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.

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.

Best Joker though? Come on.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Superior Catwoman anyway...

AGreed

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

Agreed - Mcihelle Pfeiffer just wins

Pity the film was such a mess :(

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.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 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?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 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

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Superior Catwoman anyway...

Completely agreed! Just yummy.

I prefer Ledger to Nicholson but I still really like his portrayal of Joker. He seemed a more laughy Joker and I liked that.

I was watching MP in Stardust the other night, still a damned fine looking lass.

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!

On the subject of Batman films...

http://mindlessones.com/2014/12/13/batman-on-screen-batman-1943/#more-32068







Has anyone seen either the Warhol Batman film


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Dracula

or the somewhat mythical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Fights_Dracula

 reds8n wrote:
On the subject of Batman films...

http://mindlessones.com/2014/12/13/batman-on-screen-batman-1943/#more-32068

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!"

Nah.

I still think this is genuinely the scariest/creepiest Joker scene. You don't even see anything.

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

Only Joker that I haven't liked is the Brett Spiner version.

 skyth wrote:
Only Joker that I haven't liked is the Brett Spiner version.

not seen that one?

 Mr Morden 62686

wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Only Joker that I haven't liked is the Brett Spiner version.

not seen that one?

Young Justice. Loved the series, but didn't like The Joker.

 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.

 primalexile wrote:
Granted I am a comic book fan

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.

Keaton was the best Batman ever, hands down, argument over.

 Jimsolo wrote:

(It's worth noting that when I read comics, I hear Joker's dialogue in Mark Hamill's voice, however.)

I see Bond villain potential here:

 Mr Morden wrote:

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

You may rage at me when ready.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I personally preferred the third nolan film to the second

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.