be the last Joker petition..that's so hilarious and ridiculous you shouldn't even be citing it. are those guys on these boards, on this thread? no, so forget about them.
You shouldn't be trying to 'educate' people as you say, just debate, and be prepared to be wrong about some things that you have held an opinion on for years in your expert opinion.

 

[MysterioMenace]

Wow! Between the grammar, the fact that you claim I spelt illiterate incorrectly when that would actually be you, and noticing about five contradictions with just a brief skimming of your post made me realize I’m not going to read it. I’m pretty sure I’m actually literally debating a ******ed person. If you're any older then 18, I've lost all hope in humanity. It’s pretty apparently that you haven’t read my posts in their entirety; otherwise you wouldn’t be saying things that I’ve very clearly addressed probably three times by now. And believe me; I think it’s pretty self evident that I’m one of the best writers around here. Your tampering with my spelling in your quotes is indeed cute, but also pretty juvenile. I just couldn’t help but chuckle that you clumped me in with your “Not going to win a Nobel Prize anytime soon” spiel. By no means am I flawless, but come on…it’s not even close.

Maybe you’re just jealous that I got all this praise and no one really paid attention to your middle school quality ramblings. No matter how loved or logical, you’ll always be hated by someone for it. Damn my "big head"...why didn't I eat lead paint chips as a child? Then David Icke would respect and admire me.

 

[Cain]

I think this debate is getting too self congratulatory on both ends.

 

[david icke]

Wow! Between the grammar, the fact that you claim I spelt illiterate incorrectly when that would actually be you, and noticing about five contradictions with just a brief skimming of your post made me realize I’m not going to read it. I’m pretty sure I’m actually literally debating a ******ed man. It’s pretty apparently that you haven’t read my posts in their entirety; otherwise you wouldn’t be saying things that I’ve very clearly addressed probably three times by now.

Em, the spelling of illiterate was a deliberate joke, I actually didn't think it was a very good one since it was obvious, but I put it in anyway. But apparently it's not so obvious to some! Haha. Ah, that was good.

btw, you should read the post. If you don't it's probably because you're egotistical mind is scared that you'll be shown up a little.
I took your points seriously and responded to them seriously.
You may not appreciate this thing we human beings use that is called 'a sense of humour' though, I kind of used that throughout, so it may puzzle you.

And believe me; I think it’s pretty self evident that I’m one of the best writers around here. Your tampering with my spelling in your quotes is indeed cute, but also pretty juvenile. I just couldn’t help but chuckle that you clumped me in with your “Not going to win a Nobel Prize anytime soon” spiel. By no means am I flawless, but come on…it’s not even close.

Dude, the fact that you accuse me of tampering with your spelling is, seriously, quite worrying.
Even more worrying than you calling yourself a 'writer' when it concerns messages on a superhero movie internet board.
I mean, you didn't even get the 'illiterate' joke, where are you man?
I'm serious when I say you display egocentric tendancies that are a little worrying.

Maybe you’re just jealous that I got all this praise and no one really paid attention to your middle school quality ramblings. No matter how loved or logical, you’ll always be hated by someone for it. Damn my "big head"...why didn't I eat lead paint chips as a child? Then David Icke would respect and admire me.

Dude, as well as trying to engage you in a serious debate, I tried to be nice and give you some serious advice on not being such a megalomaniac.
edit: whilst admitting I too have a big headed tendancy that I'm trying to get over.

At least you seem to have taken on board my advice about not shouting by making your fonts twice and big and bold as other peoples.

It's highly ironic that you accused me of not reading your post, but you are too scared to read mine.

Take it easy ya madman!