Anyone else think Jack Nicholson is MUCH scarier than Heath Ledger? I love Heath Ledger's performance, but Jack Nicholson really captures the violent joy of the Joker. Parts of the movie are really cheesy, but his performance is rather haunting.
I think they each brought something different to the role.
I think Nicholson did a good job making the character sinister and menacing. After all, his Joker was really just an affected persona used to take advantage of the changes to his appearance after his accident.
Every Joker has been different, and I love them all for different reasons. Nicholson showed us a Joker who had his gak together, who was in charge of a large criminal empire, and was capable of legitimate, if malevolent, organization.
Ledger's Joker is, as Alfred says, the man who just wants to watch the world burn. He lives for chaos, and is more in line with the way Joker is being written currently.
(It's worth noting that when I read comics, I hear Joker's dialogue in Mark Hamill's voice, however.)
Even Romero had a good take on it, with a guy who way just a criminal with a clown shtick.
Like I said, I love them all.
The only Batman character I can really lay a favorite on hands down is Alfred. Sean Pertwee has blown my frakking mind.
I think few characters have been successfully portrayed in as many ways as the Joker. Nicholson, Hamil, and Ledger imo all did the character great justice.
(It's worth noting that when I read comics, I hear Joker's dialogue in Mark Hamill's voice, however.)
Same. I think that for me, Batman the Animated Series was so integral to my youth, Mark Hamil is the one true joker. And I don't mean that to say he's the best, just that he's by far the one who most stands out in my mind, both because of nostalgia and being the first guy I really remember in the roll.
Jimsolo wrote: Every Joker has been different, and I love them all for different reasons. Nicholson showed us a Joker who had his gak together, who was in charge of a large criminal empire, and was capable of legitimate, if malevolent, organization.
Ledger's Joker is, as Alfred says, the man who just wants to watch the world burn. He lives for chaos, and is more in line with the way Joker is being written currently.
(It's worth noting that when I read comics, I hear Joker's dialogue in Mark Hamill's voice, however.)
Even Romero had a good take on it, with a guy who way just a criminal with a clown shtick.
Like I said, I love them all.
The only Batman character I can really lay a favorite on hands down is Alfred. Sean Pertwee has blown my frakking mind.
I'm sorry, but there is only one Alfred to me: Michael Caine. And I agree about Nicholson's Joker having his gak together, but I also liked it because he was just much more jovial. Ledger seemed to ride the line between ups and downs. When I picture Joker, I picture the more comical spray you with the acid flower version, but obviously voiced by Mark Hamill
Im actually a huge fan of the Keaton/Burton Batman films, wasnt too pleased with what Nolan did with the character and the setting personally. Regarding Ledgers Mistah J... I thought it was terrible, probably the worst rendition of the character. Dont get me wrong, he did a phenomenal job playing a homicidal Tom Waits, but the Joker he was not. Cant fault him for it though, he didnt write the script.
I like both the Leger and Nicholson Jokers for different reasons. In fact the only on screen Joker I've actively disliked was the one the The Batman cartoon. Not Mark Hamil but the deadlocked one from the mid OO's show.
I thought I loved the Original Michael Keaton Batman films. Then I made the mistake of watching them as an adult. They are truly atrocious. Haven't aged well at all IMO. Nolan/Bale all the way.
I never was a particular fan of Nicholson's Joker. It didn't feel like The Joker to me.
It just felt like Jack Nicholson playing as... Jack Nicholson in clown makeup and a purple suit.
I liked Ledger, but there weren't a huge amount of 'true Joker' moments in the film, but the ones that were, were pretty darn good. - The magic trick, the bombs in the hospital.
Mark Hamil is a the classic for me too and Troy Baker is doing a great job continuing on from him.
Was awesome at the time but you watch them now.....
still has it moments -- and one would suggest without those films cleansing the cinematic palate of the audience of the 60s tv show -- which I love -- we wouldn't have had many/any of the films we've had since.
.. still bugs me though that no one ever complains that Bat's was, seemingly, quite happy to just gun down the Joker without a second thought.
Kinda misses the point of the character there somewhat IMO.
This was the first movie my family actually owned. I have watched it so many times that I could probably turn it on at any point and begin quoting it line for line.
I don't know, I watched batman '89 and batman 2 a couple months ago and didn't think they were that bad. I think you have to watch them through the 25 year old movie prism and just realize they're older movies. With that said I think the ledger portrayal was way more terrifying.
For me the rankings go
1a-Nicholson
1b-Ledger
2-Romero
3-Hamill
Everyone else.
I felt nicholson's character felt like the realest joker to me. Jovial while violent, a little crazy while also having it together enough to hold his plans together. Ledger was super close as I don't know what it was but his portrayal might be my favorite acting job in general.
def - The JN Joker was everything I expected AND wanted
The HL one was a good psycopath but not the Joker to me - I get the impression C Nolan had to use the character name and look but ignored evything else about it.
JN's Joker is also much more dangerous - also funnier but he kills huge amounts of people - the HL Joker manages to killa few and blow up an empty hospital. JN joker even uses acid on his girlfriend as his is that sick and insane..........
The HL Joker did have the disapearing pen joke which was good but I did not like his psychic ability to predict the future was more powerful than "24" villians.
I dont think you can complain about JN playing himself instead of the Joker and then commend Heath Ledgers performace of the Joker right after it, particularly because - if anything - HL was playing homicidal Tom Waits... in clown makeup...
Then again, maybe he didn't have to add THAT much of a homicidal edge to his portrayal...
Was awesome at the time but you watch them now.....
still has it moments -- and one would suggest without those films cleansing the cinematic palate of the audience of the 60s tv show -- which I love -- we wouldn't have had many/any of the films we've had since.
.. still bugs me though that no one ever complains that Bat's was, seemingly, quite happy to just gun down the Joker without a second thought.
Kinda misses the point of the character there somewhat IMO.
Yeah, Keaton's Batman was meh at best. I think I described best to my wife. What bugged me about him was it was a Tom Hank's Batman. He doesn't have to be all dark and grim, but his parents death definitely seemed like a "Oh yeah, throw that part in for like 2 seconds"
Chancetragedy wrote: I don't know, I watched batman '89 and batman 2 a couple months ago and didn't think they were that bad. I think you have to watch them through the 25 year old movie prism and just realize they're older movies. With that said I think the ledger portrayal was way more terrifying.
I dunno, many classic movies are classics because they are timeless. Something like Raging Bull stands up exceptionally well against today's cinematic output. In this instance, we have the opportunity to compare the same movie franchise at different iterations. I have to say that Tim Burton's Batman films do not hold up well to the comparison at all. They're just so dated. I don't think Nolan's films have anything in them that would be as susceptible to dating. I am open to having my mind changed though.
Chancetragedy wrote: I don't know, I watched batman '89 and batman 2 a couple months ago and didn't think they were that bad. I think you have to watch them through the 25 year old movie prism and just realize they're older movies. With that said I think the ledger portrayal was way more terrifying.
I dunno, many classic movies are classics because they are timeless. Something like Raging Bull stands up exceptionally well against today's cinematic output. In this instance, we have the opportunity to compare the same movie franchise at different iterations. I have to say that Tim Burton's Batman films do not hold up well to the comparison at all. They're just so dated. I don't think Nolan's films have anything in them that would be as susceptible to dating. I am open to having my mind changed though.
I think the opposite tbh = Nolans films are all about spectacle at the expense of characters (especially women) and plot - for me Burtons Batman does date really well as its as much about people rather than effects and a specific "style" of shots - it dos has its own awesome style which the Nolan films have built on (or undermined depending on your poiint of view).
That being said in both cases the sequals rapidly declined in quality.............
Chancetragedy wrote: I don't know, I watched batman '89 and batman 2 a couple months ago and didn't think they were that bad. I think you have to watch them through the 25 year old movie prism and just realize they're older movies. With that said I think the ledger portrayal was way more terrifying.
I dunno, many classic movies are classics because they are timeless. Something like Raging Bull stands up exceptionally well against today's cinematic output. In this instance, we have the opportunity to compare the same movie franchise at different iterations. I have to say that Tim Burton's Batman films do not hold up well to the comparison at all. They're just so dated. I don't think Nolan's films have anything in them that would be as susceptible to dating. I am open to having my mind changed though.
I think the opposite tbh = Nolans films are all about spectacle at the expense of characters (especially women) and plot - for me Burtons Batman does date really well as its as much about people rather than effects and a specific "style" of shots - it dos has its own awesome style which the Nolan films have built on (or undermined depending on your poiint of view).
That being said in both cases the sequals rapidly declined in quality.............
The Main reason why I hate the nolan films is that used explantaroy and gave entire monologues instead of just talking to each other. They have to explain everything. It didn't feel at all realistic compared to Michael Keaton's batman. Sorry but its true. Just watch the movie and count how many times they monologue. Count how many bloody times they also have to explain character motivations. Instead of allowing for interpretations of anything. Nolan really likes to explain EVERYTHING. I mean EVERYTHING. Every little detail.
Chancetragedy wrote: I don't know, I watched batman '89 and batman 2 a couple months ago and didn't think they were that bad. I think you have to watch them through the 25 year old movie prism and just realize they're older movies. With that said I think the ledger portrayal was way more terrifying.
I dunno, many classic movies are classics because they are timeless. Something like Raging Bull stands up exceptionally well against today's cinematic output. In this instance, we have the opportunity to compare the same movie franchise at different iterations. I have to say that Tim Burton's Batman films do not hold up well to the comparison at all. They're just so dated. I don't think Nolan's films have anything in them that would be as susceptible to dating. I am open to having my mind changed though.
I think the opposite tbh = Nolans films are all about spectacle at the expense of characters (especially women) and plot - for me Burtons Batman does date really well as its as much about people rather than effects and a specific "style" of shots - it dos has its own awesome style which the Nolan films have built on (or undermined depending on your poiint of view).
That being said in both cases the sequals rapidly declined in quality.............
I'm with morden on this. Personally I don't think any movies don't come off "dated" when you watch them 25 years later even the "classics" but I still love these movies 20+years later because I am able to put the age in perspective I guess.
If you think the Nolan films had 'spectacle' I can only imagine what would happen if you saw film that actually fits that description. There are issues to be sure, and the female element is one, but thinking that 'spectacle' fits seems a bit off.
Of course I'm generally in the "didn't age well" camp when it comes to the Burton films, and think Batman Returns was actually a bit better than Batman when looking at those. I do think Michael Keaton did an excellent job...far better than many were expecting.
Ahtman wrote: If you think the Nolan films had 'spectacle' I can only imagine what would happen if you saw film that actually fits that description. There are issues to be sure, and the female element is one, but thinking that 'spectacle' fits seems a bit off.
Of course I'm generally in the "didn't age well" camp when it comes to the Burton films, and think Batman Returns was actually a bit better than Batman when looking at those. I do think Michael Keaton did an excellent job...far better than many were expecting.
AGreed
At least he didn't sound like a lung cancer patient like our friend in the nolan flicks....
Ledger's Joker had all that hype from his death and buildup from his reveal at the robbery to the pencil trick, but after that it kinda fizzled out... I honestly can't remember many Ledger-Joker moments after that, except for his slow-clap-in-police-custody bit, and that's mostly thanks to an animated gif meme I've seen around.
I agree that the Burton films haven't aged so well (with hindsight some of the props and set pieces, particularly the penguin house at the abandoned zoo, look almost 60s camp) but I think Nicholson's Joker was much more memorable. Yeah, there was a greater or lesser amount of 'playing himself' in it, but can you imagine anyone more appropriate to play himself in such a role? There's one bit where he's chuckling at the media's hype over Batman then goes into a low "Wait 'til they get a loada me" that goes right back to the character's first appearance, IMO.
I don't really understand the need to make rankings of things that don't really need a taxonomy. I don't feel the desire to pick one Joker performance over the other beyond whether I enjoyed it or not. I don't think Hamill was better than others, he just had his own approach and wasn't limited like live action is. None of them really are better or worse as almost all did a good job with the role, bringing something different and interesting to it. Still, it would have been nice if Romero would have shaved the 'stache.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, Jack Nicholson's joker is just Jack Nicholson. He didn't do anything interesting.
That's how Jack Nicholson seems to be with acting in general, he's good at playing jerks and crazy people (and sometimes a combination of the two) but that's usually the only two roles he plays.
Ahtman wrote: I don't really understand the need to make rankings of things that don't really need a taxonomy. I don't feel the desire to pick one Joker performance over the other beyond whether I enjoyed it or not. I don't think Hamill was better than others, he just had his own approach and wasn't limited like live action is. None of them really are better or worse as almost all did a good job with the role, bringing something different and interesting to it. Still, it would have been nice if Romero would have shaved the 'stache.
I don't categorize or assign numbers to anything since I got into the gaming industry. AS you can't really assign an number with an implied with an opinion. I people use numbers all the time but numbers do not attribute to a good opinion it lessens it.
My top 5 games or top 5 actors who have played the joker. Are not in fact me attributing a score to those actors or those games. Its my favorite characters. Not ranked 1-5 but ranked in a such a way to my liking, acknowledging their different skills. Or top 5 things you should probably play. They are recommendations.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, Jack Nicholson's joker is just Jack Nicholson. He didn't do anything interesting.
That's how Jack Nicholson seems to be with acting in general, he's good at playing jerks and crazy people (and sometimes a combination of the two) but that's usually the only two roles he plays.
True, but is that the fault of Jack Nicholson, or the fault of the director/producer wanting the role to basically just be played as Jack Nicholson?
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, Jack Nicholson's joker is just Jack Nicholson. He didn't do anything interesting.
That's how Jack Nicholson seems to be with acting in general, he's good at playing jerks and crazy people (and sometimes a combination of the two) but that's usually the only two roles he plays.
True, but is that the fault of Jack Nicholson, or the fault of the director/producer wanting the role to basically just be played as Jack Nicholson?
Loads of actors do it and we like them for it- Arnie, Clint, Sean - its nt always a bad thing
The Michael Keaton Batman films are still the best for me and here's why:
When you think about it, the idea of somebody running around in a rubber suit battling criminals, is fething ridiclious. A masked fascist as Alan Moore once said.
For that reason, Batman films have to be fantasy, similar to our world, but not our world. Burton's vision of Gotham, of the Penguin in particular, and even the joker, fit into that category.
As much as I like the modern films, they try to be too realistic, which completely misses the point of adapting comics which were originally meant for teenage boys in the 1940s.
And as an aside, old films can still do the business. Blade runner, 30 years old, looks better than most films made in this day and age. So there!
Good shout. If you're looking for good critical analysis of Batman (and comics in general) Alan Moore has done some good articles on it. Just ignore the bitterness towards the studios
First appearance
'60s bank-robbing, gag-pulling clown
Arkham Asylum
The Killing Joke
Batman R.I.P.
etc.
The Joker character has been quite different at different times in its history, even moreso than your average comic book character. As far back as Arkham Asylum, Grant Morrison has addressed this by explaining that the Joker has a type of adaptive supersanity that makes him behave differently at different moments. *shrug*
Anyway, the Romero, Nicholson and Ledger versions were each grounded in their era and their particular Batman -- and you can draw lines between them and certain eras in the comics. IMO, Nolan's films were exceptionally grounded in their era -- the decade after 9-11. Nolan's version was a paramilitary, antiterrorist rage tank Batman. And his Joker was a very boiled-down, distilled version who was a nihilistic terrorist and agent of chaos.
You may or may not like that rendition or one of the others, and that's obviously fine and your right. But IMO, it's pretty hard to reasonably claim that this or that version 'is' or 'isn't' the Joker.
Now, back to the OP and Nicholson being the scariest version?
"Ooop. Ooop."
"This town needs an enema!"
"You wouldn't hit a man with glasses, would you?"
"Partyman. Party-ma-an!"
I'm with gorgon on this one.... Whether you're talking about Jack or Heath or anyone else who has or will play the Clown Prince of Crime, they will ALL be tied to the overall portrayal of the world, and the Batman himself.
I think that a character who's had "extra help" with his smile as Ledger had, would act a bit differently from someone like Nicholson's Joker who doesn't have those same scars, but each is still the Joker.
To me, it's a bit like the early parts of Fight Club, where the question is pretty repeatedly asked, "who is Tyler Durden?"
In the Joker's case, "Who is the Joker" is very much tied to who batman is, and who is present, and the tone of the world in general.
As to the comments about Alfred, I agree that the greatest Alfred thus far is Michael Caine, but Sean Pertwee is growing on me
I think that a character who's had "extra help" with his smile as Ledger had, would act a bit differently from someone like Nicholson's Joker who doesn't have those same scars, but each is still the Joker.
Jack's Joker got dropped in vat of poisoneous chemicals adn then had his face "fixed" in a back alley doc with no drugs...............pretty similar if not worse.
He also dripped acid onto his girlfriend till she committed suciide, killed an entire museum full of people just to be alone with Vicki, put checmicals in everyones porducts to randomly kill people - he was much more an agent of chaos and destruction that HL version tbh - he brought Gotham to its knees and then kicked it in the head, laughing all the time..............
HL's Joker had his moments but didn't really do very much to the people of the city - and his final attempt failed to achive much - Jacks would have blown up both ships whilst doing something else.............
Mr Morden wrote: HL's Joker had his moments but didn't really do very much to the people of the city
He took the whole city hostage with fear. Not sure how that is not doing much to the people. If you only go by body count yes Jack is more into random killing at any moment but the Heath Ledger Joker was a bit more calculated in creating mayhem and destruction in such a way as to get under everyone's skin.
Mr Morden wrote: - and his final attempt failed to achive much - Jacks would have blown up both ships whilst doing something else.............
Well both would have failed to blow the ships up because the bad guy usually loses at some point to the good guy, even in comics (barring meta comics like Watchmen et al). On the other hand where the Nicholson Joker did fail in the end the Ledger Joker actually succeeded. Blowing up the ships was tangential to success, with the corruption of Harvey Dent fully succeeding. It was only through Gordon and Batman lying that they kept the city from going over the edge. This doesn't make one better than the other but at least get your facts right about what happens in the films.
I liked Heath Ledger a lot, but Nicholson's joker was the best IMO. And on that note, I liked Keaton's batman and bruce wayne better too. And Michelle Phifer was a better catwoman. But, I do like Gotham's penguin better than Danny DeVito.
The new batman movies were great and all, but I thought they were just too dark... the Keaton batman movies were just more fun to watch.
Watch The Dark Knight Returns pt 2: Michael Emerson(Finch from Person of Interest) is pretty awesome as Joker. And Peter Weller voices Batman/Bruce like a boss.
angelofvengeance wrote: Watch The Dark Knight Returns pt 2: Michael Emerson(Finch from Person of Interest) is pretty awesome as Joker. And Peter Weller voices Batman/Bruce like a boss.
Or read the book and hear whatever voice you want.
Albatross wrote: I thought I loved the Original Michael Keaton Batman films. Then I made the mistake of watching them as an adult. They are truly atrocious. Haven't aged well at all IMO. Nolan/Bale all the way.
I watched the Nolan/Bale trilogy over the weekend.. I did not enjoy it nearly as much as I remember enjoying it.. Granted I am a comic book fan so the realistic take on the Batman universe does not fully do it for me.. The third is truly atrocious, which is just my opinion.
Batfleck save us.. Bring justice to a COMIC BOOK movie.
This isn't an argument for anything. Liking a comic doesn't give mastery nor does it mean all people who read comics think the same thing. Just say what you think without the nonsensical disclaimer.
HL's Joker had his moments but didn't really do very much to the people of the city - and his final attempt failed to achive much - Jacks would have blown up both ships whilst doing something else.............
Or have been killed by a Batman that was totally fine with killing.
Mr Morden wrote: HL's Joker had his moments but didn't really do very much to the people of the city
He took the whole city hostage with fear. Not sure how that is not doing much to the people. If you only go by body count yes Jack is more into random killing at any moment but the Heath Ledger Joker was a bit more calculated in creating mayhem and destruction in such a way as to get under everyone's skin.
Mr Morden wrote: - and his final attempt failed to achive much - Jacks would have blown up both ships whilst doing something else.............
Well both would have failed to blow the ships up because the bad guy usually loses at some point to the good guy, even in comics (barring meta comics like Watchmen et al). On the other hand where the Nicholson Joker did fail in the end the Ledger Joker actually succeeded. Blowing up the ships was tangential to success, with the corruption of Harvey Dent fully succeeding. It was only through Gordon and Batman lying that they kept the city from going over the edge. This doesn't make one better than the other but at least get your facts right about what happens in the films.
I had forgotten that whole crap sub plot with Harvey Dent that made the film drag even longer
I personally preferred the third nolan film to the second, not least for it's lack of the strangely ancient face of Maggie Gyllenhaal and the drizzle of piss that was the Harvey Dent story, but also because it's joker was no real threat to Batman, a terrorist and a nasty little psycho, but no grand scale evil like he should of been, or that Rhaz and Bane were in the other two movies.
I've seen it a few more times since the release and I find it gets better over time; it was flawed but ambitious in its story. Bane was actually a pretty nasty melon-fether.
I've seen it a few more times since the release and I find it gets better over time; it was flawed but ambitious in its story. Bane was actually a pretty nasty melon-fether.
Spoiler:
Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character. Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.
jreilly89 wrote: Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character.
It is almost as if it is the artist made it their own and brought something new to the table instead of slavishly transliterating the comic. Nolan focused on elements that others tend to ignore in favor of making visual approximations, and for many they can't get over that. In the end Bane was still the physical and mental match for Batman, broke him, and took over the city even if he wasn't a Luchadore inspired drug addict. Considering this is also a world where Batman ages as well as other things not present in the comic I'm ok with it. If I just want the same thing I have already read I can just reread it.
jreilly89 wrote: Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.
Even if you aren't Catholic or religious you now have to go to confession to free yourself from this evil.
Meh. The only part of the newer Batman I didn't like was that you never really saw him as Batman, in his prime doing his thing.
Admittedly, I'm not a huge Batman fan - but I liked Bale as Bruce Wayne, just not as Batman.
I mean, the first movie was the obligatory origin story - which the Michael Keaton ones kind of skipped and I loved them for it- the second was him doing his thing for a few weeks and then retiring, and the third was him washed up and coming out of retirement years later.
Just jump right in. We know who Batman/Supes/Spiderman are at this point. Just because you decide to reboot a series or whatever I don't need the whole rigamarole. Throw out a few flashbacks so people won't get totally lost, and then just get to it.
While I normally find people who call the Nolan films bad to be rather childish (based on this reasons that is), I can agree that I think Bale was good as Wayne, but meh as Batman. The whole deep throat thing got old really fast, and kind of sucked the power out of the portrayal for me.
jreilly89 wrote: Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character.
It is almost as if it is the artist made it their own and brought something new to the table instead of slavishly transliterating the comic. Nolan focused on elements that others tend to ignore in favor of making visual approximations, and for many they can't get over that. In the end Bane was still the physical and mental match for Batman, broke him, and took over the city even if he wasn't a Luchadore inspired drug addict. Considering this is also a world where Batman ages as well as other things not present in the comic I'm ok with it. If I just want the same thing I have already read I can just reread it.
jreilly89 wrote: Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.
Even if you aren't Catholic or religious you now have to go to confession to free yourself from this evil.
I am all for artistic freedom, but man, at some point you have to call the line. Let's make Batman pink and base his character off of otters instead (don't get me wrong, otters freaking rock, am just picking whacky animals at this point).
And hey, if I'm going to confession over anything, it's for the confusing feelings Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy gave me
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I personally preferred the third nolan film to the second, not least for it's lack of the strangely ancient face of Maggie Gyllenhaal and the drizzle of piss that was the Harvey Dent story, but also because it's joker was no real threat to Batman, a terrorist and a nasty little psycho, but no grand scale evil like he should of been, or that Rhaz and Bane were in the other two movies.
You may rage at me when ready.
Nah, I'm with you. Hardy's performance is worth the price of admission alone, IMO. His version of Bane sucks the air out of the room in every scene - it's kind of Vader-esque. Just pure malevolence.
It's been mentioned a few times, but it is worth repeating: The difficulty with trying to answer the question of "who is a better Joker" is that there is no such thing as a singular Joker. Even if you don't include any of the TV/Movie versions you end up with a pretty large variety of personas that are all part of the Joker.
Jack Nicholson's Joker is the "killer" aspect of the Joker, and he plays that part well. His portrayal includes the campy "things that are clown-related" and "things that have to do with laughing/smiles" that is popular in many comic book versions. JN will kill anybody just for the lulz, and he will kill you in ways that are over-the-top joker related. He is an agent of chaos because he kills people without any real reasons just because he can, but he also does what he does for his own personal gain. This Joker is the classic anti-Batman but also mimics Batman. The Joker will do clown things and kill people with clown things while spraying Smilex and Batman will do bat things and fight people with batarangs and other things from his batbelt. Jack Nicholson plays the perfect version of this Joker, and it's the perfect Joker for this type of film.
Heath Ledger's Joker is the "psychological manipulator" aspect of the Joker and he plays that part very well. This is also a Joker that is portrayed frequently in the comics. This Joker is not above killing, and other than the pencil trick his killing isn't done in campy clown-related ways. He is an agent of chaos not because he kills people (and people already mentioned that his kill count is much lower than JN), he creates chaos because he will make the people kill each other. This style of chaos is seen in his first appearance during the bank robbery: JN would have had all of the robbers jump into the bus with himself as the getaway driver and then the next scene would have had him open the back door with all the other guys dead in the back from Smilex. HL makes them kill each other and then just kills the last guy standing. This Joker has try-outs and turns the city against Batman and each other. People are still getting killed randomly, but not by his hand. He laso doesn't do it for his own gain, as evidenced by burning a giant pile of money with the guy on top, but he just does it for the sake of chaos. This Joker also captures the complemantary relationship of Batman and the Joker and how they need each other. Part of what makes his Joker great is that he is still the Joker, but he is also a realistic version of Joker that could actually exist and that is what makes his performance good. Heath Ledger plays the perfect version of this Joker, and it's the perfect Joker for this type of film.
Both guys played awesome Jokers, but JN could not play the type of Joker we see in The Dark Knight and HL could not play the type of Joker we see in Batman.
Bromsy wrote: . We know who Batman/Supes/Spiderman are at this point. Just because you decide to reboot a series or whatever I don't need the whole rigamarole. Throw out a few flashbacks so people won't get totally lost, and then just get to it.
I agree entirely.
Pretty much everyone knows Batman's origins, just quick summary and move on.
ideally something like the intro to All Star Superman
and crack on.
I am also somewhat fed up with : Batman meeting a girl and deciding to stop being Batman and/or Batman revealing his identity to a girl for similar reasons.
Personally, there are times when I get bloody fed up hearing about the joker!
Penguin's better dressed, Riddler's got better plans, and poison ivy's much underused.
People talk about Batman and the Joker being polar opposites, but if you want a hero with a villain that's a mirror image, then Bond and Scaramanga, has yet to be bettered.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I personally preferred the third nolan film to the second, not least for it's lack of the strangely ancient face of Maggie Gyllenhaal and the drizzle of piss that was the Harvey Dent story, but also because it's joker was no real threat to Batman, a terrorist and a nasty little psycho, but no grand scale evil like he should of been, or that Rhaz and Bane were in the other two movies.
You may rage at me when ready.
Nah, I'm with you. Hardy's performance is worth the price of admission alone, IMO. His version of Bane sucks the air out of the room in every scene - it's kind of Vader-esque. Just pure malevolence.
TDKR felt a little more choppy and uneven than I'm used to with a Nolan flick, but Hardy was PDG.
It also should be said that the story wasn't the one that was originally planned. Everything changed after Ledger died.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: I am also somewhat fed up with : Batman meeting a girl and deciding to stop being Batman and/or Batman revealing his identity to a girl for similar reasons.
He's Batman, he'll never be happy or stop.
Yeah, although I can't blame the writers for taking pity and wanting to give the poor bastich a happy ending.
d-usa wrote: A lot of concise, well reasoned points
Completely agree. JN's rendition has a 'member of the Rogues Gallery' feel to it. HL's has a very 'arch nemesis' feel to it.
Both were very much products of their times and reflective of the decades they were created in. In the case of superheroes, being reflective of a specific mindset in American history isn't necessarily a negative.
That said, Batman Returns > Batman, Tom Hardy's performance was a masterstroke, and TDK suffers from far too much Maggie Gyllenhal/Aaron Eckhart being whiny (loved the revenge plot when he just got down to it. The scene with him and Ledger in the hospital is excellent).
jreilly89 wrote: Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character. Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.
Wash your mouth out with soap, boy! Heresy!
Tom Hardy's Bane is awesome. To be honest, I quite like the no-inflation-required Bane. Makes him more human and a more realistic character. Which was kind of the point of Nolan's Batman series.
jreilly89 wrote: Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character. Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.
Wash your mouth out with soap, boy! Heresy!
Tom Hardy's Bane is awesome. To be honest, I quite like the no-inflation-required Bane. Makes him more human and a more realistic character. Which was kind of the point of Nolan's Batman series.
Except that's not Bane at all. Why not have a totally normal Riddler? Bane is an insane drug addict raised in a Brazilian prison as a child. Even if they wanted him to be more realistic, don't make him white instead of Brazilian. Hell, the guy sounded british.
That's like a black Captain America. But that's a story for another thread
I love Burton's BatFilms. Can't say the same for Nolan's. This is purely a matter of personal taste as I think both directors' visions are worthwhile. I just like deco-gothic Batman/Gotham more. To me, Nolan's ultra-serious BatFilms have to be endured rather than enjoyed. Burton's films have more "give" even if they are also quite dark.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: He's Batman, he'll never be happy or stop.
Quite beautifully summed up (at least regarding the 80s onward Batman).
I've seen it a few more times since the release and I find it gets better over time; it was flawed but ambitious in its story. Bane was actually a pretty nasty melon-fether.
Spoiler:
Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character. Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.
So the mute, mindless Bane of Batman and Robin was more "in character" to you?
.
.
.
.
I think I'm done here.
This is not true either. In the comics it is a fictional South American country, not Brazil.
jreilly89 wrote: don't make him white instead of Brazilian. Hell, the guy sounded british.
You should visit Brazil sometime and see the variety of Brazilians, it will blow your mind. Either way see above as to why that is a bunch of gak.
jreilly89 wrote: That's like a black Captain America. But that's a story for another thread
Captain America is black in the comics. This may be a surprise to you since you didn't even know that there are light skinned Brazilians, but there are Americans that are black.
This is not true either. In the comics it is a fictional South American country, not Brazil.
Fair enough. Again, I'm willing to admit I was wrong for generalizing. I always thought he was Brazillian.
jreilly89 wrote: don't make him white instead of Brazilian. Hell, the guy sounded british.
You should visit Brazil sometime and see the variety of Brazilians, it will blow your mind. Either way see above as to why that is a bunch of gak.
See above where I admitted I was wrong. Also, nice candor.
jreilly89 wrote: That's like a black Captain America. But that's a story for another thread
Captain America is black in the comics. This may be a surprise to you since you didn't even know that there are light skinned Brazilians, but there are Americans that are black.
Captain America was only ever black in one series. Perhaps you're thinking of Green Lantern. Again, really mature.
angelofvengeance wrote: @jreilly: You're also forgetting that Bane is a highly educated criminal and it's possible he could have lost his Hispanic accent over time.
Possibly, but that still seems like an aside. Assuming the prison was still fixed in South America and he hooked up with Ra's al Ghul, wouldn't he have more of an Arabian accent instead of British? Even Ra's didn't seem to have a British accent. I mean, Dark Knight Bane sounded like Sean Connery.
angelofvengeance wrote: @jreilly: You're also forgetting that Bane is a highly educated criminal and it's possible he could have lost his Hispanic accent over time.
Possibly, but that still seems like an aside. Assuming the prison was still fixed in South America and he hooked up with Ra's al Ghul, wouldn't he have more of an Arabian accent instead of British? Even Ra's didn't seem to have a British accent. I mean, Dark Knight Bane sounded like Sean Connery.
Lol. Are you aware that not all British accents sound like Queen's English? There's a huge variety here. In a great deal of Batman animations, Ra's has a British accent.
Lol. Are you aware that not all British accents sound like Queen's English? There's a huge variety here. In a great deal of Batman animations, Ra's has a British accent.
angelofvengeance wrote: @jreilly: You're also forgetting that Bane is a highly educated criminal and it's possible he could have lost his Hispanic accent over time.
Possibly, but that still seems like an aside. Assuming the prison was still fixed in South America and he hooked up with Ra's al Ghul, wouldn't he have more of an Arabian accent instead of British? Even Ra's didn't seem to have a British accent. I mean, Dark Knight Bane sounded like Sean Connery.
Lol. Are you aware that not all British accents sound like Queen's English? There's a huge variety here. In a great deal of Batman animations, Ra's has a British accent.
Yes I am aware, but most of what I've seen has Ra's with a pretty neutral accent. Also, Bane speaks English, Portuguese, Spanish, and Latin. He could totally lose the accent, but I would still think it would be neutral, not Scottish.
jreilly89 wrote: Absolutely not. He was black in one series, the 2003 limited edition series. He's also my favorite superhero, so don't screw with me on this one.
IF you are going to look at wiki you need to look at all of it, especially the last part:
During a battle with an enemy called the Iron Nail, the Super-Soldier Serum within Rogers's body was neutralized, causing him to age rapidly to match his chronological age of over 90. No longer able to take part in field missions but retaining his sharp mind, Rogers decided to take on a role as mission co-ordinator, organizing the Avengers' plans of attack from the mansion, while appointing Sam Wilson as his official 'replacement' as Captain America.
After Rogers is aged into an old man, he appoints Falcon as his 'official' replacement as Captain America.
Steve Rogers is now essentially The Oracle from Batman.
As for complaining about Thor and Iron Man you are both months behind the time (we had a thread about it already) and informed as well as someone who doesn't read comics is but sees headlines on non-comic websites.
It's like Bucky or John Walker (or, heck, a lot of peeples): give 'em an arc or two to make a statement, then a writer change later the status quo and Steve Rogers will be back.
The Punisher isn't an angel or a Frankenstein's monster anymore, the extra Hulks are being wiped out, Thor will have goolies again within a year or two (he was a frog, and dead, at separate times). The more things change the more they stay the same.
Why? Thor's a woman too and Iron Man is now very Silver Surfer in terms of color.
Why not??
Honestly.
In this way, Marvel is opening up new potential revenue streams, as well as simply having the cajones to do what DC will not. In case you missed it, Ms. Marvel is also a Muslim and not-white to boot. Ultimately, what does the color of Iron Man's armor have to do with the price of tea in China? He's still Iron Man, until someone else (generally speaking) is in the suit, then there's War Machine and that ghastly "Iron Patriot"
Why? Thor's a woman too and Iron Man is now very Silver Surfer in terms of color.
Why not??
Honestly.
In this way, Marvel is opening up new potential revenue streams, as well as simply having the cajones to do what DC will not. In case you missed it, Ms. Marvel is also a Muslim and not-white to boot. Ultimately, what does the color of Iron Man's armor have to do with the price of tea in China? He's still Iron Man, until someone else (generally speaking) is in the suit, then there's War Machine and that ghastly "Iron Patriot"
Because it feels like a PR stunt, same as when they made Amazing Spiderman gay for no reason. Is Marvel really at the point where they need to make cash grabs? Why not invent a character that's black instead of remaking existing characters?
jreilly89 wrote: Absolutely not. He was black in one series, the 2003 limited edition series. He's also my favorite superhero, so don't screw with me on this one.
IF you are going to look at wiki you need to look at all of it, especially the last part:
During a battle with an enemy called the Iron Nail, the Super-Soldier Serum within Rogers's body was neutralized, causing him to age rapidly to match his chronological age of over 90. No longer able to take part in field missions but retaining his sharp mind, Rogers decided to take on a role as mission co-ordinator, organizing the Avengers' plans of attack from the mansion, while appointing Sam Wilson as his official 'replacement' as Captain America.
After Rogers is aged into an old man, he appoints Falcon as his 'official' replacement as Captain America.
Steve Rogers is now essentially The Oracle from Batman.
He also got killed murdered and they retconned that. Why not throw Steve Rogers a Red Bull and have him back in action? Also, appreciate the elitist attitude.
As for complaining about Thor and Iron Man you are both months behind the time (we had a thread about it already) and informed as well as someone who doesn't read comics is but sees headlines on non-comic websites.
Oh geez, throw me on a stake and light me on fire. Sorry, after Disney bought Marvel, I pretty much checked out.
Most likely, but it wasn't stated that Steve Rogers wasn't black it was said that Captain America wasn't. As it stands Captain America is, in fact, a black man.
Because it feels like a PR stunt, same as when they made Amazing Spiderman gay for no reason. Is Marvel really at the point where they need to make cash grabs? Why not invent a character that's black instead of remaking existing characters?
How many characters does Marvel legitimately have? IIRC, it's in the hundreds now. There is absolutely no need to create new characters.
And realistically, they are not "remaking" existing characters, they are providing progress for stories and characters alike. Why should Rogers' be unable to lose his Super Soldier status? How many times has Thor pissed off daddy and lost his powers? In the established timelines of many characters, different people have taken on the mantle of a character... so why shouldn't one of those people be gay or lesbian?
Because it feels like a PR stunt, same as when they made Amazing Spiderman gay for no reason. Is Marvel really at the point where they need to make cash grabs? Why not invent a character that's black instead of remaking existing characters?
How many characters does Marvel legitimately have? IIRC, it's in the hundreds now. There is absolutely no need to create new characters.
And realistically, they are not "remaking" existing characters, they are providing progress for stories and characters alike. Why should Rogers' be unable to lose his Super Soldier status? How many times has Thor pissed off daddy and lost his powers? In the established timelines of many characters, different people have taken on the mantle of a character... so why shouldn't one of those people be gay or lesbian?
Because again, it seems like a cash grab. Any reason black Cap and girl Thor just happen to show up at the same time? Also, why not a female Punisher? And if they want to remake characters, fine, but don't do it for the sake of saying "Oh look! Hulk's Guatemalan!"
Gitzbitah wrote: I love reading comic book debates. It makes me wish the medium wasn't so expensive per page- with my reading speed, it is just uneconomical.
Personally, I dont buy individual issues, I wait till they are compiled into one volume (a la "Deadpool Classic; Vol. 1-9, or Complete Deadpool by Daniel Way; Vol. 1-4, Planet Hulk, World War Hulk, etc)
It is by no means cheap, but I think it's possible that it's cheaper than individual issues
I am also somewhat fed up with : Batman meeting a girl and deciding to stop being Batman and/or Batman revealing his identity to a girl for similar reasons.
He's Batman, he'll never be happy or stop.
This is why a proper Talia Al Ghul plotline could be so interesting for a film, ala Arkham City.
Really did not like the HL Joker at all. I agree with what has been said before that his joker was in fact not the joker at all, but some psychopath in Joker disguise.
I think you guys are not giving Nicholson enough credit for what he brought to the role. He brought a level of sinisterism that the HL psycho could not match. The JN Joker was bad and he knew it, the HL joker was just insane.
generalgrog wrote: Really did not like the HL Joker at all. I agree with what has been said before that his joker was in fact not the joker at all, but some psychopath in Joker disguise.
I think you guys are not giving Nicholson enough credit for what he brought to the role. He brought a level of sinisterism that the HL psycho could not match. The JN Joker was bad and he knew it, the HL joker was just insane.
GG
I don't agree with you... I understand that you don't like the HL Joker, but perhaps it's more the fault of the movie at large? I personally think that each would be severely out of place in the other's movie, and that is because each fits within his time and portrayal of the character.
Actually, I think that if HL had survived, we may have seen him in another Bat film. I personally think his brand of insanity is worse than JN's Joker because he knows what buttons to push, and he pushes them in his own way.
Personally, I never did like Jacko's use of the gas that kills everyone, giving them "his" face (the permanent grin), but to each his own.
I dislike this argument as there is no singular Joker: not in the comic, not it animated fare, and not in films. Like Batman the character has been around for decades and has seen changes throughout that time.
I dislike this argument as there is no singular Joker: not in the comic, not it animated fare, and not in films. Like Batman the character has been around for decades and has seen changes throughout that time.
I guess what I meant to say, was what I think is the "ideal" Joker for me.
I take it back. I will give Disney all of my money for black gangster Yoda
We sort of DID have that, in those movies that some people seem to remember... They had Samuel L. Jackson in them, I think. I can't really be sure, because I can't recall a single ".....Melon Farmer....." line in the whole damn movie
In this way, Marvel is opening up new potential revenue streams
And then closing them again as fanboys (including the ones that ascended to word-monkeys) stay away in droves or pine for the status quo.
jreilly89 wrote:
Because it feels like a PR stunt, same as when they made Amazing Spiderman gay for no reason.
When did that happen?
Ahtman wrote:Most likely, but it wasn't stated that Steve Rogers wasn't black it was said that Captain America wasn't. As it stands Captain America is, in fact, a black man.
And then two minutes later Steve will be all serumed up again and retake the mantle from the pretender for the umpteenth time since the 40's and all the true fanboys will breathe a sigh of relief at the restoration of the, guess what, status quo and reminisce along the lines of "hey remember when Sam Wilson was Captain America me neither lololol"...
Like it or not, too many classic characters are too bound up for too long, with their alter egos or their particular shtick in the popular consciousness. Azrael or Dick Grayson can play at being Batman for a bit, but 'everyone knows' it's really Bruce Wayne who gets to be the real deal. The Bombastic Bag Man might be a larf for a few pages, but then he has to put away his grocery paraphernalia and put the webs back on. You're technically correct in that at this precise point in time, the man wearing the Captain America costume and starring in the Captain America comic is the aforementioned Sam Wilson, who just happens to be an african-american gentleman, but in the wider context we're kidding ourselves if this is going to have much lasting relevance other than Marvel pointing it out to shrill bloggers to say 'Look, we can do non-white leads! For all of er, five minutes..."
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
How many characters does Marvel legitimately have? IIRC, it's in the hundreds now. There is absolutely no need to create new characters.
How many of those hundreds do you actually see from month to month? How many have been seen, or remembered, in years? Sure they can create new characters, Whether any of them can stick, as more than hasty tokens, is another question.
But yeah, Marvel has their own back-catalogue of non-white characters, and sometimes they can be well written. I remember Luke Cage being great and popular as the caretaker of the Thunderbolts. (A series that also made good use of one of those ex-Caps, too) I have a feeling Marvel could use a few secondary minority characters as more than also-rans or wearers of Honky's hand-me-downs, but see my reply to your previous post, above...
And realistically, they are not "remaking" existing characters, they are providing progress for stories and characters alike.
Please.
Gitzbitah wrote:I love reading comic book debates. It makes me wish the medium wasn't so expensive per page- with my reading speed, it is just uneconomical.
Wouldn't worry about it. The nerd-fights are usually more entertaining than the comics these days.
It seems like Mjolnir is just begging to be passed around.
That's happened a few times too. I think Beta Ray Bill had a miniseries a couple of years ago, then away again. Who knows what 'Extraneous Wrung-Dry Superhero Retirement Home' Thunderstrike disappeared off to.
I'm not really a comic person, but I do like the universes and the films, naturally. Plus I've expanded out to the non-comic stuff (DC animated movies are great, grew up with BATS, the X-men and Spiderman cartoons)
I've got to admit, I've found this sort of thing quite interesting.
I men, yeah, to me, at least, the top characters, it seems weird to change them about. - So, the most recognisable Avengers, Batman and the like. It just always feels natural that Bruce Wayne is The Batman, for example.
However...
It also feels perfectly natural for me now, for example, to have absolutely no interest in bringing back Dick Grayson to be Robin in any sort of feature. I'm quite content for him to be Nightwing. In saying that, there doesn't feel any other 'natural' Robin to me. Thanks to 'Under the Red Hood' and the like, Jason Todd is also 'naturally' not an option.
I seem to remember there being quite a barmy about making Barbara Gordon be Batgirl again, because to many people, it was natural' that Babs = Batgirl. But, on the other hand, probably massively helped by the Arkham series, it was felt very natural to a lot of people that, just like Dick had become Nightwing now, that Babs was now Oracle. - So which was the 'status quo' in that case?
Just saying, 'whoever was first' doesn't really answer things. - I don't hear much clamouring to make Jay Garrick be The Flash when the TV show was announced. But, was there not some question about Wally West?
So, as I said, being on the periphery of the grand comic debates, it's all very interesting indeed.
And realistically, they are not "remaking" existing characters, they are providing progress for stories and characters alike.
Please.
It's true, whether you like it or not. Take just the Cap/Falcon thing. Since we generally all know/assume that Steve is going to get the power of the serum back at some point (as opposed to Bucky coming back and being Cap, again)... there comes the issues where the hand-off happens again, giving writers new stuff to write about.
There's been a story progression: Falcon has been Cap, even if it was briefly, so that can be remembered/flashed back to, or brought up. Cap will have even more faith in Falcon to follow orders.
I mean, Captain America has been around since what... the 30s or 40s? There's a gakload that he's done, some of the things he's done has been rehashed at least once. Writers eventually must come up with something "new" in order to keep the character's story moving, as well as keeping the comic books moving off shelves.
I liked both movies, Nolan's version is really dark while Burton's version is more a dark comedy IMHO, Liked Batman returns more can't beat penguins with rockets!
