Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

And the series was just great;

 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

Best Joker:



(Runner up was the animated series though.)

Mark Hammils Joker is THE definitive Joker IMO.

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.

You mean Batman Beyond?

Which was Mark Hamil?

I'm guessing he means The Batman, which yeah. That one was terrible all around.

Yeah I mean this guy.

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.

Yeah, Jack Nicholson's joker is just Jack Nicholson. He didn't do anything interesting.

Have to concur.

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.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Anyone else think Jack Nicholson is MUCH scarier than Heath Ledger?

No. Nicholson is a hack and his performance was no more than a re-hash of the 60s TV show.

 Compel wrote:
It just felt like Jack Nicholson playing as... Jack Nicholson in clown makeup and a purple suit.

This.

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...

 reds8n wrote:
Have to concur.

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.

 Albatross wrote:

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.............

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

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.

I like the Heath Ledger Joker a lot better. That being said, I do really like the 1989 Batman, there was a lot of cool stuff in there.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

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....

Superior Catwoman anyway...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Superior Catwoman anyway...

AGreed

She was fantastic. And one of the best villains out there.