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

[elgaz]

I think Nicholson's take on Joker was perfect - for a 1989 Burton Batman film. In isolation, it worked for that storyline, and it worked for that film. Take his Joker and try to place him in a different Batman movie and it would seem ridiculous - there was always something outlandish and obviously gothic about Burton's version, and Nicholson's OTT Joker slotted in there perfectly.

Ledger's approach was obviously geared more towards realism and making the Joker a modern urban terrorist of sorts who's highly intelligent but obviously crazy. Again, this fits perfectly in Nolan's world. But I think it's also a portrayal which really does creep you out a little because because of the realism, and for that reason I prefer it.

Nicholson's was excellent, but his Joker never scared me. Ledger's just has that terrifying edge.

 

[The Joker]

Very good points! Maybe I should watch Dark Knight again, I seem to be forgetting a lot of moments outside of the nurse outfit and pencil trick. I really do love the Ledger Joker too, I just really missed some of the more common props, especially the bang gun. I do think he could have pulled it off. For sure! It's really a shame he passed, for all we know...he'd have had one in the sequel he was supposedly set to appear in. I'd have totally had a nerdgasm. Hah!

Yeah, some of Heath's other more theatrical elements were more subtle, but still hilarious. Facial expressions, in particular. Like that sideward squinty eyed look he gives Gordon when he suggests that his men are in Maroni's pocket. Or that look he gives Senator Patrick Leahy at the party when he says "We're not intimidated by thugs".

And then there's other neat ones like when he clapped to the announcement of Gordon's promotion to Commissioner.

OH! I love your avatar BTW! By far my favorite Joker one I've seen around here. =]

Thanks man

The member, [A], made it for me.

Those were also serious but there was something about them that I found funny, to be honest.

All matter of opinion and preference, I suppose. To each to his own.

I didn't find the fact that he blew up a hospital funny. It was brilliant, and a true testament to how serious this Joker was as a villain. What most people found funny was the fact that Joker did it dressed up as a nurse.

And the part that got the biggest laugh is when he pauses, and sees the whole thing has not blown up, and starts fiddling with the detonator like a kid.

LOL.

My opinion on which Joker that I thought was better has nothing to do with comic book accuracy. Jack's Joker and Heath's Joker are both as valid in essence of the character but people's preference on who is better differs.

I do not like "The Killing Joke" interpretation of Joker but that doesn't mean everyone has to because all interpretations of the Batman mythos are as valid.

Very true.

I love Jack's Joker, and am an avid defender of Burton's Batman movies. But I liked Heath's Joker a little bit more because I do feel he truly lost himself in the character, was much more menacing, and the Batman/Joker relationship was spot on.

 

[david icke]

You talk as if this has been a steady staple. The fact of the matter is that the Joker and his relationships with Batman have always been on a very unstable foundation. The only regular occurrence is that it’s always teetering back and forth. He’s notoriously fickle and that’s not excluded in the Dark Knight. One day he wants to kill Batman and rule Gotham, the next he doesn’t want more than to teach him some warped lesson in amorality and considers himself the yang to the caped crusaders yin. Neither (that being Joker wanting to kill Batman or leave him alive) is necessarily more accurate to their relationship then the other. This is made blatantly apparently by the Jokers actions in even Nolan’s film, when he goes from wanting to “Kill the Batman” to “I don’t want to kill you, what would I be without you?” during the interrogation scene. He hypocritically proclaims to not be some so-called schemer, yet he very blatantly has a plan set in motion with his publically announced ultimatum murders and other terroristic ploys. And this is a testament to his unpredictability, the very reason why he keeps Batman on his toes to begin with. You never know what he wants to do at any given time. He’s completely random, hence the archetypical symbolism of the Joker in the deck. He’s the embodiment of the wild card.

Yes, I'm well aware of all that, and was very concious of the fact that in TDK, he was more than willing to kill BM. edit" even after his speech.
It is a staple that the Joker considers BM to be his match, and the one that makes life ineteresting for him. Not, that he wouldn't want to kill Batman.
I see nothing in my post that implied I was not aware of the Joker's fickle nature. In the post you quoted I was merely stating that this philosophy of his struggle with Batman was presented for the first time(as far as I am aware), and was present in TDK, but absent from Batman89.
It would have been nice if you had just posted that p.o.v without coming in with the attitude of trying to make out I was 'wrong' about something, when clearly I was not.

edit: The moment in '5 way' was too easy and boring for him. In the Tdk he begins to realise life would be boring without BM, so in that frame of mind he didn't want to kill him.

The same thing with the Hugo Strange situation in regard with the secret Id reveal. The Joker wants to bid on the info so no-one else can release it, as it would spoil the thrill of the chase, jsame reason it would suit him to engineer Coleman Reese's demise.

edit: Both examples of the Ledger Joker being, at the very least just as in tune with the books as Jack's was, or imo, more in tune with the books than Jack's was presented to be.
edit: As you can now see, there are actual Batman comicbook fans who prefer the Ledger Joker, and can prefer him because he feels more like the modern, mature, developed character we now expect in the comicbooks.

 

[MysterioMenace]

Yes, I'm well aware of all that, and was very concious of the fact that in TDK, he was more than willing to kill BM. edit" even after his speech.
It is a staple that the Joker considers BM to be his match, and the one that makes life ineteresting for him. Not, that he wouldn't want to kill Batman.
I see nothing in my post that implied I did was not aware of the Joker's fickle nature. In the post you quoted I was merely stating that this philosophy pf his struggle with Batman was presented for the first time(as far as I am aware), and was present in TDK, but absent from Batman89.
It would have been nice if you had just posted that p.o.v without coming in with the attitude of trying to make out I was 'wrong' about something, when clearly I was not.

edit: The moment in '5 way' was too easy and boring for him. In the Tdk he begins to realise life would be boring without BM, so for in that frame of mind he didn't want to kill him.

The same thing with the Hugo Starnge situation in regard with the secret Id reveal. The Joker wants to bid on the info so no-one else can release it, just as it would suit him fancy to engineer Coleman Reese's demise.

I’m not trying to prove you wrong. I’m merely stating that the Joker/Batman philosophy wasn’t always present in Joker/Batman stories. In fact it’s fairly new when comparatively speaking. And mostly it’s brought up by writers because of their long literary rivalry, something that couldn’t be written or even noted by fans until many years after their inceptions. So I don’t really think it’s fair to criticize Jacks Joker for lacking that so-called philosophy, really first brought aloud in Killing Joke, which did influence Batman 1989, but was also extremely new at the time too. So Jack’s not inaccurate, just accurate to a different depiction of the Batman/Joker duel. Plus it could be argued that it actually is there, just not as blatantly. Nolan is often criticized as being pretentious, which I can def. see how some could view it that way. Instead of having the audience themselves find the Jokers psychology or mantra, the Joker instead speaks it aloud in The Dark Knight by describing his every "chaotic" reason. Nor do I feel older necessarily means more intelligent or mature.

And I'm well aware of comic book fans liking Heath Ledger as the Joker, but I also have encountered far more non-comic readers that prefer Heath as well.

 

[david icke]

I’m not trying to prove you wrong. I’m merely stating that the Joker/Batman philosophy wasn’t always present in Joker/Batman stories. In fact it’s fairly new when comparatively speaking. And mostly it’s brought up by writers because of their long literary rivalry, something that couldn’t be written or even noted by fans until many years after their inceptions. So I don’t really think it’s fair to criticize Jacks Joker for lacking that so-called philosophy, really first brought aloud in Killing Joke, which did influence Batman 1989, but was also extremely new at the time too. So Jack’s not inaccurate, just accurate to a different depiction of the Batman/Joker duel. Plus it could be argued that it is there, just not as blatantly. Nolan is often criticized as being pretentious, which I can def. see how some could view it that way. Instead of having the audience themselves find the Jokers mantra, the Joker instead speaks it very aloud in The Dark Knight by describing his every "chaotic" reason.

Yeah, I mean, you don't expect the Joker to waffle on about the ying/yang of their struggle etc every time he appeared , it would get tiresome. But, you do get refences to this frame of mind he has on the situation through the books of the 70s and 80s every now and again, it was a staple that the Joker's character was partially composed of this attitude in regard to his struggles with BM.

'5 way' was a milestone, and what every succesive Joker writer would have based their character off. Denny O Neil was editing the books, and would have kept that philosophy in(that he introduced), as in, he would have rejevted anything that deviated from it. ie The Joker may hate BM, but he respects him.

I have to say, it was there in the books(edit: post '5 way'), refs to their ongoing titanic battle of wits, and how they were made for each other.

I realise Jack's could be said to be based on the earlier era, but you were saying most Batman comicbook fans you came across preffered Nicolson, when this is simply not the case. To a lot of fans, myself included, we finally got the Joker you would expect to see in a modern BM tale, ie since '5 way'.
edit: and you have now edited in since I quoted you, that you have come across many cb fans who prefer Ledger, but that was different to what you were saying before, which is what I was talking about here.

The Joker explaining himself and his actions lead to some great dialoge, and that fantastic interogation scene, which was not the usual interogation room scenario, I wouldn't change any of that personally.

edit: What the Killing Joke did was bring this situation to a head, but it had always been there since the modern joker was introduced in '5 way'.
I've said this in a KJ thread before, and i remember this feeling when I first read it, but the best thing about the KJ, to me, as a long term fan, was that it contained the no bs conversation between BM and the Joker we had all been waiting on.
With the refs to their ongoing battle of wits, made for each other etc, Alan Moore took that on board and had BM confront the situation with his 'We're going to kill each other' spiel, the conversation that ends up getting aired between them at the end of the book(and could not have been executed better imo).

edit: RE: your statement that the ideological rivalry is there in Batman89, but just not as blatant.
No, it's not there, what is there is a hamfisted attempt to give the Joker and Batman a connection through making the Joker the killer of Batman's parents.
What this results in is giving the audience the impression that Batman is all the more determined to hunt down and kill the Joker beacause of this action, not because his crimes are growing more out of control, and it becomes an act of revenge, not justice.
Why not just have Batman going after the Joker because they are natural enemies, Batman, the guy who tries to control the chaos of the world, and the Joker, the bringer of chaos.
They went for a usual 'Death Wish'/'Commando' revenge movie trope, instead of writing up a more serious and intelligent Joker, and in the process gave Batman a quality he had never had before in the comics, that of a bloodthirsty killer dead set on revenge.

 

[Ryan]

Alot of these posts, except for the personal ones, have been really interesting read. I originally had voted for Ledger over Nicholson (changed my vote to the sole Romero vote ) and continue to prefer his take on the character, however I have enjoyed reading the pro Nicholson crowd posts as well. I don't know. Some like the young and raw Elvis, some like the mature rhinestone encrusted King of Vegas. Nolan in interviews said that he wanted to take the character back to its original roots. Which he did, but then gave him contemporary appeal with the slashed smile face etc. I simply enjoyed that verison because it wasn't something I'd seen before and I think it was done well. It's not, in my opnion, a protrayal that most people would think of as "Jokerish". So I do understand the 89 Joker lovers perspective. Also by no means, do I think that Ledger defined the role etc. I have a ton of issues with his/nolan's protrayal. As I understand the thread, its about what you like and what you think. Much as the characters Batman and the Joker find themselves in the eternal battle in every medium, I suppose the Nicholson crowd vs the Ledger crowd will battle it out forever as well.

 

[Bruce Malone]

You say he was being himself. How authentic can that be.

I was refering authentic to the Joker as some have argued

Joker was never portrayed as such a sadistic psycho. Before Jack, live action Joker was seen merely as a clown who robbed banks.

Joker in his original comic incarnation was somewhat of a killer psycho. Well to be fair the only live action joker before was on a childrens show,

And Joker's creators didn't base it on Jack, but Jack was so incredibly close to the character he was hired for it.

I was just being sarcastic saying they based the joker on jack

 

[MrQuinn]

lol I'd say the creators couldn't have possibly based on it Jack regardless because he wasn't alive at the time, but he actually might have been. He's olllllld.

(more sarcasm, folks...)





(except him being old)

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think the thug most probably volunteered to have that bomb inserted into his stomach like a suicide bomber straps a bomb around themselves.

It's fairly obvious from the thug's comments that he didn't understand what the Joker did to him "he said the pretty lights would come and take the voices away" or something to that effect.

It was quite clear that the man was suffering from some sort of mental illness, and the Joker manipulated him. I doubt he really "volunteered" for anything.

 

[Travesty]

It's fairly obvious from the thug's comments that he didn't understand what the Joker did to him "he said the pretty lights would come and take the voices away" or something to that effect.

It was quite clear that the man was suffering from some sort of mental illness, and the Joker manipulated him. I doubt he really "volunteered" for anything.

But at the same time, he didn't notice that the same guy who put the device into his stomach is standing right next to him? He talked about what the "guy" promised him, yet, he had a hard time to tell the cops it was the clown next to him? I took it as one of his hench-men/goons that did it to the guy, not necessarily Joker himself.

 

[Infinity9999x]

But at the same time, he didn't notice that the same guy who put the device into his stomach is standing right next to him? He talked about what the "guy" promised him, yet, he had a hard time to tell the cops it was the clown next to him? I took it as one of his hench-men/goons that did it to the guy, not necessarily Joker himself.

The Joker was no longer in the cell when the guard said that. He was already in interrogation.

 

[Travesty]

The Joker was no longer in the cell when the guard said that. He was already in interrogation.

But he and The Joker were already in the cell together, and he was pleading for help. It didn't look like he knew that the guy sitting next to him put something in his chest. Again, I think a thug/goon did it.

 

[El Payaso]

I was refering authentic to the Joker as some have argued

Oh, but he was authentic to the character.

Joker in his original comic incarnation was somewhat of a killer psycho. Well to be fair the only live action joker before was on a childrens show,

Jack's Joker was a killer psycho.

That said, the 1966 Batman tv series producers have stated that the show wasn't actually intended for kids only but for adults with a twisted sense for comedy.

I was just being sarcastic saying they based the joker on jack

Yes, I know. Nevertheless Nicholson's personality was famous for being close to what the classic Joker was; except for actually being a killer and a criminal of course.

 

[david icke]

But he and The Joker were already in the cell together, and he was pleading for help. It didn't look like he knew that the guy sitting next to him put something in his chest. Again, I think a thug/goon did it.

No, I think it's made pretty clear from the script that the Joker did it. He says 'The Boss said it would make the voices go away and turn into bright lights...like Christmas'.
He knew he had done something to him, but didn't know it would cause so much pain, or result in him exploding. From the dialoge, we are meant to imagine the Joker made him swallow it, maybe wrapped in something, and told him it was some kind of miraculous medicine that would solve his problems.
A loyal loony thug like that is not going to turn round and point at the Joker in the cell when he starts getting stomach pains. Then when the Joker is taken out of the cell, as Infinity says, the thug talks of the Joker as 'The boss', he's still not pointing a finger directly at him, and is referring to him in the third person now he's not in the room.

 

[Ryan]

I never thought of the whole looney thug knew/didn't know about who did the explosives. When I first saw it, I assumed that it was the Joker that did it as I figured he would be "the boss". I don't know. I loved TDK, enjoyed Batman Begins more, but I find myself finding picking apart TDK fare more then Begins. I'm sure Begins has just as many plot holes or maybe even more. I guess I just hold TDK to a higher standard and want it to be perfect in every way. I still can't understand how Batman fell from the top of a building, carrying the weight of Rachel, landed on a car and lived, but fel a shorter distance, alone, and looked like he almost died. I believe in the script it said he fired one of his cables to the building to save himself and Rachel, but why not include that in the film? No idea.

 

[david icke]

I still can't understand how Batman fell from the top of a building, carrying the weight of Rachel, landed on a car and lived, but fel a shorter distance, alone, and looked like he almost died. I believe in the script it said he fired one of his cables to the building to save himself and Rachel, but why not include that in the film? No idea.

I don't think he looked like he 'almost died' from the Two-Face fall, the discomfort he was experiencing was from the bullet he took, as Alfred said his new more flexible armour would not be as protective against guns and knives, it has gaps in the armour, so maybe he actually took the bullet, or it got through the lighter armour. edit: People on real life still suffer from injury when having taken a bullet while wearing a kevlar/bullet proof vest.
And I think we have to suspend a little disbelief with the Rachel fall, we see the cape/glider open up, so it slows their fall somewhat, (edit: )while his armour and neck brace takes the impact. I think it was the better option to go for that explanation, rather than have him trying to reach into his belt, take aim and fire successfully at a part of a building it could catch onto whilst trying to hold onto someone. All while spinning around uncontrollably. It would have felt like something out of Batman and Robin if he had miraculously found something to grapple onto in that scenario.

 

[Travesty]

No, I think it's made pretty clear from the script that the Joker did it. He says 'The Boss said it would make the voices go away and turn into bright lights...like Christmas'.
He knew he had done something to him, but didn't know it would cause so much pain, or result in him exploding. From the dialoge, we are meant to imagine the Joker made him swallow it, maybe wrapped in something, and told him it was some kind of miraculous medicine that would solve his problems.
A loyal loony thug like that is not going to turn round and point at the Joker in the cell when he starts getting stomach pains. Then when the Joker is taken out of the cell, as Infinity says, the thug talks of the Joker as 'The boss', he's still not pointing a finger directly at him, and is referring to him in the third person now he's not in the room.

And a thug could have told them that he had to do it because "the boss" said so. I get told all the time at my job, that the boss wants me to do this-and-that, without him even telling me himself. I took it that someone else put it in his chest, in order to get "the boss" out of jail. It just doesn't make sense that The Joker could have put it in his chest, when he was captured and put in a holding cell. And if that's the case, then it just makes the entire Joker plot even more unbelievable, as it wasn't believable to begin with.

 

[The Joker]

Who said Joker put it in his chest when he was in the holding cell? When the thug was thrown into the cell, he was complaining about not feeling well. And you see a close up of Joker smile when he hears that.

It's obvious Joker put it in the thug's stomach before the whole chase sequence.

 

[Travesty]

Who said Joker put it in his chest when he was in the holding cell? When the thug was thrown into the cell, he was complaining about not feeling well. And you see a close up of Joker smile when he hears that.

If that is the case, that he put it in his chest, for the sole purpose of using the guy for his escape plan, again, just makes this whole plan MUCH more unbelievable. So he was going after Harvey, for the sole purpose of getting Batman to chase him, knowing that his rocket launcher wouldn't hit the SWAT car, but hit the Tumbler instead, and knew that it would turn into the Bat-pod, in order for Batman to chase him down, knowing he would get caught, goes in jail, uses the guy he put a bomb in his stomach, and somehow convinces this "skitso " to do something in order to be put in jail, to blow himself out of jail without blowing himself up, killing every cop in the precinct, in order to get Lau out(who just happens to be the only survivor), and escape.

I'm trying to make more sense out of this plan. If it happened that way, then this whole thing just seems more impossible to me, as if it wasn't hard to swallow to begin with.

 

[Bruce Malone]

^^^

More like a back up plan in case he didn't get the chance than and there to kill harvey. It was alluded that the joker planned to get caught at one point. I think it was plan b for the joker tp be like "ok if i dont get the chance to kill him during the actual transport my backup is to get him afterwards".

 

[The Joker]

If that is the case, that he put it in his chest, for the sole purpose of using the guy for his escape plan, again, just makes this whole plan MUCH more unbelievable.

No, it doesn't, because you're under the assumption that the Joker was always going to escape using that escape method. Joker stated that he originally thought Harvey Dent was Batman. When he saw the Tumbler arrive on the scene, then he obviously realized that wasn't the case, which is what the "Hmmmmm" was probably all about after he saw the tumbler.

Should he get captured, or stopped by Batman, then he has an escape method there should he need it. The Joker accounts for all contingencies.

killing every cop in the precinct, in order to get Lau out(who just happens to be the only survivor), and escape.

No offence, if you're going to criticize, then get your facts straight. Where is it stated that Lau is the only survivor? Did you miss the Cop that Joker baited and took hostage still alive later on? If he survived, then it's highly possible others survived, too.

 

[david icke]

No, it doesn't, because you're under the assumption that the Joker was always going to escape using that escape method. Joker stated that he originally thought Harvey Dent was Batman. When he saw the Tumbler arrive on the scene, then he obviously realized that wasn't the case, which is what the "Hmmmmm" was probably all about after he saw the tumbler.

Should he get captured, or stopped by Batman, then he has an escape method there should he need it. The Joker accounts for all contingencies.

Well said, and I don't think i've ever put that 'Hmmmm' down to his theory that Harvey was Batman being skewered, just the joker's eccentric way of expressing the thought that Batman had arrived on the scene. So, that's quite cool to realize.

No offence, if you're going to criticize, then get your facts straight. Where is it stated that Lau is the only survivor? Did you miss the Cop that Joker baited and took hostage still alive later on? If he survived, then it's highly possible others survived, too.

Also, he would have known Lau would be in protective custody, ie a solitary cell, so far away from the blast.
And it would have been fairly easy for him, in conjunction with Maroni, to have one of the crooked cops on the payrole make sure that phone-belly-man was put in jail at the same time as the Joker, to pick him up at a certain place. Also, the joker would know he would be a distance from the blast as he would be making his one phone call. Of course, with all plans , there are variables that must be improvised around etc, but the basic strategy is there.

 

[Mr.?]

I still say he didnt think Harvey was Batman at that point, and if he did he wouldn't be trying to kill him at that point. The thug was used for a back up plan in case he got caught, thats it. The "hmmm" wasn't because he realized Harvey wasn't Batman but because he was impressed with what Batman did to the garbage truck imo because, and this is hard to explain, but the way he says "hmmm" isn't him questioning something.

 

[Travesty]

Should he get captured, or stopped by Batman, then he has an escape method there should he need it. The Joker accounts for all contingencies.

And that's originally what I was saying. I just said, I think a thug put it in his chest, instead of The Joker himself. But then again, the movie alludes to the fact that The Joker did all this on purpose(to get Lau out), so it still doesn't add up, and seems highly unlikely either way.

No offence, if you're going to criticize, then get your facts straight. Where is it stated that Lau is the only survivor? Did you miss the Cop that Joker baited and took hostage still alive later on? If he survived, then it's highly possible others survived, too.

Hehe, wow. I can criticize the highly impossible plan all I want. Sorry I missed the surviving cop, I haven't watched the movie in about 4 months or so, and maybe missed that altogether. I just thought everybody died, seeing as how Joker walks in, to only find Lau as the only survivor in a cell, where everything is chard from the explosion around it. And it still doesn't change the fact of the impossibility of that being "part of a plan". Survivors or not, it somehow killed/knocked out every cop, so Joker could stroll around with keys in his hands, and take Lau out, who seemed to be the only one alive in the cell.

 

[Mr.?]

Joker was alive as well as Lao as well as the cop as well as other cops as well as all of his thugs (sans the fat bomb guy). Some cops died but the majority probably just got knocked out/stunned from the blast.