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

[Travesty]

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

Aparently not, because I have to explain it to you Damn, I guess I need to share the same sense of humor as you now?

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

And how is that hypocritical, when I wasn't being rude to anybody, just making a joke? You found it offensive, but I wasn't coming off that way, and I JUST explained that to you, and now you're trying to turn that around on me, when this has nothing to do with this thread, just your overall attitude/opinion towards me. If you wanna debate and have fun, then do so, but don't bring in outside examples that have nothing to do with this thread, when all you're trying to do is put me down, YET AGAIN, when I already asked you stop once before. It was a joke, and I didn't mean anything offensively by it. Get over it!

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

That's the way I took it, just like you took what I said in that other thread as an insult. Interpretations are fun, 'eh? You interpret what I said as an insult, and I interpreted what you said as an insult. Either way, I still want to see where Hamill said that. And again, if he didn't, then I apologize, but I took it as you trying to take a shot at him, or a cheap method of trying to convey your message that voice actors can't embody characters. And if you weren't, then maybe I apologize either way? But it would still be nice to see that quote, because I don't believe he said that.

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 know what started the debate, I already explained that. He said, "it's almost an insult to state Mark beats them(Heath and Nicholson) really", which I stated, it's not really an insult, when I feel that Hamill embodies the character and does more justice to The Joker, then any other actor so far. I also talked about how much effort Hamill put into his role, just to clarify that he actually tries hard at his role, but that doesn't mean that was my overall point, just something to bring to his attention. What wrong with that?

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.

So you're saying that Ledger or Nicholson have a better grasp at the character, because they provide a voice, plus, use expression and body movement?

And this is still my overall opinion on the matter. What others "believe" doesn't make it set in stone or law.

You place more emphasis on his voice, which is essentially all he provided.

Of course that's all he provided, it's a cartoon. How many times do I have to say that? You keep acting like I don't know he is voice acting for a cartoon every time you bring up a point, which I've said that I understand. I think Hamill can slip into character, and embodies The Joker better then Ledger or Nicholson. You don't think anybody is allowed to do this, because you think people can't embody a character when they're a voice actor. I get it, but I have to disagree. I think Hamil embodies The Joker more then the other guys.

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

I even agreed with what he had to say, but you're acting like I came off with an entirely different opinion, then what you think I said to begin with.

And are you saying that the Live-Action Scooby Doo movies embody the characters, and are more definitive towards the overall story, then the cartoon?

 

[The Joker]

Aparently not, because I have to explain it to you Damn, I guess I need to share the same sense of humor as you now?

I'm sorry, but I don't call laughing at other people's opinions a sense of humor. It looked offensive and insulting.

If you had said a few words like you did above, then it wouldn't have. You're on the net. It's hard to read people's thoughts or emotions. Especially when all you use is one laughing smiley.

And how is that hypocritical, when I wasn't being rude to anybody, just making a joke? You found it offensive, but I wasn't coming off that way, and I JUST explained that to you, and now you're trying to turn that around on me, when this has nothing to do with this thread, just your overall attitude/opinion towards me

You say you were not being rude, and I can just as easily say I was not being rude either. You don't classify posting laughing smileys at someone's opinion as rude. I do. Especially when it's all you post, it comes off that you find their opinion funny or laughable.

If you wanna debate and have fun, then do so, but don't bring in outside examples that have nothing to do with this thread, when all you're trying to do is put me down, YET AGAIN, when I already asked you stop once before.

I'll use whatever examples I like if it's relevant to you trying to take the moral high ground on posting etiquette. I'm no saint, but I don't reply to any opinion with a laughing smiley. Especially when it's an opinion of what someone likes or dislikes.

That can so easily be construed as an insult.

It was a joke, and I didn't mean anything offensively by it. Get over it!

Hahaha, I was never under it Otherwise I'd have called you on it in the very thread you did it in.

That's the way I took it, just like you took what I said in that other thread as an insult. Interpretations are fun, 'eh? You interpret what I said as an insult, and I interpreted what you said as an insult. Either way, I still want to see where Hamill said that. And again, if he didn't, then I apologize, but I took it as you trying to take a shot at him, or a cheap method of trying to convey your message that voice actors can't embody characters. And if you weren't, then maybe I apologize either way?

No, don't apologize at all. I apologize to you for coming off in any way offensive. It was not intentional.

I know what started the debate, I already explained that. He said, "it's almost an insult to state Mark beats them(Heath and Nicholson) really", which I stated, it's not really an insult, when I feel that Hamill embodies the character and does more justice to The Joker, then any other actor so far. I also talked about how much effort Hamill put into his role, just to clarify that he actually tries hard at his role, but that doesn't mean that was my overall point, just something to bring to his attention. What wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that. But that was the starting point of this whole long winded discussion. You equated Hamill's efforts as being on some kind of equal footing to the other actors.

That's what this is about. It's not a question of which one you like best, or think embodies Joker the most. That's your opinion. Nodody's refuting what you like or dislike.

So you're saying that Ledger or Nicholson have a better grasp at the character, because they provide a voice, plus, use expression and body movement?

I'm saying Ledger, Nicholson, and even Romero put more effort into their roles. They contributed more to bringing their Jokers to life on screen than Hamill did with his.

Do I think Hamill's Joker in BTAS is the best on screen version of the Joker? I'd rank him just a little behind Ledger for me, because Ledger was Joker in voice and costume, and truly lost himself in the role to the point where he was unrecognizable. He was the whole package for me. Funny, scary, menacing, theatrical, psychotic, obsessed with Batman etc.

But I also believe BTAS Joker is a truly definitive Joker, too. But I don't give full credit to Hamill for that. The animators/storyboarders for Joker's physical appearance, movements etc also deserve alot of credit.

Again, this is what the crux of all this was. Hamill's Joker in BTAS is viewed as the best by many, but that's not solely down to Hamill.

And this is still my overall opinion on the matter. What others "believe" doesn't make it set in stone or law.

Obviously, or you we wouldn't be here discussing, would we?

Of course that's all he provided, it's a cartoon. How many times do I have to say that? You keep acting like I don't know he is voice acting for a cartoon every time you bring up a point, which I've said that I understand. I think Hamill can slip into character, and embodies The Joker better then Ledger or Nicholson. You don't think anybody is allowed to do this, because you think people can't embody a character when they're a voice actor. I get it, but I have to disagree. I think Hamil embodies The Joker more then the other guys.

No, I don't. Because to truly embody a character, I think you have to do just that. Embody them. Give it 100%. I think the combination of Hamill, and the animation is a true embodiment of the Joker. But like I said, that's not all down to Hamill.

Which is why I agreed somewhat with Bruce Malone's post.

I even agreed with what he had to say, but you're acting like I came off with an entirely different opinion, then what you think I said to begin with.

Not at all. I'm re-enforcing what he said. He agreed with me, that the other actors put alot more into their Joker roles than Hamill did.

Not to sound like a broken record, but that was the basis of this debate. Not which one you like best, or feel embodied Joker more.

And are you saying that the Live-Action Scooby Doo movies embody the characters, and are more definitive towards the overall story, then the cartoon?

Since the movies are based on the cartoon, that is an invalid comparison. How can a movie embody something more than the material it's based off?

The Batman movies are not based off BTAS.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think what it comes down to Travesty, is this: How can you really say that Hammil transformed into the character better than the other two actors when he wasn't doing all the transforming? A big part of the character is what we see, and Hammil didnt fully contribute to that. He didn't have to work on the physical nuances of the character the way Jack, Ceasar, or Heath did.

Now, I have no problem with people saying they enjoyed Hammil's Joker more, or thought it was better, but you really can't give Hammil credit for creating the character the way a live-action actor does, because he didn't have to do as much to create it.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Why is it that when people discuss who played the best batman conroy is usually not brought up even though he's a fan favorite like hamill? Its because people understand that while bale and keaton kilmer etc. had to physically act out and transforms themselves and get involved with the stunts and protray anger, sadness, the emotions etc. Conroy just provided a very good vocalization of Batman.

and IMO the actual physical nature of joker is actually a bigger element than batmans.

So I don't see why Hamill deserves so much more credit for playing the Joker than Conroy should for Batman?

 

[Infinity9999x]

Why is it that when people discuss who played the best batman conroy is usually not brought up even though he's a fan favorite like hamill? Its because people understand that while bale and keaton kilmer etc. had to physically act out and transforms themselves and get involved with the stunts and protray anger, sadness, the emotions etc. Conroy just provided a very good vocalization of Batman.

and IMO the actual physical nature of joker is actually a bigger element than batmans.

So I don't see why Hamill deserves so much more credit for playing the Joker than Conroy should for Batman?

That's a good point. I'm not sure why. I suppose, when you think about it, the Joker, and whoever plays him, always seems to overshadow whoever plays Batman in whatever movie or tv show they appear in. Nature of the character I suppose.

 

[Travesty]

No, don't apologize at all. I apologize to you for coming off in any way offensive. It was not intentional.

I still want that quote, because I think you made that up, and I don't think Hamill ever said that.

Nothing is wrong with that. But that was the starting point of this whole long winded discussion. You equated Hamill's efforts as being on some kind of equal footing to the other actors.

That's what this is about. It's not a question of which one you like best, or think embodies Joker the most. That's your opinion. Nodody's refuting what you like or dislike.

How many times do I have to spell it out? Haw many times?!?! YOU are refuting with me on what I like/dislike, and this all stems from who I think embodies The Joker, yet, you still can't come to grips that this was the VERY reason for this discussion. YOU took it the wrong way, and tried to argue with me, while I tried to keep telling you that this was all about who embodies the character, even though, you just told me that it isn't necessarily wrong for having that opinion. Really? That was the main point!

I'm saying Ledger, Nicholson, and even Romero put more effort into their roles. They contributed more to bringing their Jokers to life on screen than Hamill did with his.

Well that's funny, because I was purely speaking of who embodies the character, as I clearly can see when I'm watching a cartoon, like BTAS.

But I also believe BTAS Joker is a truly definitive Joker, too. But I don't give full credit to Hamill for that. The animators/storyboarders for Joker's physical appearance, movements etc also deserve alot of credit.

Oh, so you give full credit to Ledger for coming up with the direction, costume, makeup, storyboard, and his lines?

Again, this is what the crux of all this was. Hamill's Joker in BTAS is viewed as the best by many, but that's not solely down to Hamill.

And neither is Ledger's Joker. He had a crew of people helping him develop the character. It wasn't just all on him, but this wasn't even my point, and now we're veering away from it.

Obviously, or you we wouldn't be here discussing, would we?

Funny you should say this, because just before that, you said my thoughts and ideas were "dramatic, deluded, and crap", but now it's just a discussion?

No, I don't. Because to truly embody a character, I think you have to do just that. Embody them. Give it 100%. I think the combination of Hamill, and the animation is a true embodiment of the Joker. But like I said, that's not all down to Hamill.

Which is why I agreed somewhat with Bruce Malone's post.

Which is why I disagree in this situation! It's called voice-acting for a reason, and you are saying that anybody who does voice acting for any cartoon is never the true embodiment of the character. Kind of hypocritical when you say.......

Since the movies are based on the cartoon, that is an invalid comparison. How can a movie embody something more than the material it's based off?

The Batman movies are not based off BTAS.

Since Batman embodies, that which, is based of the comics, and cartoons happens to be the second best medium for that, wouldn't BTAS be closer to it's predecessor, than a Live-Action movie? I find your reason to be more invalid then the point you're trying to make, as you're just dodging the question you can't seem to answer. You're stance even comes off as hypocritical, when you say no voice-actor can define a character, although, now you just said they did with Scooby-Doo. It doesn't matter which comes first to me, it just shows that the voice-actors can make a better version of the character, and you just proved that by what you said about Scooby Doo. Which one is it?

Not at all. I'm re-enforcing what he said. He agreed with me, that the other actors put alot more into their Joker roles than Hamill did.

Not to sound like a broken record, but that was the basis of this debate. Not which one you like best, or feel embodied Joker more.

Oh, my bad for not realizing what my true intentions were.

It's strange, after I told you over-and-over again what my intentions were, you respond with this? That's trash, bro. It's like I can't even make light of what my original point was, because you cluttered it up with so much garbage. What was point, again? Hmmm??? Oh, that's right, who embodied The Joker character more!

 

[The Joker]

How many times do I have to spell it out? Haw many times?!?! YOU are refuting with me on what I like/dislike, and this all stems from who I think embodies The Joker, yet, you still can't come to grips that this was the VERY reason for this discussion. YOU took it the wrong way, and tried to argue with me, while I tried to keep telling you that this was all about who embodies the character, even though, you just told me that it isn't necessarily wrong for having that opinion. Really? That was the main point!

For the bazillionth time, I am refuting your reasoning on WHY Hamill does not deserve as much credit as the other actors for bringing the Joker to life.

I couldn't give a rat's ass which one you like best, or if you think he embodies the Joker the most.

Well that's funny, because I was purely speaking of who embodies the character, as I clearly can see when I'm watching a cartoon, like BTAS.

And I'm speaking about why he doesn't deserve as much credit as the other actors for that.

Capeesh?

Oh, so you give full credit to Ledger for coming up with the costume, makeup, storyboard, and his lines?

You're getting silly now. Of course I don't give him credit for that. I give him credit for pulling it off. For taking this material, designs, costumes, make up etc and pulling it off.

Cannot say the same for Hamill.

And neither is Ledger's Joker. He had a crew of people helping him develop the character. It wasn't just all on him, but this wasn't even my point, and now we're veering away from it.

Every actor has a crew helping them. Even voice actors. But only the actors talent and ability can bring the character to life. Nobody but Heath, Jack, and Cesar could do what they did. That's their looks, their talent, their voices, their body postures/language we're looking at on screen.

Funny you should say this, because just before that, you said my thoughts and ideas were "dramatic, deluded, and crap", but now it's just a discussion?

Of course. We're discussing the flaws of your reasoning.

Which is why I disagree in this situation! It's called voice-acting for a reason, and you are saying that anybody who does voice acting for any cartoon is never the true embodiment of the character.

Correct. It's just a VOICE. If a voice was all it took to embody a character, then Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill would have been signed up in the movies long ago.

Since Batman embodies, that which, is based of the comics, and cartoons happens to be the second best medium for that, wouldn't BTAS be closer to it's predecessor, than a Live-Action movie?

Not at all.

Because BTAS encompasses so many different eras of the comic books. The Batman movies often focus on one era or one particular selection of stories. Burton's movies were clearly influenced by the late 30's/early 40's. Nolan's Batman was based off Year One/The Long Halloween, Killing Joke etc.

In fact, BTAS borrowed several elements from the movies. The Penguin was a freak like Danny DeVito's Penguin. The Joker was a former gangster named Jack Napier. Selina Kyle was blonde like Pfeiffer etc.

I find your reason to be more invalid then the point you're trying to make, as you're just dodging the question you can't seem to answer.

Don't be absurd. I have answered it. Your question was invalid. It's like me asking does BTAS embody Batman more than the comic books do.

You're stance even comes off as hypocritcal, when you say no voice-actor can defin a character, although, now you just said they did with Scooby-Doo. It doesn't matter which comes first to me, it just shows that the voice-actors can make a better version of the character, and you just proved that by what you said about Scooby Doo. Which one is it?

Jesus Christ, is that a serious question? The source material for Scooby Doo is a CARTOON!!!!! They were translating cartoon characters into a movie. How can a movie embody a character more than the very thing it's based off?

Seriously stop and think before you ask these questions.

It's strange, after I told you over-and-over again what my intentions were, you respond with this? That's trash, bro. It's like I can't even make light of what my original point was, because you cluttered it up with so much garbage. What was point, again? Hmmm??? Oh, that's right, who embodied The Joker character more

For the umpteenth time, the whole world and it's mother knows by now which actor you feel embodies the Joker. Repeat again: Nobody cares about that. We're refuting your reasoning why Hamill doesn't get full credit for that.

*Sigh* Can you grasp that, or am I going to get another rant about how we're disagreeing with which Joker you like best?

 

[The Joker]

I think what it comes down to Travesty, is this: How can you really say that Hammil transformed into the character better than the other two actors when he wasn't doing all the transforming? A big part of the character is what we see, and Hammil didnt fully contribute to that. He didn't have to work on the physical nuances of the character the way Jack, Ceasar, or Heath did.

Now, I have no problem with people saying they enjoyed Hammil's Joker more, or thought it was better, but you really can't give Hammil credit for creating the character the way a live-action actor does, because he didn't have to do as much to create it.

Save your energy, man. It's falling on deaf ears.

 

[Travesty]

For the bazillionth time, I am refuting your reasoning on WHY Hamill does not deserve as much credit as the other actors for bringing the Joker to life.

I couldn't give a rat's ass which one you like best, or if you think he embodies the Joker the most.

I literally stopped. If you "couldn't give a rats ass which one I like better, or who I think embodies the character", yet, that was my main point, then what was the point in this entire discussion? I understand if I never said that once, but to keep saying it, and for you to keep acting like I didn't, was just a waist of time, if that is the conclusion you're going to come up with.

Nobody but Heath, Jack, and Cesar could do what they did. That's their looks, their talent, their voices, their body postures/language we're looking at on screen.

And Heath, Jack or Cesar couldn't make a better Joker voice for BTAS, because Hamill embodied the character more then they did.

Don't be absurd. I have answered it. Your question was invalid. It's like me asking does BTAS embody Batman more than the comic books do.

No, it would be more like asking do the characters in BTAS embody those from the source material(comics) better then the movies? And again, I think they do!

Jesus Christ, is that a serious question? The source material for Scooby Doo is a CARTOON!!!!! They were translating cartoon characters into a movie. How can a movie embody a character more than the very thing it's based off?

Seriously stop and think before you ask these questions.

And the source material for Batman was comic books. That's like asking how a movie based on the comics, could embody characters which it is based off of. How can someone play a character better then it's source material? It's almost as if it was impossible!!

Are you not seeing my point yet?

For the umpteenth time, the whole world and it's mother knows by now which actor you feel embodies the Joker. Repeat again: Nobody cares about that. We're refuting your reasoning why Hamill doesn't get full credit for that.

Haha, no, you're trying to debate that, and come off and twist my words like I never had an original point to my discussion. I care about who embodies The Joker, and was my original point, you keep trying to get me away from that, but it's not going to work, as it was never my prerogative to say so from the start, you just felt that way. Even my first comment about this, I never even said my opinion of "who is better", just that he shouldn't be looked down from, because he's the voice of The Joker. Then, my next post, was trying to better explain why I think he gets credit, due to who I think embodies the character better. After that, I was trying to explain why I think he embodies the character better. You and Infinity9999x took it the wrong way, and is why I even agreed with him, but at the same time, you weren't grasping what I was saying, which I thought was clear, as I kept saying it over and over again.

 

[Travesty]

...

 

[manhattanl]

Though I did like them both, I certainly liked Jack's the best. Besides being written closer to the original character, I thought it was more layered, and more humorous, making it creepier. Heath’s was good, but it wouldn’t have been what it was without Jack’s.

 

[contemporarydog]

I definitely think Ledger, but I don't necessarily think it's as wholly due to the acting as people reckon. the main thing is that Jack Nicholson's Joker just said loads of cheesy lines, but the script for TDK was top notch.

 

[El Payaso]

I's say that to "em-body" has a lot to do with body. Not just voice.

 

[RustyCage]

I's say that to "em-body" has a lot to do with body. Not just voice.

Exactly. I adore Mark's Joker voice, but it's only half the show. Portraying a character is a visual thing as well, which Mark had no control over being that it was always a cartoon or a video game he was the Joker in. He only got to play half the role, basically.

I'm not sure he looks the part entirely either if he were to play him in a live action film - but then Jack worked out just fine, didn't he? Lots of people were skeptical of Heath too. Hm.

As for the other discussion going on about pointing and laughing at someone for 'dissing Begins' (since I didn't see any specification beyond those two words), I'd say that's a pretty called for response. Anyone going around trolling on Begins deserves to be mocked or ignored. Straight up.

 

[Travesty]

As for the other discussion going on about pointing and laughing at someone for 'dissing Begins' (since I didn't see any specification beyond those two words), I'd say that's a pretty called for response. Anyone going around trolling on Begins deserves to be mocked or ignored. Straight up.

Nobody was trolling, as I was pointing and laughing because someone rated Begins as one of their least favorite bat-flicks, while rating TDK higher. I laughed, because I had the exact opposite ratings with Begins and TDK. I thought Begins was a good movie, not the other way around. All of our other ratings were pretty much spot on, except for the extreme differences in those two movies, and I found it funny. So it's complete opposite to what you're saying, hehe.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Ledger played a better villain, Nicholson played a better Joker.

 

[Crook]

I spent about 3 seconds trying to figure out wtf that meant, and then I stopped bothering.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I feel that Ledger was a better twisted baddie, but Nicholson's Joker felt more like the Joker.

 

[James222]

I feel that Ledger was a better twisted baddie, but Nicholson's Joker felt more like the Joker.

Exactly, Ledger's portrayl was nothing short of amazing but Nicholson felt more like what the joker should be, a dark yet kooky, crazy, non stop laughing clown. Ledger failed to do that, he was more the in your face pshyco, but never the less still amazing, Also i feel that if the dark knight had been a better movie then ledgers joker could have been better thus more fitting toward what the joker really is. Not saying that the dark knight wasen't good, because it was good, but just good, i was really quite let down with the dark knight, but thats another subject lmao.

 

[The Joker]

Ledger played a better villain, Nicholson played a better Joker.

Not sure I understand that. Are you saying Ledger's Joker is a better villain than the comic book Joker, since you claim Nicholson was more like the Joker?

 

[Travesty]

Not sure I understand that. Are you saying Ledger's Joker is a better villain than the comic book Joker, since you claim Nicholson was more like the Joker?

Ledger was more of a Hannibal Lecter(an epic villain, not necessarily associated with The Joker), while Nicholson played more of the Joker(The Joker character).

Or in other words, Ledger did a great performance of playing a nasty villain, but Nicholson reminded him more of The Joker.

 

[Crook]

It'd be more accurate to state that Nicholson portrayed a more typical/traditional Joker that we all expect and have been accustomed to over the past 7 decades. The manic clown who laughs uncontrollably at a moment's notice.

Ledger flipped the character on its head while maintaining true to the core. Whereas previous actors have emphasized the laughter over the drama, Heath did a 180 and focused more on the hideous side of Joker. Some may perceive this to be a bad thing, but in actuality it serves to highlight Joker's greatest trait; his laughter. By avoiding the HAHA's every other line like we expect (and love), the few times we do hear it...suddenly the laughter is poignant. And we're actually forced to listen to it. Simply because it's not his "normal" behavior. It's a sign of him losing control.

...in concept. I definitely see moments where it shined (his laughing introduction in the kitchen was borderline haunting). Ultimately I think they didn't achieve the full strength of this method because not many of Ledger's laughs really seemed like he was "out of it". It was still the typical "oooh this is enjoyable!" delivery. So what happens is the meat of the punch has lost its momentum by the time it hits. This is evident by a pretty popular claim that "Joker didn't laugh too much".

I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on specifically where Ledger went off-course in his performance, with relation to the character. The execution may not have conformed to previous iterations, but that is not to say he failed to meet the guidelines of the concept.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Ledger was more of a Hannibal Lecter(an epic villain, not necessarily associated with The Joker), while Nicholson played more of the Joker(The Joker character).

Or in other words, Ledger did a great performance of playing a nasty villain, but Nicholson reminded him more of The Joker.

So my post wasn't that hard to understand.

 

[The Joker]

Ledger flipped the character on its head while maintaining true to the core. Whereas previous actors have emphasized the laughter over the drama, Heath did a 180 and focused more on the hideous side of Joker. Some may perceive this to be a bad thing, but in actuality it serves to highlight Joker's greatest trait; his laughter. By avoiding the HAHA's every other line like we expect (and love), the few times we do hear it...suddenly the laughter is poignant. And we're actually forced to listen to it. Simply because it's not his "normal" behavior. It's a sign of him losing control.

Well said Especially the first line.

 

[Bruce Malone]

The characterizations of batman and the joker in the comics have both undergone great changes and variations over the past 60+ years.

Its something that everyone understands and respects. Those that characterize ledgers portrayal of the joker as not being "joker accurate" should critisize any characterization of batman or joker that is not 100% accurate to their debuts.