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

[Travesty]

In regards to your whole fantasy fiction debate...you're really getting into semantics, since there is no defining list of what constitutes fantasy and science fiction.

Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[1] Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities.[2] The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality.


They're not semantics, they are just broad definitions of the terms, some of which, I would believe most people to understand, which is why I didn't define "Sci-Fi", as I would have assumed most people to understand the difference(and it was never debated upon, just brought up through an example). Are you saying that these already established genres in movies, TV, and literature are all based on semantics? These genres are classified, meaning, they have a name and purpose around them. These aren't just loose terms being thrown around in different mediums, they are defined genres for a reason.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[1] Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities.[2] The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality.


They're not semantics, they are just broad definitions of the terms, some of which, I would believe most people to understand, which is why I didn't define "Sci-Fi", as I would have assumed most people to understand the difference(and it was never debated upon, just brought up through an example). Are you saying that these already established genres in movies, TV, and literature are all based on semantics? That doesn't mean there cant be an intermingling of the two genres to come up with a "fantasy sci-fi", as that is likely to happen when new genres come about. Same thing applies to music, as well. These genres are classified, meaning, they have a name and purpose around them. These aren't just loose terms being thrown around in different mediums, they are defined genres for a reason.

Science Fiction is a sub group of Fiction...but it didn't come about until AFTER Fantasy.

And yes, there are some rules to the subgroups, yet there are still stories that do not fit, yet still get shoved into these subgroups. I've read stories that completely disregard any scientific theory, or rules of the natural world, yet still fall into the "science fiction" category because they have "sciency" things in them such as spaceships.

There's a reason that many bookstores have Science Fiction/Fantasy listed in the same area, it's because, with so many of the stories, the elements overlap. Take Terry Brooks for example, he combines many science fiction elements with traditional fantasy elements in the later books in his Shannarra series, and the Word and the Void (which now have merged).

The truth is, most of the books I've read labeled as "sience fiction" ignore the rule you posted above. Many I've read break established laws of the natural world constantly, but they deal with robots and lasers rather than elves and swords.

 

[Travesty]

There's a reason that many bookstores have Science Fiction/Fantasy listed in the same area, it's because, with so many of the stories, the elements overlap. Take Terry Brooks for example, he combines many science fiction elements with traditional fantasy elements in the later books in his Shannarra series, and the Word and the Void (which now have merged).

I understand this, but how does this apply to anything? Batman as a character is already borderline fantasy as it is, and my original point, is that Nolan stripped away the rest of the fantasy elements, and brought a "fantasy-character", into a real world setting. I think it's very apparent what Nolan did, and now you're trying to debate with me, on how you think a genre is defined, based on the intermingling of certain genres, and how certain people/companies classify them while you're looking for them!?!? Some stories have broad definitions, I'm sorry if your Barnes and Nobles is trying to save space, and put certain stories with a genres that it may mingle with, as this isn't what I was talking about. And to go back to a music example, if a band has punk-rock roots, with a mix of metal, then it's a punk-metal band. You could probably find it in whatever genre that certain band could be classified in. It's up to you to figure that out, if you're actually smart enough to figure out what genres that band may be assigned to. Now, if that band wanted to make a Metal album, and cut out their punk roots, then it would be a metal album, just the same way that Nolan cut out the fantasy elements in TDK. TDK is a more realistic Batman story, with fantasy elements cut out. What is so hard to understand?

The truth is, most of the books I've read labeled as "science fiction" ignore the rule you posted above. Many I've read break established laws of the natural world constantly, but they deal with robots and lasers rather than elves and swords

"The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality", and that they "are largely possible within...the laws of nature". It never said it is totally possible/concrete, but that it just normally happens within the genre, as it wraps up the rest by saying, "though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation". I thought you said you read the definition? Also, these aren't "my rules", they are from Merriem-Webster, you know, the leading distributor and classifier of definitions? I'm not making these up, I'm just following them.

 

[returntovoid]

Until the moment he speaks as Batman. the voice is easily one of the worst.

I didn't mind the voice but let's not get into that silly argument.

I thought Bale did a great job as Batman in Batman Begins.

In TDK, I don't think he got much great material to work, not much focus on Batman's character and the Batsuit/presence was no longer scary.

Based on Bale's performance as Batman in Batman Begins, I would regard it as on par with Michael Keaton's Batman.

The kind of thing I am talking about is things like Batman developing a relationship with Gordon.
Burton all but ignored that, apart from a brief one sentence exchange in BR we get nothing between them for both movies.

It's worth mentioning that Tim Burton's Batman films were based on the early 1939/1940 Batman comics and in those comics, there was no friendship between Gordon and Batman. In Detective Comics #27, it was established that his Bruce Wayne persona and Gordon were friends but the friendship with the Batman persona got developed later in the comics.

 

[Travesty]

I've been watching some of the 60's TV shows on youtube, and think that Ceser Romero did an amazing job with The Joker. He really did act like a "Clown Prince of Crime".t:

 

[Doc Ock]

I like Jack, I like Heath, both great Jokers. But Mark Hamill remains my favorite.

 

[Indrid Cold]

I like Jack, I like Heath, both great Jokers. But Mark Hamill remains my favorite.

Luke Skywalker FTW! Jack is still a fun memory but Heath was the man.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

For me, Jacks Joker.

 

[ronny]

Jack should have been able to move his face. And he shouldn't have had that moment with the oversized gun. It would have been a lot better if it was a normal machine gun and the audience actually saw him going ape**** over a lot of balloons. But everything was made way too silly and it robbed him of all menace.
Which is a damn shame because Nicholson is one of the greatest actors who ever lived. And unlike people like Brando, he actually deserves that accolade.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Cant choose. Heath,Jack,Mark,Ceaser,they are all fantastic in their own right. Those guys...leagues of their own. I respect and admire each of their interpretations.

 

[Charlie No-One]

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

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

 

[Punisher Rising]

Heath is better, but Jack was good in his own unique way too, and of course Mark Hamill is in a whole class of his own.

 

[Jick]

Mark Hammil's beats all of them, imo. Heath comes second.
But Heath's Joker is still my favorite movie villain of all.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think its kind of insulting to state mark beats them really. What your envisioning is not really mark but his voice put into an animated body with its own animated jestures and expressions. None of which mark had to focus on himself aside from making the voice.

Both Heath and Jack had to combine both the voice and the physical nature of the character.

I guess it would be more accurate to state you prefer the BTAS Joker compared to the heath and Jack movie versions.

 

[Travesty]

I think its kind of insulting to state mark beats them really. What your envisioning is not really mark but his voice put into an animated body with its own animated jestures and expressions. None of which mark had to focus on himself aside from making the voice.

Both Heath and Jack had to combine both the voice and the physical nature of the character.

I guess it would be more accurate to state you prefer the BTAS Joker compared to the heath and Jack movie versions.

Well, of course Hamill's Joker is a cartoon, but that doesn't mean he doesn't put any effort into his role. And how do you know Mark Hamill isn't doing his own gestures or expressions while performing the voice? In this youtube video with Mark Hamil, they talked about his Joker role, and how he prepared the laugh, and they also mention how most of the voice actors just sit down while they read their lines, but Mark Hamill needed room to stand, so he could move around and actually perform the voice as best he could. It was also mentioned, that Hamil was so energetic, and physically articulate with his acting while doing the voice, that they actually could use some of his expressions and gestures for the show. They talk about that at around 2:30 into the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gBWpWwIBKw

And Mark Hamil has contributed more to The Joker then just one movie, where he's done a TON of episodes, movies, videogames, etc. Insulting that Hamil beats them? I could possibly say it's more insulting to give it to Ledger or Nicholson, as they both haven't devoted enough time to actually flesh out there characters as much as Hamil.

 

[The Joker]

I agree somewhat with Bruce Malone. Nobody denies Hamill's talent for providing the voice, or how many times he's done the voice. But Hamill himself admits that he loves doing voice work because you can look like hell, nobody can see you, and you can get away with things you never would while on camera. Lets face it, providing a voice is much easier than playing the actual character in live action.

I'd hardly compare standing while recording a voice to the effort Jack, Heath, even Cesar Romero put into their roles. They had to perfect every element of the Joker character. Heath spent weeks locked away in a hotel room with a stack of Joker comics, perfecting his voice, laugh, posture etc.

It's alot like people who have a beef with folk who say Conroy is the definitive Batman. Conroy is the voice. Brilliant as he is, that's not Conroy himself we're looking at on screen.

 

[HotToyzJoker]

Heath and Jack or one in the same in my book... Both made ther Joker something to remember... Mark Hamill is just as good as both if not better... I never really got into the Ceser Romero Joker... But form clips Ive seen of him on youtube... He plays the Joker but he is missing something... For a lack of better words...

 

[El Payaso]

Yeah, Hammill must wear the make-up, the suit and actually "act" the part with his entire body before I can consider him.

 

[Travesty]

But Hamill himself admits that he loves doing voice work because you can look like hell, nobody can see you, and you can get away with things you never would while on camera. Lets face it, providing a voice is much easier than playing the actual character in live action.

Where has he said he loves doing voice work, because you can "look like hell" while doing his job? I know he said "because people can't see you, so [he] could do things he never could on camera", which I took it as, he could escape into the character, regardless of the situation that character happens to be in(ie. falling hundreds of feet, in a awkward position, etc). Saying that he's some lazy bum, who doesn't care about his appearance, just so he can get the job over with, is a disservice to an amazing voice actor. And it's not like he doesn't have any real live-acting ability, he was Luke Skywalker for crying out loud. I'm sure if someone approached him when he was at a younger age, he would have done a MUCH better job at acting as The Joker then Nicholson or Ledger could have ever dreamed.

Again, who cares if it's a cartoon, and you can't see them, that doesn't mean they are putting in less effort to the role. I think Hamil does a better job at becoming The Joker then Ledger or Nicholson ever could. Ledgers laugh was lackluster, and to me, didn't really define The Joker for many reasons I've already stated in this thread. Nicholsons Joker has more of a Joker vibe, and he has the energy and a laugh, but it still doesn't beat what Hamil has given us. Hamill's energy, charisma, psychotic behavior, and of course, his laugh, beats any live action interpretation HANDS DOWN. He has shown us that he can embody the character much better then any live actor we've seen yet.

The point to what I'm making, is who embodies, or should I say, transcends themselves into the character the best. That was a big grip to most Joker fans about Nicholson. They said they liked how his character was written into the story, but it felt a little bit like Jack playing Jack. And while others say Ledger gave a good performance, to me, still doesn't feel like The Joker at all(the laugh, gestures, charisma, excitement, etc). Hamill, not only went above what these live actors have done with the character, he was still original and fresh, while staying perfectly inline with what The Joker asks for. Some argue about Ledger "not doing this", or Jack "not acting like that", but what has Hamill done, other then not physically acting as The Joker? He has embodied the character better then any live actor has, and I rather hear/feel the spirit of The Joker, then get a mediocre live version, at best.

 

[The Joker]

Where has he said he loves doing voice work, because you can "look like hell" while doing his job?

In one of the many interviews he did about the role.

Saying that he's some lazy bum, who doesn't care about his appearance, just so he can get the job over with, is a disservice to an amazing voice actor.

Oh for god's sake, nobody said that. Stop being so dramatic. We're saying that he has to put less effort into playing the Joker because he doesn't have to do anything beyond provide the voice.

And if you're trying to sell the idea that providing the voice takes as much effort as providing the voice while playing the actual character yourself in a live action movie, then you're seriously deluded, mate.

And it's not like he doesn't have any real live-acting ability, he was Luke Skywalker for crying out loud.

Who said he has no acting ability? Where are you pulling this crap from?

I'm sure if someone approached him when he was at a younger age, he would have done a MUCH better job at acting as The Joker then Nicholson or Ledger could have ever dreamed.

Pure speculation. Maybe he'd have been great. Maybe he'd have been terrible.

We'll never know. Not knocking Hamill, but he has not exactly had a stellar career beyond Star Wars.

Again, who cares if it's a cartoon, and you can't see them, that doesn't mean they are putting in less effort to the role.

Yes, it does.

If you have to provide his voice in a cartoon, you don't have to worry about anything beyond perfecting a voice for the character. The animators take care of the rest.

Are you seriously trying to say that's all Jack, Heath, and Cesar had to worry about, too, when they took on their roles?

The point to what I'm making, is who embodies, or should I say, transcends themselves into the character the best.

Right. So you say the BTAS version did that if he's your favorite, not Hamill. Hamill provided the voice. A huge contribution no doubt, but it's not entirely Hamill on the screen, is it? Same as that's not Kevin Conroy on the screen kicking ass. It's his voice coming from an animated character.

BTAS provided the definitive versions of many Batman characters on screen, IMO. Batman and Joker among them. But I don't put that down to the voice actors alone. They are just providing the voices. Hamill didn't provide any of the facial expressions, body language, and any of the other million little touches that make BTAS Joker so special.

Any praise we give to the live action Jokers is entirely down to the actors portraying them. They get full credit because it's them we're watching on screen. It's them we're hearing when they speak etc. They brought the character to life on screen.

 

[Travesty]

In one of the many interviews he did about the role.

Can you find it, because I just don't belive he said that.

Oh for god's sake, nobody said that. Stop being so dramatic. We're saying that he has to put less effort into playing the Joker because he doesn't have to do anything beyond provide the voice.

Dramatic? You just said he can go to his job and "look like hell", and that's what I was responding to. You're telling me to stop being so dramatic? Jeesh...

And if you're trying to sell the idea that providing the voice takes as much effort as providing the voice while playing the actual character yourself in a live action movie, then you're seriously deluded, mate.

Wow, and for awhile there, I thought you were one of the more reasonable members here. I said, I think Hamill embodies the character more then Heath or Nicholson did. Just because it's a cartoon, doesn't mean he didn't slip into character any less then what the others have, which was my overall point, that I thought I clearly stated at the end of my post?

Who said he has no acting ability? Where are you pulling this crap from?

From my other point in the next sentence, but you quoted my out of context to where I was going with it. Although, you say it's pure speculation, but that's "where was pulling this crap from".

Can you just settle down, man? Calling me "dramatic, deluded", and my ideas "crap" is a little out of line. I don't mind debating with you, but cool your jets, bro.

Right. So you say the BTAS version did that if he's your favorite, not Hamill. Hamill provided the voice. A huge contribution no doubt, but it's not entirely Hamill on the screen, is it? Same as that's not Kevin Conroy on the screen kicking ass. It's his voice coming from an animated character.

No, Hamill is what made the character. Yes, I know he's a drawn character on screen, I've already said I know it's a cartoon, but you're making it out to seem like the team around BTAS did everything, and Hamill just read some lines. That's like me saying Burton did all of the work, and Nicholson just read his lines, and acted them out physically. Both live and voice actors still have to exhibit the same amount of dedication to the character. I know we get to physically see the other actors play the character, but voice acting isn't just reading your lines, and calling it a day. They have to put some energy and thought into what they are doing.

Any praise we give to the live action Jokers is entirely down to the actors portraying them. They get full credit because it's them we're watching on screen. It's them we're hearing when they speak etc. They brought the character to life on screen.

I understand this, but when Hamil already embodies the character better then the live action interpretations, then you know that he delivered a better job at becoming The Joker while acting. It doesn't matter if it's voice or live, he became The Joker better then the others. Although, this is just my personal opinion, so please, leave out all the name calling. I haven't been out of line, and my reasons aren't ridiculous.

 

[The Joker]

Can you find it, because I just don't belive he said that.

Yes, I'll have a look for you later. I might have it saved in my YouTube favorites.

Dramatic? You just said he can go to his job and "look like hell", and that's what I was responding to. You're telling me to stop being so dramatic?

Yes, because he was making the point that what you look like makes no difference when recording a voice. He was pointing out the benefits of why he likes doing voice work.

It was not a slur on him as a person or an actor.

Wow, and for awhile there, I thought you were one of the more reasonable members here. I said, I think Hamill embodies the character more then Heath or Nicholson did. Just because it's a cartoon, doesn't mean he didn't slip into character any less then what the others have, which was my overall point, that I thought I clearly stated at the end of my post?

No, you didn't make that clear, IMO. Because providing a voice for a character that does all the moves, facial expressions, body language, and overall appearance through animation is not nearly the same as the actual actors themselves slipping into the Joker costume, make up, and physically performing every element of the character, voice and all.

Surely you see the gigantic difference between what Mark does, and what Jack, Heath, and Cesar did?

Can you just settle down, man? Calling me "dramatic, deluded", and my ideas "crap" is a little out of line. I don't mind debating with you, but cool your jets, bro.

Travesty, most of the time you're cool. Even when I see you doing juvenile stuff like posting laughing smilies at people who diss Batman Begins.

But I'm only responding to your words. Why you thought I was calling Hamill lazy, or a bum, or had no acting ability is beyond me. I have nothing but the highest respect for Mark, and his talents.

No, Hamill is what made the character. Yes, I know he's a drawn character on screen, I've already said I know it's a cartoon, but you're making out to seem like the team around BTAS did everything, and Hamill just read some lines.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Although you seem to be selling the BTAS team's efforts very short there.

The glaring difference between what Mark did and the other actors did is that the other actors did physically bring the Joker to life. Mark did, too, but not near to the extent the other actors did. To say that animation doesn't play a huge role in bringing a character to life on screen is ridiculous. And that's also what needs to be acknowledged when talking about a cartoon. Animation is just as important. And it played a huge part in bringing Joker to life.

That's like me saying Burton did all of the work, and Nicholson just read his lines, and acted them out physically.

But that would be invalid because any physical acting done with the character is down to Jack. We cannot same the same for BTAS Joker. His physical attributes and appearance are down to the animators. Not Mark Hamill.

You see what I mean? You can't apply that to live action movies. The actors are the only people who can physically bring a character to life. They're real people. Not cartoons.

I understand this, but when Hamil already embodies the character better then the live action interpretations, then you know that he delivered a better job at becoming The Joker while acting. It doesn't matter if it's voice or live, he became The Joker better then the others. Although, this is just my personal opinion, so please, leave out all the name calling. I haven't been out of line, and my reasons aren't ridiculous.

Ok, if you measure a voice actor on the same scale as a real actor bringing a character to life, that's fine.

Although I think your opinion is very flawed, and I find your line of reasoning extremely unconvincing.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Can you find it, because I just don't belive he said that.


I understand this, but when Hamil already embodies the character better then the live action interpretations, then you know that he delivered a better job at becoming The Joker while acting. It doesn't matter if it's voice or live, he became The Joker better then the others. Although, this is just my personal opinion, so please, leave out all the name calling. I haven't been out of line, and my reasons aren't ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but as an actor myself, I would find that comment somewhat insulting. I understand where you're coming from, because I agree that Hammil shouldn't be underplayed because he was only doing the voice. He still did a great job with that,

but to try and say that it would carry over in the other aspects of his acting is simply not true. Matching the physical performance with the character is a whole other element to acting, and to automatically assume Hammil would do better than Jack or Heath is just wrong. Acting with the voice is one thing...acting with your body is another.

To be honest, I've always been curious how Hammil would do in live action...but at the same time I almost don't want to know, because if his physicality wasn't up to par with his voicework it would ruin it for me.

You can say you like his Joker more than the others, that's fine. In fact, I'm close to agreeing with you. I love Hammil's Joker, but the simple fact of it is, Hammil's Joker is not all Hammil's. Hammil isn't the one who comes up with the animation choices, the expressions, the body movements, and that's a huge part of the package.

 

[Travesty]

Travesty, most of the time you're cool. Even when I see you doing juvenile stuff like posting laughing smilies at people who diss Batman Begins.

I thought it was a funny thing to say when rating Batman movies. Those smilies are there for a reason, and I thought what he said was genuinely funny, as it was a complete opposite opinion on what I like when ranking those movies. And why are you bringing that into this thread, when I've seen you do the exact same "juvenile" responses in other threads, as well. Who cares? That has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about!

But I'm only responding to your words. Why you thought I was calling Hamill lazy, or a bum, or had no acting ability is beyond me. I have nothing but the highest respect for Mark, and his talents.

Because like I said, I don't think Hamil said that, and you were just adding onto what Hamil may have said. If you can find the quote that shows he likes doing voice acting because he can "look like hell", then I will apologize, but I just don't believe that he said that, and I think you're embellishing his words, which, I feel, makes him sound like a "lazy bum". Again, if you can find that quote, then I apologize.

The glaring difference between what Mark did and the other actors did is that the other actors did physically bring the Joker to life. Mark did, too, but not near to the extent the other actors did. To say that animation doesn't play a huge role in bringing a character to life on screen is ridiculous. And that's also what needs to be acknowledged when talking about a cartoon. Animation is just as important. And it played a huge part in bringing Joker to life.

I know this, but that was NEVER my point, and it was clear when I said "The point to what I'm making, is who embodies, or should I say, transcends themselves into the character the best". I think Hamill transformed into The Joker more then Ledger or Nicholson. I don't care if it's voice or live acting, I understand the differences, and was never my point.

Ok, if you measure a voice actor on the same scale as a real actor bringing a character to life, that's fine.

Although I think your opinion is very flawed, and I find your line of reasoning extremely unconvincing.

I thought my point was clear when my entire opinion on this was "who embodies the character better". I understand the difference between live actors and voice actors, I understand what both can/can't do for their roles, but that was never my point. I think Hamill has a better grasp of the character, and can embody the character better then the live actors have shown us. It's not "insulting that mark can beat them", when he has a better grasp at the character then Ledger or Nicholson, which was my first point, and then I tried to reword it, by blatantly saying, "who embodies the character" better.

You can say you like his Joker more than the others, that's fine. In fact, I'm close to agreeing with you. I love Hammil's Joker, but the simple fact of it is, Hammil's Joker is not all Hammil's. Hammil isn't the one who comes up with the animation choices, the expressions, the body movements, and that's a huge part of the package.

I'll agree with this, but my point was "who embodies the character" better. Who slips into The Joker role better. I mean, I know one is a cartoon and one is live. I understand the differences, which is why I kept saying that "I know one is a cartoon". I know this, but that was never point. Do you see what I'm saying?

Edit: I just thought of an example. It would be like saying I think the voice actors behind the Scooby-Doo cartoon embodied the characters better then the live action version. But, what you're telling me, is that the live action Scooby-Doo automatically wins, just because it's live actors doing the roles.

 

[The Joker]

I thought it was a funny thing to say when rating Batman movies. Those smilies are there for a reason, and I thought what he said was genuinely funny, as it was a complete opposite opinion on what I like when ranking those movies.

Yeah, just posting this: at someone who says they dislike Batman Begins really conveys all of that clearly.

And why are you bringing that into this thread, when I've seen you do the exact same "juvenile" responses in other threads, as well.

Ehhhh no, you haven't. I never respond to anyone's opinions like that.

Who cares? That has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about!

You called my character into question. Rather hyocritical, when you show disdain for other's opinions yourself. I called you on that example above.

Because like I said, I don't think Hamil said that, and you were just adding onto what Hamil may have said. If you can find the quote that shows he likes doing voice acting because he can "look like hell", then I will apologize, but I just don't believe that he said that, and I think you're embellishing his words, which, I feel, makes him sound like a "lazy bum".

Why on earth would that make him a lazy bum? What bearing would his appearance have on his voice work?

I think Hamill transformed into The Joker more then Ledger or Nicholson. I don't care if it's voice or live acting, I understand the differences, and was never my point.

This whole thing started because you were calling foul on how much effort Hamill put into his role as the Joker, because Bruce Malone felt it was unfair to lump him in with the other actors who actually played the Joker themselves, instead of just providing a voice for a cartoon.

That's what started all of this debate. It's actually funny that it's reached this far, and still no middle ground has been reached.

I thought my point was clear when my entire opinion on this was "who embodies the character better". I understand the difference between live actors and voice actors, I understand what both can/can't do for their roles, but that was never my point. I think Hamill has a better grasp of the character, and can embody the character better then the live actors have shown us. It's not "insulting that mark can beat them", when he has a better grasp at the character then Ledger or Nicholson, which was my first point, and then I tried to reword it, by blatantly saying, "who embodies the character" better.

Travesty, that's exactly what is being disputed. You just said there that you feel Hamill has a better grasp of the character, even though he just provides a voice. Others believe that just providing a voice is not enough to rank him with actors who played the character in the full, and put alot more effort into it than just recording a voice.

You understand what I'm saying? You place more emphasis on his voice, which is essentially all he provided. That's fine, if that's what you believe truly embodies the Joker. Not everyone sets that standard for what embodies a character.

Infinity9999x, who is an actor himself, summed it up best.