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.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd say they squandered an excellent Green Goblin in a "just okay" Spider-Man film.

Except it was the second best Spider-film to date. The best was the one with Doc Ock right after. All the rest that came after have been garbage. I get “opinion” and all, but they GOT Spidey in those two films. No matter what others say, I will never accept Homecoming as “good”.

Back to the subject of Ledger?

Fantastic villain. Not a memorable Joker. He just didn’t seem unhinged enough, nor enjoying himself enough for me.

I find it hard to compare them on all fronts just because they're different Jokers.

Nicholson's Joker was good as a '50s/'60s styled Joker...the kind of Joker who'd rob banks and have wacky gadgets and helicopters that looked like his goofy head. Like I said in the other thread, clearly Jack had fun with the role, but I wouldn't call it one of his best performances.

Ledger's Joker was probably closest to the original Joker from the '40s, although there are stylistic differences. That Joker is more of a cold-blooded, mass murdering agent of chaos where the facepaint is worn ironically, rather than him being a funny prankster. It's a very different character than the one in the '89 film.

I will say this though...Ledger *became* his character, and this contrasts greatly with Nicholson's performance IMO, which is basically him being him in facepaint. Setting aside the notion of what style of Joker one prefers, Ledger's performance almost has to be the best pure acting job so far.

Leto's Joker had a chance -- even with some of the more interesting choices -- to be something closer to the modern Joker from the comics. But I don't know that we ever actually got to see his performance, given the chopped-up-and-run-through-a-blender nature of that film. Apparently there's tons of Joker material that didn't make it in. *shrug* I might be more interested to see that stuff than the ballyhooed 'Snyder cut' of JL. I already know what that was probably like, but Leto Joker? I don't have a clear picture other than him going hard on the gangster theme.

Hamill? I dunno. That cartoon didn't define Batman and his universe for me the way it obviously has for some people. It's one of many to me. He had a good 'Joker voice', I guess. But it's just a voice performance, and it's hard for me to compare it to live action performances.

I know geeks are having trouble getting their heads around the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, but I think it's going to surprise people.

I'll grant that Ledger delivered a fantastic performance.

I'll even grant that out of the nominees that year, Ledger did the best job and deserved the Oscar the most.

I just don't see the character he played as being a very good Joker, that's all.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd say they squandered an excellent Green Goblin in a "just okay" Spider-Man film.

Except it was the second best Spider-film to date. The best was the one with Doc Ock right after. All the rest that came after have been garbage. I get “opinion” and all, but they GOT Spidey in those two films. No matter what others say, I will never accept Homecoming as “good”.

Only if you think spiderman is only a sad sack who feths up everything all the time and has no sense of humor.

Which has never been the case. Spidy has drama yes. Sometimes a lot of it. But those movies are a distilation of all of peter parkers worst moments with none of his personality.

 Manchu wrote:
The reason I like Jack best is, I can eqaully well imagine his Joker murdering me as telling me a joke I’d really laugh at — and what really seals it, I can imagine him doing the latter and then immediately the former.

Agreed - Jack N Joker was scary insane and so much darker than Ledgers merely face painted terrorist.

Jack killed an entire gallery full of pople just to be alone with Vicki, he made "art with his lover" - by using acid on her, he had poison distributed to the wole of Gotham in seemingly random products - etc - he also was not inhumanly infalliable - he made mistakes and was suprised .

Heath L's Joker killed a few mobsters and oh yeah blew up an empty hospital whilst also having super amazing precog abilities. Just not scary compared to Jack N and everything was always acording to plan - it was worse than "24" villains

I feflt Leto was closer to Jack than Heath and hence enjoyed it more.

 Vulcan wrote:
I'll grant that Ledger delivered a fantastic performance.

I'll even grant that out of the nominees that year, Ledger did the best job and deserved the Oscar the most.

I just don't see the character he played as being a very good Joker, that's all.

I’ll be with you when you can point to that one thing that the Joker has consistently been in all of his many incarnations that Ledger’s character wasn’t.

Saying “I don’t like that rendition of X” is one thing. Saying that “I don’t think it was a good X” — which seems to be a catchphrase in the geek community these days — is different and requires a strong argument IMO.

 gorgon wrote:
I know geeks are having trouble getting their heads around the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, but I think it's going to surprise people.

I think it's got less to do with Joaquin Phoenix so much as no one wants a Joker origin story, let alone by by the people who brought you the incredibly uneven DCCU.

The Tobeyman movies were just awful people. Come on. Nobody wants a whiney emo Spiderman.

 Ouze wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I know geeks are having trouble getting their heads around the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, but I think it's going to surprise people.

I think it's got less to do with Joaquin Phoenix so much as no one wants a Joker origin story, let alone by by the people who brought you the incredibly uneven DCCU.

It makes absolutely no sense. Why would you make an origin story for a character who historically has no origin. It complicates things more since Geoff Johns claims there are at least 3 different Jokers. Who knows anymore

 Ouze wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I know geeks are having trouble getting their heads around the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, but I think it's going to surprise people.

I think it's got less to do with Joaquin Phoenix so much as no one wants a Joker origin story, let alone by by the people who brought you the incredibly uneven DCCU.

That, and it's yet another Joker. Completely separate from the others. Just....why?

I mean, I'm willing to give it a chance. I like Joaquin Phoenix and have confidence he'll bring something to the role. But the choice of the film? Entirely reflective of DC's panic mode.

Joker has the same issue that captain marvel has in the comics, too many iterations that contradict each other, the biggest difference is that joker has been doing for longer and the fans have a kind of joker they like, marvel hasn't quite nailed down captain marvel just yet.

We have
Gangster joker
Sociopath
Psychopath
Terrorist
Sane
Insane
Red hood joker
Various movie versions
Origin stories out the Ying Yang and much more, but

I don't get why Joker is such a beloved villain in the first place.

I think it's because deep down in our souls, everyone in the world is afraid of clowns

You all got it wrong. Cesar Romero was the best.

 Necros wrote:
I think it's because deep down in our souls, everyone in the world is afraid of clowns

... and kind of wants to see the world burn.

 gorgon wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
I'll grant that Ledger delivered a fantastic performance.

I'll even grant that out of the nominees that year, Ledger did the best job and deserved the Oscar the most.

I just don't see the character he played as being a very good Joker, that's all.

I’ll be with you when you can point to that one thing that the Joker has consistently been in all of his many incarnations that Ledger’s character wasn’t.

Amused.

The Joker is amused when he succeeds, and sometimes even more amused when he fails. Despite his catchphrase, Ledger was deadly serious the whole time. Not a peep of laughter than I can recall.

 Vulcan wrote:


The Joker is amused when he succeeds, and sometimes even more amused when he fails. Despite his catchphrase, Ledger was deadly serious the whole time. Not a peep of laughter than I can recall.

That linked, his laugh has nothing on Hamil's. If I were to rank the jokers just on their laugh alone, Ledger probably would be last place. Loved the performance but yeah. Not a good laugher. At least not a memorable one.

That I didn't remember a bit of any of that tells you just how little I thought of it.

But hey, if you thought he was the greatest thing ever, that's great for you. Enjoy all you wish.

I remain completely unimpressed.

Not only that, but he was very amused with himself when guy after guy killed each other off in the bank. When he lit the fire truck on fire. When the hospital blew up and he was in his lil nurse dress.

These are not things a super serious person does. These are things someone with a real dark sense of humor does.

Heath Ledger ... so there!

 Lance845 wrote:
Not only that, but he was very amused with himself when guy after guy killed each other off in the bank. When he lit the fire truck on fire. When the hospital blew up and he was in his lil nurse dress.

These are not things a super serious person does. These are things someone with a real dark sense of humor does.

Jack killed an entire gallery full of pople just to be alone with Vicki,

He made "art" with his lover - by using acid on her,

He had poison distributed to the wole of Gotham in seemingly random products - it made a good contrast with his apparent "silliness" - it was twisted and sadistic and IMO much more scary than HLs version.

I wouldn't deny that Nicholson Joker is pretty classic Joker.

HL though is like someone read the darkest renditions of the character and played it completely straight minus all the trimmings of comic book logic. Everything he does is to subvert expectations. Not in the art criticism kind of way, the literal way. One man's death is a tragedy as it were, so why is it that when a gang banger dies no one bats an eye but when Joker threatens one little old mayor everyone panics? That's classic Joker too. Attack people's expectations. Go right where they take things for granted and hollow it out. Don't just rob a bank. Rob from the mob to encourage the mob to hire you so you can get all the mob's money and burn it because you don't need money. Don't just attack a District Attorney. Break him down piece by piece, give him a bit about life's little hypocrisies, and then give him a loaded gun and watch what he does. The Dark Knight presents a Joker who progressively goes about step by step undoing how people assume things are supposed to work and relishes almost solely in the completely expected and the completely unexpected.

It's troll logic right out of the Killing Joke.

I think you can knock HL Joker as not the most accurate to the source material Joker easily, but I don't think anyone could make that character seem so real in that way ever again.

I don't really care to get into the "best" arguments, particularly when comparing things across different decades. The point is, pretty much all of these are pretty memorable. Nobody is bringing Kevin Richardson, Zach Galifianakis, or even John freaking DiMaggio into the discussion after all. It's way more useful to discuss the performances themselves and how they reflect on the perception of the character at the time than to try to determine the best OF ALL TIME when time keeps changing the rules on that.

FWIW, I completely get the argument that Heath Ledger may have simultaneously had the best performance and the worst Joker (though even there he may have to bow out to monkey man from The Batman). At the same time he exists in a version of the world that doesn't really lend itself to villains with a costumed identity of their own and that's why he works for so many people. His biggest strength is that the performance itself is pretty mesmerizing and probably most important to the character, unpredictable; which is also something of a weakness as it loses the impact when you've already seen the trick. Still, so many of his scenes have a great sense of tension because he does such a great job of selling you on a character who might kill or maim anyone around him without provocation or purpose. It's an impressive performance that captures a crucial part of the Joker's appeal, even if its not the most comic accurate version out there.

 Vulcan wrote:
That I didn't remember a bit of any of that tells you just how little I thought of it.

But hey, if you thought he was the greatest thing ever, that's great for you. Enjoy all you wish.

I remain completely unimpressed.

Here, let me help you move that goal post. The point was to show you that he was, in fact, amused, not that he was the greatest thing ever.

Ledger's joker embodied an idea of "there's nothing wrong with me, the world made me the way I am. " that a lot of people you derstsnd and relate to because in varying degrees it's true for a lot of people. That's why he resonated.

I kinda liked him because he didn't care about money, he believed in something other than money. I can respect that if nothing else.

Speaking on batman villains what about the penguin? I saw some of his comics that made me feel for him a little. Being the kid everyone gakked on in school, having an insane mother with a mouth that would terrify a tyrannosaur, showing how he finally refused to be bullied and bewtned down anymore, in some ways he's like a success story.

Penguin as a sort of role model/inspiration.



(Btw when yiu see how his umbrella fetish is explained you may understand him and feel some sympathy for him.)

There are basically two penguins now, the original, basically odd looking dumpy human with a deformed nose, and the version created in the second batman movie where he's literally bestial, with pirahanna teeth (actually penguins have no teeth at all...) and flipper like hands. (Wtf did the green blood come from?!)

Yeah yeah I would do a penguin thread but I get tired of having my threads locked. If someone else want to start one good.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:


Yeah yeah I would do a penguin thread but I get tired of having my threads locked. If someone else want to start one good.

Maybe join a Batman-centric forum if you want to see so many individual threads focusing on each of the villains?

Anyway, personally I'm only really a fan of 60's camp Batman so very little interest in anyone past Cesar Romero.

 LunarSol wrote:
Nobody is bringing Kevin Richardson, Zach Galifianakis, or even John freaking DiMaggio into the discussion after all.

I did like DiMaggio's take on it in Under The Red Hood. There was a lot of Ledger in there, with a dash of Hamill's mania just under the surface. He'd definitely be high on my list to get more shots at the role now Hamill's semi-retired from it. Likewise, Troy Baker's turn in Arkham Origins; yes, it was simply imitating Hamill to a large extent, but he did that pretty damn well, and there's the odd moment where he really does his own thing with it. His 'Have you ever had a really bad day' speech to Harleen in that game is one of my favourite Joker moments of all time.

Surprised no one has mentioned Cameron Monoghan yet. Okay, so neither of his characters in Gotham have been explicitly called The Joker in-universe, but the writers have explained both of them as interpretations of him. Jerome as their own take on it, Jeremiah as a more traditional version. What's so impressive is that he absolutely sells both incarnations, the former as a Hamill-esque madman who's totally off the rails and leans into the grim comedy, the latter as a more Ledger-type that thinks he's the only sane person in the world and is willing to kill them all to prove it.

It's certainly a performance driven by the influences of the other great Jokers, but he does make it his own. I'd love to see him given a go at voicing some animated stuff as a full-fledged Joker.

Speaking of Gotham, if you want a show that makes Penguin a little more sympathetic, look no further. He's a scumbag throughout, but he's a scumbag who you can consistently get behind, even at his most repulsively evil. Poor guy just can't catch a break...

If you like the joker try the batman/judge dredd crossover "Die laughing". The joker ends up in Dredd's mega city one and ends up like a kid in a candy store. He teams up with judge death and his 3 brothers. Batman goes to MC-1 to save it from his worst enemy, teaming up with dredd to do it.

 LordofHats wrote:
HL though is like someone read the darkest renditions of the character and played it completely straight minus all the trimmings of comic book logic. Everything he does is to subvert expectations. Not in the art criticism kind of way, the literal way. One man's death is a tragedy as it were, so why is it that when a gang banger dies no one bats an eye but when Joker threatens one little old mayor everyone panics? That's classic Joker too. Attack people's expectations. Go right where they take things for granted and hollow it out. Don't just rob a bank. Rob from the mob to encourage the mob to hire you so you can get all the mob's money and burn it because you don't need money. Don't just attack a District Attorney. Break him down piece by piece, give him a bit about life's little hypocrisies, and then give him a loaded gun and watch what he does. The Dark Knight presents a Joker who progressively goes about step by step undoing how people assume things are supposed to work and relishes almost solely in the completely expected and the completely unexpected.

It's troll logic right out of the Killing Joke.

I think you can knock HL Joker as not the most accurate to the source material Joker easily, but I don't think anyone could make that character seem so real in that way ever again.

Right. His whole plan is his joke. It was a troll job done for his amusement. (The Joker has always been a planner and schemer -- it's a fundamental part of his character, back to the beginning. His words to Harvey in the hospital about being a dog chasing cars were lies, because the Joker LIES.)

And the Joker finds his ultimate amusement in Batman, as he explains after being captured. He says that Batman won't kill him, and he won't kill Batman because he's "too much fun". Then comes that simple but iconic line: "I think you and I are destined to do this forever." He's obviously gleeful at that moment as he hangs there, even though his plan has been stopped.

Saying that Ledger's Joker lacks amusement is, to me, a swing and a miss.

Eh since someone brought up another villain I see no reason not to bring up another: I thought Nolan and Hardy's Bane was... interesting. While there were lots of issues with the film, and the character (Bane shouldn't have been a henchman/underling), overall I felt they had an intriguing concept and a few good scenes. I am curious what it would have been like if they went with the original voice instead of changing it.