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.

It was a great performance, but different people like different takes on the character.

And again, we're talking about a character who's been through so many changes in personality that comic writers have felt compelled to create explanations for it. There is no 'true' Joker in the comics.

Phoenix's performance in this one is shaping up to be a doozy, IMO.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why exactly is anyone disputing Ledger as being the best joker? The performance was literally phenomenal. He made the Joker a believable character which is what the idea behind the new batman series really was - to make these things seem more possible and relate to us more.

If I had to pick anyone to do the job better I think the only guy that could do it would be Daniel Day Lewis. To be the joker you must become the joker.

Because Jack Nicholson did it better.

Ledger did Manson and called him Joker.

This one looks like Phoenix is doing Taxi Driver or something.

Scorsese is involved IIRC (exec producer?), and it's unabashedly an homage to his films.

It does make me want to watch King of Comedy again...

 Frazzled wrote:
Because Jack Nicholson did it better.

Why would you do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?

Looking forward to this one.

As for previous efforts, Jack and Heath provided very different takes on the Joker character and both succeeded in their own way. Hamill, always a pleasure!

My personal favourite joker is Dimaggio's in Under the red hood. For a tragic story, he was a good choice; he's still hyperactively comical, but with a cold...alpha male atmosphere to him. Like a wolf. Its one I pop in the player occasionallyfor his performance, and the sad story.

I'll be honest, I never understood the hype over Ledger's Joker. I didn't see the film for a while after it came out so was well aware of his death etc. And yeah, it was overall a good film and he was excellent, but the praise went a little far IMO.

But then 'my' Joker is Romero, so what do I know?

This film looks more interesting to me than I thought it would, I don't normally do DC but might catch this when it's in the wild.

SamusDrake wrote:
Looking forward to this one.

As for previous efforts, Jack and Heath provided very different takes on the Joker character and both succeeded in their own way. Hamill, always a pleasure!

My personal favourite joker is Dimaggio's in Under the red hood. For a tragic story, he was a good choice; he's still hyperactively comical, but with a cold...alpha male atmosphere to him. Like a wolf. Its one I pop in the player occasionallyfor his performance, and the sad story.

Agreed. Still the only Batman movie to score 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Almost like it’s the best Batman movie out there...glad that Hush is out there now too, so we can complete the trifecta after all these years: TKJ, Hush, UtRH!!

 Riquende wrote:
I'll be honest, I never understood the hype over Ledger's Joker. I didn't see the film for a while after it came out so was well aware of his death etc. And yeah, it was overall a good film and he was excellent, but the praise went a little far IMO.

But then 'my' Joker is Romero, so what do I know?

This film looks more interesting to me than I thought it would, I don't normally do DC but might catch this when it's in the wild.

The tragic loss of Heath back in 2008 helped turn The Dark Knight into an event film.

Batman Begins didn't even take half the gross of its sequal and wasn't exactly showered in universal acclaim(I liked it, though). Until they mentioned the news of Heath's death, it was pretty much grumbling about a "lazy makeup" job and that Nicholson would always be the definitive Joker.

But the girls loved him( damn you Sir, damn you! ) and his turn in Brokeback Mountain turned critics heads and so when the news revealled that The Dark Knight was his last performance, a much larger audience flocked to see it. Of course, the film being somewhat better than its predecessor certainly helped in reviews...

...personally, I felt Aaron Eckhart was the central performance of the film, but its nice that Heath was honoured all the same. Brokeback didn't receive an Academy Award and Heath left us so soon( born the same year as myself! ). His performance was good too and at least gave Jack a run for his money!

Heath's Joker is interesting in the sense that it's both not very authentic and extremely true to the character. He's not really "The Joker" the way Jack and Hamill are, but his performance is one of the best examples of the character's ability to mix charm with a frightening amount of unpredictability to create an uneasy but entertaining tension Hamill's best work captures the same spirit, but he's really only been able to take it to the extreme on a few occasions (Arkham, Batman Beyond, etc).

I am looking forward to Phoenix's take on the character, because Phoenix is a very good actor.

This will probably be good.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why exactly is anyone disputing Ledger as being the best joker? The performance was literally phenomenal. He made the Joker a believable character which is what the idea behind the new batman series really was - to make these things seem more possible and relate to us more.

If I had to pick anyone to do the job better I think the only guy that could do it would be Daniel Day Lewis. To be the joker you must become the joker.

Only believable if you like pre-cog Mary Sues who have more back up plans than the terrorists in "24".... Seriously if HL had not died it would have a been an interesting but fairly poor portrayl of the character.

Jack N's Joker is a much much scarier guy, kill you, your family or a museum full of people to be alone with a girl. HL's Joker blew up a empty hosptial..............

The new film looks really interesting.

You're certainly allowed that opinion, but I don't think many people found him to be particularly scary. The Nicholson Joker's roots are clearly that of the light-hearted Joker of the '50s and '60s, who robbed banks and had lots of silly gadgets. It's a really good performance, but the character is just too campy and played for too many laughs to seem truly threatening.

 gorgon wrote:
You're certainly allowed that opinion, but I don't think many people found him to be particularly scary. The Nicholson Joker's roots are clearly that of the light-hearted Joker of the '50s and '60s, who robbed banks and had lots of silly gadgets. It's a really good performance, but the character is just too campy and played for too many laughs to seem truly threatening.

He melted his girldfriends face to make art, he killed an entire museum of people for the date....it was a very dark film compared to what had come before, the humour (as usual) makes the darker elements more effective - IMO. The Nolan films built on the Burton films to a huge degree.

His "silly gadgets" were lethal for the most part - he was quite happy to poison an entire city with them.

I contend the opposite with HL's Joker.....he stuck a pencil in a gangers eye, killed some more gangers, blew up an empty hospital but he was far to controlled to be a risk to most people.

Jack (and other Jokers) will kill anyone, anywhere....for a reason or no reason.

 gorgon wrote:
You're certainly allowed that opinion, but I don't think many people found him to be particularly scary. The Nicholson Joker's roots are clearly that of the light-hearted Joker of the '50s and '60s, who robbed banks and had lots of silly gadgets. It's a really good performance, but the character is just too campy and played for too many laughs to seem truly threatening.

Of course that Joker was trying to kill the entire city...

Ledger’s Joker was trying to blow up ferries filled with people, if you recall.

And it doesn’t matter whether Nicholson’s Joker was murderous or not. It was a campy performance that got all the laugh lines. A number of his murders are played for laughs, not for shock effect or horror. Again, it’s a great performance, but not a particularly scary or disturbing one.

Also, Ledger was trying to make the city burn itself. He tried to incite chaos. And as for “premonition”...when his big scheme failed, he didn’t know what to do. He had an expectation and it was toasted and he was like someone who just woke out of a coma. It feels like we saw different movies.

Joker/Heath did things just to do them, seemingly with no rhyme or reason, but he always had a plan and an endgame. And expectations. Expectations that like in Killing Joke, all it would take is “one bad day” for Gotham to go mad like him and destroy itself. And like Gordon in TKJ, Gotham stood up to him and he couldn’t understand it. Ledger’s Joker was very much built with TKJ in mind, and it’s quite obvious.

 gorgon wrote:
Ledger’s Joker was trying to blow up ferries filled with people, if you recall.

And it doesn’t matter whether Nicholson’s Joker was murderous or not. It was a campy performance that got all the laugh lines. A number of his murders are played for laughs, not for shock effect or horror. Again, it’s a great performance, but not a particularly scary or disturbing one.

And he failed to do even that.

Lets agree to disagree on all these points - I thought ledgers Joker was the least scary one in recent decades

What I like about the Joker triumvate of Romero, Nicholson and Ledger is how we can see a clear progression.

Caesar Romero was all about the jokes, and proper nonsense. Outlandish, clownish plans.

Nicholson kept bits of that, bit added in the hint of a psychotic edge. Not in how he said - but what he said. His reactions to stuff were off kilter for a ‘normal’ person.

Ledger turned up the psychotic edge, whilst keeping a certain dark humour.

But all pale compared to Hamill. Spesh when you see his range as Joker over his many, many appearances.

I notice no one mentions the Leto Joker...

Leto was a side character. Not bad as “a” Joker. Being generous, I’d say that he captured the narcissistic elements of Joker well. The vengeful, spiteful elements also.

I’ve heard the tone of the movie was shifted after filming and somewhat recut, removing some of the darker parts... I’m not saying he was a great Joker, but I think the character he was asked to present, following Ledger’s performance, was never going to be received well.

I’d say that Leto was missing the Nihilism that the “better” Jokers bring out. He seemed attached to the trappings of wealth, was flashy, but not showy, if that makes sense. Seemed desperate, in some ways. Had all the negative qualities but none of the “attractive” qualities he possesses. The Joker is never the second banana, and that’s the part he played in this movie. Which clearly doesn’t work.

Leto’s was definitely a gangster Joker. Some aspects of his look are right from the comics - specially the modern Morrison/Snyder Joker. Unfortunately the tats and such became a distraction with audiences.

And yeah, apparently much of Leto’s performance ended up on the cutting room floor. I think he and his management were looking at that role as a big one for his career. Oh well. That’s why he was bitter about the movie afterward.

I'd be bitter too.

The movie was awful

Back OT, very good buzz about the film is coming out of the Venice film festival.

 Ahtman wrote:
I notice no one mentions the Leto Joker...

I quite liked him - certainly more than Ledgers - again more likely to kill you, your dog or goldfish or half a city....

Good reviews so far. I think it even won some prestigious award in Venice.

I think this movie is going to make huge money for DC.

Edit: I wonder how much of this movie is a "reaction" to what made Black Panther and Wonder Woman such a big hit and if it was purposely designed that way? I am also curious how much f it was a calculated choice and if it was intentionally a "villain" oriented piece?

I am really looking forward to seeing it.

 gorgon wrote:
Back OT, very good buzz about the film is coming out of the Venice film festival.

This thread wasn't wasn't actually for upcoming Joker movie, although obviously discussion of it is welcome. I'm not trying to be needlessly nitpicky, so much as making sure the thread doesn't get locked eventually for people discussing the Romero\Nicholson\Ledger\Leto\Phoenix Jokers... which were actually the main topic.

Although the Leto Joker was famously panned, I think it was actually a pretty faithful adaptation of the Joker from the same-named 2008 graphic novel (I have not yet read the sequel) in which the Joker was pretty much just a outlandish, dangerous gangster. Maybe that wasn't the greatest choice to adapt. Of course, I think any Joker coming on Heath Ledger's heels is going to come up pretty short.

So far as the new movie - No matter how many trailers I see, it doesn't look appealing to me. Will I see it anyway? Of course, I will watch damn near anything in the theater because I love going to the movies.

 gorgon wrote:
You're certainly allowed that opinion, but I don't think many people found him to be particularly scary. The Nicholson Joker's roots are clearly that of the light-hearted Joker of the '50s and '60s, who robbed banks and had lots of silly gadgets. It's a really good performance, but the character is just too campy and played for too many laughs to seem truly threatening.

So basically it's the difference between campy James bond with gadgets and realistic assassin James bond. You know best bond might make another good thread if anybody wants to start that one.

I may not have seen the movie but does anybody remember the story where robin is a girl, Batman comes out of retirement to fight crime and the joker kills an audience of people after he tells them he will. There was a legit moment when he told them that where it's just super creepy and scary in an unnerving way. Can't remember the name of the movie but it's animated.

Are you guys aware the dude that played bender (from futurama) and Marcus Fenix from the gears franchise was a joker once in an animated film.

As far as jokers go I'd either go with heath' s or hamills. It's too tough to judge and they both bring fun aspects to it. I agree heath is more chaotic whereas hamills is more silly and scary. Dark knight still had a dumb scene where they only leave one guy watching the joker with the door open. I get he was handcuffed but come on that's just bad writing. Guess someone wrote themselves in a corner with that one.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
does anybody remember the story where robin is a girl, Batman comes out of retirement to fight crime and the joker kills an audience of people after he tells them he will. There was a legit moment when he told them that where it's just super creepy and scary in an unnerving way. Can't remember the name of the movie but it's animated.
.

Of course - it's one of the most famous Batman comics ever! It's the Dark Knight Returns.

Yeah dark knight returns was animated at one point. It's either one or 2 parts and was made some years back. It looked pretty gritty. That's something I don't see in enough movies anymore. It's a back and forth cultural fad I guess. It's like when video games were all dark, gritty, gray and featured space marines of a sort or when ww2 shooters were all the rage. Personally I just hate over-saturation of anything.