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

[david icke]

double post same meaning

 

[david icke]

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

Yeah, I did say to him that I too had a bit of a big headed tendancy that I didn't like, but I must've let it out a bit for this guy. Oh well, if I'm gonna get carried away I'd rather it was in the face of a head that was as big as mine in that moment.

 

[MrQuinn]

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.

Well said, someone intelligent here..

But, just to be fair, I didn't mean to fully ignore these conceptions of the characters we know and love today, I just merely wish people wouldn't revert to these incarnations so die-hardly in certain arguments. There's obviously gonna be a lot of history to every character, and a lot of the origins should stick, that's for sure. But some things go away, and in Batman's case, it was the killing. Now, I'm not sure where his "no killing" code spawned from, maybe there was a whole story arc concerning it 70 years ago, I wouldn't know, but my point is, he evolved into that code and it seems to me that they retconned the whole killing aspect. Maybe it's just the way I like to look at it. Now, if there is some story arc that explains it, then I'd much rather be educated in that.

 

[MysterioMenace]

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.





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.



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!

I’ve got a sense of humor just fine, I’m just failing to see how you’re comical in any way. Now that’s funny, dude!

Are you actually this oblivious to your obnoxiously immature hypocrisy or are you just playing another one of your so-called jokes? Convenient that they’re always jokes after you’ve been shown up, huh? What are the odds? I’m not afraid to read your post; I’m merely not in the mood for a headache. Look at it! You claim I’m treating this like a competition, though I said you’re doing the very same far earlier, and then make some childish claim that I’m afraid to read your post because I might get shown up. Hm! Now again, who’s treating this like a competition?

You’re not a real writer if you write about superheroes? That’s news to me! Not to mention that might be one of the stupider comments I’ve ventured across around here, which is really saying something. Those are bold and judgmental words coming from someone also writing on a superhero forum. I bet you've made a lot of friends around here with comments like that. But I’m glad you worry so much for me. That’s very considerate. It’s strange how I get all the complements for my writing when you’re clearly the one with the talent. How’d that happen?

You criticize me for not cracking jokes and noticing your apparent comedy, and then continue on to call this a serious debate. That’s about the only funny thing you’ve yet said. Again with the contradictions! It’s all the more apparent that every time your logic is disproven, hypocrisy is called out, and facts are proven to not be facts at all, you fall back on the “I was joking” lie of a scapegoat. Nice try, but you’ve yet again failed.

Perhaps I do have a big head, but sometimes there’s a reason. In my case, it’s to hold my bigger brain. See what I did there? For the record, that's mean at mocking sarcasm just to clear any confusion. Oh! David, I’ve won over another one. Are you going to cry some more? Sheesh…

Now I'm done with you. I'm going to be the better man and ignore you. I've got much more important things to do and it's really pointless talking to someone who clearly is just jealous his opinions were ignored. I'd much rather write my essays to people that can actually debate or discuss logically and intelligently while keeping it fun and informative. If that makes me a bad person in your eye...I'm glad to be a bad person.

 

[MysterioMenace]

Well said, someone intelligent here..

But, just to be fair, I didn't mean to fully ignore these conceptions of the characters we know and love today, I just merely wish people wouldn't revert to these incarnations so die-hardly in certain arguments. There's obviously gonna be a lot of history to every character, and a lot of the origins should stick, that's for sure. But some things go away, and in Batman's case, it was the killing. Now, I'm not sure where his "no killing" code spawned from, maybe there was a whole story arc concerning it 70 years ago, I wouldn't know, but my point is, he evolved into that code and it seems to me that they retconned the whole killing aspect. Maybe it's just the way I like to look at it. Now, if there is some story arc that explains it, then I'd much rather be educated in that.

Thank you so very much! I totally get your meaning. It has its place, but killer Batman’s not really that prevalent either. I like that version, but I much prefer the modern one. It really is pretty darn interesting to see where your favorite superheroes came from though. I want to say that with the induction of Robin, Batman hung up his murderous ways. They wanted to sell the book to a younger audience and though that a kid sidekick would be the best way as it gave children someone to identify with. When Bruce became somewhat the father figure, he felt he needed to become a good example as he was now a role model. I also know that in actuality Bob Kane came to the eventual conclusion that, while gun toting Pulp characters like the Shadow and Spider directly inspired the Batman and he still would take a lot from them, he felt that ultimately maybe it was more character-accurate that he not utilize what was ultimately responsible for his trauma; the gun and murder. So he re-wrote the character. I want to say there’s only one time prior to Robins debut that Batman intentionally kills someone and uses a gun, but I’m not 100% on that.

 

[C. Lee]

Looks like I have to remind people again.....discuss and debate without the name calling and belittleling comments about people's intelligence. If you can't be civil....don't post.

 

[Spider-Bat]

The only thing I like better about Jack's Joker is his origin. The vat of chemicals thing. I don't hate the mae-up thing with Heath, I understand they wanted to do things differently this time 'round. But they could have at least had Heath's neck covered too with the white make up, and still leave it a mystery.

They got the character right with TDK, the mystery of his origins and all, but I do miss the chemicals bleaching him and the lkips and hair and all, but I do like Jack's hair better aswell, looked more like the Comics. But as I said the whole mystery of the chatacter and how he said he didn't want to kill Batman was spot on. I almost cried when he said that. So close to the books.

But Jack was pretty much just being the looney he always plays, just a bit more over the top. Sure Jack was a good Joker, but, Heath was great!

So I do like Heath better, just certain cosmetic things about Jack I like a bit more is all. Don't get me wrong, Jack did get the character, he proved that in his interview on the Ultimate Batman DVD. I would just have liked it even more if Heath had shorter hair and his make up wasn't always smudging. Now if it was the make up more like Jack's and with the mouth scars that would have been cooler. Like when ever Heath had his hair back like in the holding cell, that looked better.

 

[david icke]

Looks like I have to remind people again.....discuss and debate without the name calling and belittleling comments about people's intelligence. If you can't be civil....don't post.

Sorry for my part in the de-railment of the thread last night. When someone starts accusing you of tampering with their posts and putting in spelling mistakes you know there's something else going on here and it's time to call it a day with them.

edit: Ok, I went back and looked at what the guy did just there.

He accused me of being 'illiterate', and when I pointed out a bad grammatical error he'd made in the same response, he then went and accused me of tampering with his posts and adjusting his spelling.
So, what he has done is gone back afterwards and edited his post and corrected that particular error in order to defame my character by accusing me of tampering.
As far as I understand that is a pretty heavy thing to do on an internet message board. I've heard of boards where people have been banned merely for adjusting their messages after someone has replied to them. But in this case the guy has went out of his way to accuse me of tampering with his message and then went back and fabricated evidence.
It's pretty clear from the time mark of his edit on the bottom of the post that he went back and did exactly this.
So, I will be looking into the rules and possibly making a formal complaint against this person, as what he has done goes far beyond simple insults against someone's intelligence.

 

[MysterioMenace]

Sorry for my part in the de-railment of the thread last night. When someone starts accusing you of tampering with their posts and putting in spelling mistakes you know there's something else going on here and it's time to call it a day with them.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have tampered in the first place? It's clear as crystal, right in this thread, black and white. No use denying what's on the board.

But if it makes you feel any better, keep on thinking you "won". The rest of us will live in reality. =]

 

[david icke]

Then perhaps you shouldn't have tampered in the first place? It's clear as crystal, right in this thread, black and white. No use denying what's on the board.

But if it makes you feel any better, keep on thinking you "won". The rest of us will live in reality. =]

Dude, you went too far, and you know it. You know, and everyone else knows, that I did not tamper with your post.
What is clear as crystal, is that you went back and edited your post and then accused me of tampering with your post. The time stamp at the bottom of the post is there for a reason.
So, tell me, if you did not edit your post to correct the word you accuse me of tampering with, what exactly did you do to your post in that edit? and why did you not clearly mark where you edited to add things if indeed you edited something else? I bet if we compared my quote of your post with your original post the only difference would be the mistakes you yourself corrected, and accuse me of tampering with.
Every time I go back and edit something in, I put a 'edit:' clearly next to it. Everyone on the boards does this. Why didn't you?
I've never formally complained about anyone on any message board I've been on, but I feel here it's my duty to if you are capable of such underhanded, malicious and devious tactics in an attempt to defame the name of another poster.
And for what? Because you could not handle the fact that after you called me 'illiterate' you yourself made a humdinger of an error in the same post.
No, you went too far pal, and you know it.

 

[C. Lee]

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!

david icke...MysterioMenace.....stop it now.

Drop it and move on. I suggest you put each other on IGNORE....or better yet, use your god given ability to CHOOSE what you can do and choose to ignore each other and stop the petty bickering.

Do not continue this.

 

[Mistah K88]

*looks around*...Anyway...I did like the physical appearance of Jack more than Heath...say what you want about having no origin, but just being some nut in face paint makes it less of a mystery. I never wondered "how did he get like that?" The permawhite without some type of origin would be quite the mystery because it is simply not normal. Heck, people would even wonder if he's even human because of his natural clown like appearance. Yes there's the scars, but it is pretty simple to deduce how they got there...a blade or some other sharp object cut him on the face to make it look like he's smiling (the only question is who did it, which it doesn't really matter because it wasn't Batman). Though I always found it creepier in the comics that Joker just chose to smile all the time (as he could make different expressions) rather than being "forced" to smile one way or the other in the movies.

I do wish Heath's Joker was a bit more clownish though, he was a bit too preachy for my tastes. As for the Joker styled weapons, how simple is it to duct tape a boxing glove to the rocket of a rocket launcher? That is simple and VERY possible since it is just duct tape and boxing gloves, which even I could pick up from a couple stores...

 

[david icke]

*looks around*...Anyway...I did like the physical appearance of Jack more than Heath...say what you want about having no origin, but just being some nut in face paint makes it less of a mystery. I never wondered "how did he get like that?" The permawhite without some type of origin would be quite the mystery because it is simply not normal.

To me the mystery is nothing to do with his white face, there is no mystery to that at all, he went down to the Avon counter and bought some make-up. (edit: Same with the scars, as you say, he either did it himself, someone else did it, or he was born with a silver knife in his mouth.)
The mystery is, where did this guy come from? What has he been doing all these years to cultivate such confidence that he can take on the entire Gotham mob alone? What has a mind of such brilliance(albeit twisted) been doing all these years? Because he not only took on the mob alone, but he succeeded in taking over much of their gangs and turf, not to mention almost killing Batman.

With Jack's Joker, there is no mystery to his background. He was a career criminal, and top tier gangster, with psychotic tendancies before he was dipped into acid. The only difference when he became the Joker was that his crimes became more flamboyant, and less to do with the aquisition of money.(edit: You can see how and why he came to be this Joker, he was depicted as being very vain in the movie before the accident, 'I didn't ask.', and attempts to cover up the pain of his deformity with more eleborate actions and crimes.)

I do wish Heath's Joker was a bit more clownish though, he was a bit too preachy for my tastes. As for the Joker styled weapons, how simple is it to duct tape a boxing glove to the rocket of a rocket launcher? That is simple and VERY possible since it is just duct tape and boxing gloves, which even I could pick up from a couple stores...

Having the Joker talk about his philosophy was very like the Killing Joke, and I thought it was done perfectly. There would be no classic interrogation scene between him and Batman without it.
Yes, without it there would have been an interrogation scene, but it would have been a pretty standard clash of the cop trying to get information out of the taunting criminal. With the 'preachy' Joker you got him messing with Batman's head, and brought the ying/yang of their crossed philosphies into a BM movie, making it the more mature and deeper experience.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I love both interpretations, but Heath was the Joker I ended up liking more.

I think the hard thing for me, which Jack, was that I grew up with B:TAS first, and in my opinion, Hammil's Joker is a better "classic comic" Joker than Jacks. This isn't anything Jack could have done to change, but I just preferred the voice and laugh Hammil's Joker had over Jack's vocal choices. Hammil is THE Joker voice, and as a kid, I enjoyed Jack's Joker, but I was always a little dissappointed because he didn't sound like the iconic Joker I had been ingrained with because of TAS.

And really, there's not a lot you can do about that, I mean, heck, I know lots of people that, when you ask who their favorite Mr. J is, they don't say Heath or Jack, they say Hammil.

Also, it's hard to change perceptions of things when you're brought up on one interpretation. I grew up with TAS, and I didn't see B89 until I was about 8 or 10. So by that time, I already had a fixed idea of what the Joker should sound and act like. Jack was close, but he didn't quite fit the bill. Had I seen B89 first, it probably would have been different.

 

[The Joker]

To me the mystery is nothing to do with his white face, there is no mystery to that at all, he went down to the Avon counter and bought some make-up. (edit: Same with the scars, as you say, he either did it himself, someone else did it, or he was born with a silver knife in his mouth.)
The mystery is, where did this guy come from? What has he been doing all these years to cultivate such confidence that he can take on the entire Gotham mob alone? What has a mind of such brilliance(albeit twisted) been doing all these years? Because he not only took on the mob alone, but he succeeded in taking over much of their gangs and turf, not to mention almost killing Batman.

Exactly.

The mystery of the Joker in the comics was never how he got to be permawhite. Every possible origin he's had in the comics all had one common element: He fell into some chemicals. So that's not the mystery. The real mystery is who is he? Or rather who was he before he became the Joker.

Heath's Joker retained that element of mystery. We didn't know diddly squat about him. Did he get his scars in one of the two ways he said in the movie [A nod to the multiple origin scenario he has, in how he remembers his past differently]. Or was he lying on both counts?
Jack's Joker had no air of mystery about him at all. We knew his real name, his arrest history, he was a major of chemistry and art, he killed the Waynes, and he was an ambitious gangster who was set up by his boss because he was shagging his gf, and ended up falling into a vat of chemicals. He blamed Batman for his creation for that, and wanted him dead.

He was clear cut in every way.

 

[Brother Jack]

For me the mystery with the Joker is one of his most compelling traits.

 

[returntovoid]

Having the Joker talk about his philosophy was very like the Killing Joke, and I thought it was done perfectly. There would be no classic interrogation scene between him and Batman without it.

You're right about one thing, it was influenced The Killing Joke.

Nolan gave Heath The Killing Joke to read for the role along with A Clockwork Orange and Arkham Asylum.

With my first reading of The Killing Joke, I liked it. With my second reading, I got tired of it, no longer liked it and lost it's re-readability for me.

My favorite Joker stories are The Joker's Five-Way Revenge and his first two appearances in 1940.

All a matter of preference/opinion, I for one prefer the kind of interpretation of The Joker that is in the stories that I mentioned as my favorites.

 

[returntovoid]

I just added a multiple choice poll on this thread.

Will wait for the poll results.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I just added a multiple choice poll on this thread.

Will wait for the poll results.

Glad you added Hammil and Ceasar

And really, I think it's a testament to Hammil just to see all the praise the guy gets even though it's not an actual performance. His Joker can still be just as chilling as any of the live-action ones. What he does to Robin in Return of the Joker, and the Joker's eventual death scene at Robin's hands, is still one of my favorite Joker moments ever. It was incredibly creepy and disturbing, and they pulled it off in a cartoon show.

I would love to see someone do a live-action version of Mr. J who models it more off Hammil's take. I just loved the manicness of Hammil's Joker, the way he would go from a giggling clown to a furious insane murderer at the drop of the hat. I love those split/second mood swings. That would be interesting to capture on film.

 

[returntovoid]

Glad you added Hammil and Ceasar

I added it so other SHH members are pleased with the poll.

I would love to see someone do a live-action version of Mr. J who models it more off Hammil's take. I just loved the manicness of Hammil's Joker, the way he would go from a giggling clown to a furious insane murderer at the drop of the hat. I love those split/second mood swings. That would be interesting to capture on film.

That would indeed be very interesting.

Heck, I'd really like to see a Batman film that captures BTAS after Nolan is done with directing Batman and wants to leave!

 

[david icke]

I just loved the manicness of Hammil's Joker, the way he would go from a giggling clown to a furious insane murderer at the drop of the hat. I love those split/second mood swings. That would be interesting to capture on film.

We got that in the Brian Douglas video scene. The joker is playing around with his mask going 'whooo hoo, wheee' etc, and talking in a somewhat playful voice, and then flips to the 'LOOK AT ME!' voice, which was quite terrifying. I thought that voice was even more effective as you couldn't see his face/expression during it, sometimes it's better to leave something to the imagination, as it will be scarier than any face an actor could pull.

 

[david icke]

You're right about one thing, it was influenced The Killing Joke.

Nolan gave Heath The Killing Joke to read for the role along with A Clockwork Orange and Arkham Asylum.

With my first reading of The Killing Joke, I liked it. With my second reading, I got tired of it, no longer liked it and lost it's re-readability for me.

I can always pick that one up and re-read it, I give it a break between reads though so I don't get sick of it, but Alan Moore gives the Joker so much good dialoge, and I can easily just look at Brian Bolland's drawings. It took him two years to draw that, so he is in fact human.

My favorite Joker stories are The Joker's Five-Way Revenge and his first two appearances in 1940.

All a matter of preference/opinion, I for one prefer the kind of interpretation of The Joker that is in the stories that I mentioned as my favorites.

Well, as I was saying earlier, '5 Way Revenge' is probably the most important Joker story that was ever written. It brought the Joker we now know and love into print for the first time really, after decades of him being a relatively harmless prankster. He's pretty much stayed the same since that story.
And it has more in common with Ledger's Joker than Jacks I would say.
The Joker uses one deadly prop during the whole story, the exploding cigar. And like Ledger's pencil trick, it's an everyday object, not anything overeleborate like a large boxing glove stuck to something or a jack in the box wedged in someone's toilet or whatever. He's much more subtle in his methods.
Yeah, he used many overelaborate props after that story, but he wasn't any less Joker in that story because he only used one everyday object as a prop. And it didn't deter from the story that that was all he used propwise, as you say, it is one of the best, and probably the most defining and important Joker story ever written.

 

[Ryan]

I voted for the Romero. I thought he basically had it all, but of course due to the confines of tv etc, he's not as violent as perhaps I would like him to be. Although I do favour Ledger's Joker over Nicholson, I do agree that Nicholson did the better job or protraying the Joker that most people identify with. However, in one on Nolan's interviews, and I believe that MysterioMenace pointed out, the Nolan Joker was based upon the very early first appearances. I believe that's where even the dark circles around the eyes comes from. Nolan made that early Joker appearance more contemporary with the punk/rock look and then added the Grant Morrison slashed grin. I also agree that Ledger's performance could have a bit more lunacy to the role. Maybe when he killed Gambol, he could have at least looked like he enjoyed it or laughed. In any event, throughout the history of the Batman medium every writer has there own take on the character and it all comes down to personal taste. Some days I prefer Morrisons, some days I prefer the O'Neil version.

 

[bane]

Ledger got all the maneurs, even the knife in the shoe was very Joker like.

 

[returntovoid]

In The Joker's Five-Way Revenge:

One of his former gang members is found dead in a crime-scene due to laughing gas and there's a Joker playing card left at the scene.

He mixes Joker Venom in one of his former gang members drinking water.

He gives a former gang member the exploding cigar but at first he let's him think it's an harmless gag then that naive member blows up into flames.

He kills one more gang member however the cause of death is never shown but leaves it open to interpretation.

He threatens to kill the last remaining gang member by feeding him to a shark in the aquarium tank but Batman manages to prevent this death.