Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I thoght Jacks joker was good more comic like but the new joker just blow's things away he's more life like. He should get an oscar and the dark night is by far the best batman film makes me wish they never made the last four !

http://www.rotheblog.com/images/movies/d_movies/joker_wizardfull.jpg
Heath's Joker is more Menacing than Jack's I think
http://beetstro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/joker.jpg
And I like the fact that the Joker that Heath played had no real back-ground (Since in the comics Joker's origin is essentially unknown).


But nothing compares to the horror brought on by... this man...
http://open.salon.com/files/Joker_Romero.jpg

This choice is spectacularly easy. It's got to be Ledger.

Ledger, hands down.

Hands down Heath's Joker pwns all others..


Don't get me wrong, Cesar Romero's Joker was great for the times..

Jack's Joker was good but lacked a lot, while Heath just blew you away in his mannerisms as well as his performance..

Heath's joker.
Jack's joker kind of came across as more cheesy than scary..

After watching the performance a couple more times (thanks to my TDK DVD), I think we overrated Heath Ledger's (R.I.P.) Joker a tiny bit...

Don't get me wrong, he's still bar none the best live action Joker we've ever had the pleasure of viewing (Jack's is still good, though, especially during the Joybuzzer scene), but he didn't seem "amazing" anymore after the first viewing (maybe that's just me)...

Let me put it this way: Is Heath's Joker the best we've seen? Hell yeah. Is he untouchable in the role? Absolutely not.

I think it's just like with Christian Bale as Batman: The first time you saw him in character, you were in awe, and immediately went on the internet to rant about how awesome he was, but after repeated viewings, you begin to realize it isn't the perfect performance...

But yeah, Ledger > Nicholson, though I still enjoy Jack's Englehart/Rogers Joker...

A guy named Mark did a better job, may the force be with you.

Well, actually, Hamill would be pretty terrible as The Joker in a live action film...

Joker 89 for the stomp


Heaths joker was a run of the mil..psycho.....that was not the joker to me....jacks joker at least tried to be more like the comics and succeded...i dont think it was heaths fault...i think it has more to do with Nolan trying to make the movie as real life as he could.

Joker 08 was more of a trickster than a Joker.

I like both for different reasons. I feel like Jack's Joker is more wacky dark insane like in the comics but I feel Heath's Joker's definitely was a scarier villain but he had a completely different backdrop to work against. I appreciate both though. I think the Dark Knight as a whole was just such a great movie that everything it is quite superior to most anything in the comic book movie genre though. Well except that horrid Bat voice.

Originally posted by starlock
Joker 89 for the stomp


Heaths joker was a run of the mil..psycho.....that was not the joker to me....jacks joker at least tried to be more like the comics and succeded...i dont think it was heaths fault...i think it has more to do with Nolan trying to make the movie as real life as he could.


...... But the 89 Joker was cheesy

run of the mill? I don't know ANYbody that can put up a performance like that.

Originally posted by TheGame17
...... But the 89 Joker was cheesy

run of the mill? I don't know ANYbody that can put up a performance like that.

Ooh, i can think of 1 actor that could have brought us somethign JUST as spectacular to the role, D.D Lewis.

But saying that, what heath did with the role was nothing short of amazing. No-one expected it. A nd because he is the only one who could have played it that way, he deserves an oscar.

I personally when I first saw the Joker in 1989 didn't think he was cheesy. I thought he was scary.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I personally when I first saw the Joker in 1989 didn't think he was cheesy. I thought he was scary.

Yeah, he killed a guy with a pen.

Heath's Joker did it better though.

Originally posted by Wil Deidara
Yeah, he killed a guy with a pen.
That scene actually scared me as a kid. Like seriously terrified me.

I like them both for different reasons. They represent different interpretations of the Joker from the comics.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
After watching the performance a couple more times (thanks to my TDK DVD), I think we overrated Heath Ledger's (R.I.P.) Joker a tiny bit...

Don't get me wrong, he's still bar none the best live action Joker we've ever had the pleasure of viewing (Jack's is still good, though, especially during the Joybuzzer scene), but he didn't seem "amazing" anymore after the first viewing (maybe that's just me)...

Let me put it this way: Is Heath's Joker the best we've seen? Hell yeah. Is he untouchable in the role? Absolutely not.

I think it's just like with Christian Bale as Batman: The first time you saw him in character, you were in awe, and immediately went on the internet to rant about how awesome he was, but after repeated viewings, you begin to realize it isn't the perfect performance...

But yeah, Ledger > Nicholson, though I still enjoy Jack's Englehart/Rogers Joker...

I pretty much agree with everything you said except for the part of Bale as Batman since he is really the only true Bruce Wayne/Batman to have played the role so far.As you know,Bale was everything I always expected out of both Bruce Wayne/Batman that none of the other actors could ever grasp completely.so i totally disagree that after repeated viewings of him that he didnt give the perfect performance.Other than that,I agree with everything you said.Yeah he was the best to have played the role on the movie screen anyways.I still like Romero as the best of them all though as far as live action actors.counting Mark I likes Marks the best though.but yeah Ledger isnt untouchable as Joker.I also agree with what Keefer said that both Jack and Ledger were good in the part cause both are different interpretations.same applies to Romero.

SERIOUSLY, Parker? SERIOUSLY? Cesar is better than Heath?!?!

Hamill was good, but he was awesome only in Mask of the Phantasm and Return of the Joker. He was much darker and crueler in these ones. I mean, am I the only one who thinks that a Joker who doesn't personally kill is a bit annoying?

well no not better. I just personally liked him the best cause he was the only one on screen that LOOKED like the joker.I didnt care for nicholson cause he had the wrong build.when they got Nolan I thought I would have the perfect joker on film that I would always love since he is the only director so far in the movie who cast Bale who has been the one and only true bruce wayne/batman to play the role and like i said, was great as BOTH bruce wayne and batman something that all the other actors failed to accomplish.while I was pleased that he cast someone that had the right physical build for the role,I hated his look,thats one thing right Burton did was get the LOOK of the joker right. so since Romero was the only one that had BOTH the right build AND right look,he is my personal favorite of the three.Not that he is the best of them all,its just he is my favorite cause he was always constantly laughing all the time the way the joker does-something that jack and heath didnt do so he is my personal favorite.

I personally think a combo of Jack and Heath's Joker would be the perfect Joker. I agree Nicholson was a bit out of shape but I think he still played the role well enough. But I think that Heath's Joker was a bit MORE of a mastermind than Nicholson's was though I do think Nicholson's Joker's take over of the Gotham mob and his poisoning of Gotham's beauty products was pretty brilliant and cruel. However Heath's Joker was missing a bit of whimsy. Yes the Joker is a dark sinister killer but he has fun with it and there is a certain silliness about it. Killing people with joy buzzers etc. Heath's Joker didn't have that completely to me. There were glimmers of it though.

Mr. Parker- Romero is your favorite because he looks most like the comics? That's, if you don't mind me saying, a tad bit shallow. Isn't the character's substance a bit more important than their PHYSICAL APPEARANCE? Seriously, dude. Personalities are more important than looks, if you know what I mean- definitely in a movie character. Laughing all the time is just annoying. And whimsical. Romero's Joker was no where near evil enough (Surfing contest!), sadistic, dark, or scary enough to qualify as anything other than a watered down, made-for-kids version of the 60's Joker. To me, these qualities- that actually form who the Joker is- are infinitely more important than the character's external qualities. Like the comics =/= best, not to mention that- in personality- Romero's Joker is almost nothing like the Joker of today. He was a pathetic villain by today's standards.

Romero's Joker was the silliest conceivable version of the Joker, even though he is arguably the most faithful adaption of the Joker of his time. That being said, though, these times were hardly the best time for comics, and it doesn't have anything to do with today's Joker. Nicholson? Took the style of the Joker of these days, left out the substance (which is a nice summary of the Burton movies). He was a laughing psycho with creative methods of murder. But he lacked what made the Joker tick, outside of the "You-created-me-I-created-you-thing", which was undeveloped anyway. He didn't have the fascination with Batman, and he lacked the will to prove that morality is bullshit and insanity is the natural thing in our times. He also didn't mind-**** people, which I always thought was an important part of the Joker.

Heath's? He took the basic qualities of the Joker (look, laughter, motives) and expanded upon them, to create his own version of the Joker. He was the closest to the Joker depicted in stories like the Killing Joke- in his core. Heath simply gave him a more subdued, realistic personality and made him scary as hell. Comics are a different medium than film- therefore, films have to make alterations to the source material. As a movie, Heath works the best out of the three Jokers. Even his appearance is flat-out awesome, similarity to the comics be damned.

So, yes, he is definitely my favorite Joker. He was actually pretty funny, too, but in a darker and more subtle way.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Well, actually, Hamill would be pretty terrible as The Joker in a live action film...

He was, however exelent as the voice for the 90's Animated series.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Mr. Parker- Romero is your favorite because he looks most like the comics? That's, if you don't mind me saying, a tad bit shallow. Isn't the character's substance a bit more important than their PHYSICAL APPEARANCE? Seriously, dude. Personalities are more important than looks, if you know what I mean- definitely in a movie character. Laughing all the time is just annoying. And whimsical. Romero's Joker was no where near evil enough (Surfing contest!), sadistic, dark, or scary enough to qualify as anything other than a watered down, made-for-kids version of the 60's Joker. To me, these qualities- that actually form who the Joker is- are infinitely more important than the character's external qualities. Like the comics =/= best, not to mention that- in personality- Romero's Joker is almost nothing like the Joker of today. He was a pathetic villain by today's standards.

Romero's Joker was the silliest conceivable version of the Joker, even though he is arguably the most faithful adaption of the Joker of his time. That being said, though, these times were hardly the best time for comics, and it doesn't have anything to do with today's Joker. Nicholson? Took the style of the Joker of these days, left out the substance (which is a nice summary of the Burton movies). He was a laughing psycho with creative methods of murder. But he lacked what made the Joker tick, outside of the "You-created-me-I-created-you-thing", which was undeveloped anyway. He didn't have the fascination with Batman, and he lacked the will to prove that morality is bullshit and insanity is the natural thing in our times. He also didn't mind-**** people, which I always thought was an important part of the Joker.

Heath's? He took the basic qualities of the Joker (look, laughter, motives) and expanded upon them, to create his own version of the Joker. He was the closest to the Joker depicted in stories like the Killing Joke- in his core. Heath simply gave him a more subdued, realistic personality and made him scary as hell. Comics are a different medium than film- therefore, films have to make alterations to the source material. As a movie, Heath works the best out of the three Jokers. Even his appearance is flat-out awesome, similarity to the comics be damned.

So, yes, he is definitely my favorite Joker. He was actually pretty funny, too, but in a darker and more subtle way.

I agree, but you forgot to mention that Romero had a ****ing moustache!

He was also pretty flabby.

Yeah, that mustache is hilarious though. Sorry, did I say hilarious? I meant ****ing horrifying.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
I agree, but you forgot to mention that Romero had a ****ing moustache!

LOL! That was funny. Every close up shot of his face you could see it.

After repeated viewings of the Dark Knight, I realized I didn't like the fact that Ledger's Joker didn't use any of comic Joker's trademark weapons...ie, palm-buzzer, acid flower, etc.

He was psycho but what made him THE JOKER? If anything, Jack's Joker used chemicals to make victims laugh and twist their faces into a creepy smile right before they died and to me, that's a lot more mentally disturbing than being cut up and applied lipstick a la Heath's Joker.

dqAvubu70Yc


Tough choice, but I think I'm gonna have to go with Ledger on this one, though I admit HL's Joker wasn't as true to the character, but eh.. I liked his Joker laugh and stuff more than Jack's , but both were very good for their respectable films, especially for their time period.

How about something more one-sided? Two-Face 95 vs Two-Face 08

Read The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth and then tell me that Jack's Joker is more faithful to the comics.

The original and current Joker is an intelligent lunatic with a sadistic sense of humor, but also with some sort of method to his madness.

He wants to prove as Crimzon said, morality is bullshit, and insanity is the natural thing.

Sure, Jack had all the funny gadgets, but those are just superficial things. He lacked the Joker ideology.

Joker has an obsession with Batman, and desires to make Batman just like him, a murderer.

All are traits of Heath's Joker.

So yeah, although he(And Mark Hamill's Joker) are my faves, with that said, I still enjoyed Jack's performance, though not as much.

The only reason Mr Parker likes Cesor Romero's Joker is thats how he remembers The joker from the comics he has read


Parker you might want to check out some of these other titles people have mentioned (The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth).

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Read The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth and then tell me that Jack's Joker is more faithful to the comics.

The original and current Joker is an intelligent lunatic with a sadistic sense of humor, but also with some sort of method to his madness.

He wants to prove as Crimzon said, morality is bullshit, and insanity is the natural thing.

Sure, Jack had all the funny gadgets, but those are just superficial things. He lacked the Joker ideology.

Joker has an obsession with Batman, and desires to make Batman just like him, a murderer.

All are traits of Heath's Joker.

So yeah, although he(And Mark Hamill's Joker) are my faves, with that said, I still enjoyed Jack's performance, though not as much.
Jack's Joker was obsessed with Batman too but he was just obsessed with one upping him which is also an aspect of the Joker as well. Like I said I do think Heath's Joker definitely captured a lot of the mentality of the Joker but I don't think the personality was matched quite so well. I mean I can't imagine Heath's Joker running around mad trying to stop Holiday in the Long Halloween just because Holiday was becoming more famous than him. That is something I could think of Jack's doing though.

As I said I think a flawless portrayal would have been a combination of the both of them. But both I think did great with what they were given, and Heath just had a better role and better script to play off of.

I liked both Joker's. Heath's was scary, and so was Jack's. I couldn't choose who did a better job.

Now just imagine if back in 1989 Jack had the script for 2008. I would have loved to have seen Jack in the money burning role when he grabbed the other mobster and said "Tell your boys they work for me now." I think that whole scene with jack in 1989 would have been awesome.


On a side note, just imagine if Ledger's death was all a scam? Imagine if his death was faked by Hollywood, for the purpose of bringing in the big bucks for the next Batman film, and no one knew about it until the next Batman release. Wouldn't that be something!!! Could you imagine the frenzy to see that movie.


.....ahh, IF ONLY.....

R.I.P. Ledger

Originally posted by CellDweller
Now just imagine if back in 1989 Jack had the script for 2008. I would have loved to have seen Jack in the money burning role when he grabbed the other mobster and said "Tell your boys they work for me now." I think that whole scene with jack in 1989 would have been awesome.


On a side note, just imagine if Ledger's death was all a scam? Imagine if his death was faked by Hollywood, for the purpose of bringing in the big bucks for the next Batman film, and no one knew about it until the next Batman release. Wouldn't that be something!!! Could you imagine the frenzy to see that movie.


.....ahh, IF ONLY.....

R.I.P. Ledger
lol.. One would expect a bunch of angry reactions if that happened.

But yeah, I agree.

Heath Ledger was a far better Joker imo. It's been a long time since I've seen Batman '89, but from what I remember, Jack Nicholson's Joker felt too much like Jack Nicholson himself. Everytime he spoke, I heard Jack. I can't hear any trace of Ledger in his role as the Joker. I can accept that his Joker was changed to fit the tone/atmosphere of Nolan's Batverse, it didn't bug me.

I can haz Joker..?

lol @ Cesar Romero/the 60's Joker being placed alongside Jack's and Heath's version.

Originally posted by TheGame17
...... But the 89 Joker was cheesy

run of the mill? I don't know ANYbody that can put up a performance like that.



Well i can think of plenty..but thats not to say that just because i did not like it..does not mean heath's not a good actor...i prefere a comic book joker..for a comic book movie....heaths performance to me..was nothing special...thats just my opinion....i dont like certain music..and certain albums put out by bands i do like....but i respect the talent behind it.....but its the batman forum and hey..we all have our likes and dislikes....i do not believe it was heaths fault..in fact i dont like bale as bruce or batman...he does not fit any incarnation of batman i have ever read in my 30 years of reading batman...he looks nothing like him..and he has the wrong build...his speech is horrible...but again...for me thats not batman...but i think he has alot of talent though..in any case for this threads purpose...if we took the whole history of batman...and i dont mean what has been recently(for teenagers who know nothing of the long history of batman and the joker)..which for batman is a fraction of his history...we would see a batman that does not fit and a joker..who is not any joker i have ever read...but i understand times change...i just dont have to like it..thats all

Jack's joker easily for me

I'll never really be satisfied until Mark Hamil's Joker can somehow be brought unto the big screen.

how can anyone forget Heath's Joker's firetruck? That is the Joker's humor! And the dressing up as a nurse? Not to mention the blowing up of the hospital, you know when he keeps pressing the button to make a bigger explosion. All of those traits and gags are true to the Joker. Therefore, Heath's Joker rocks.

Originally posted by DethRose
how can anyone forget Heath's Joker's firetruck? That is the Joker's humor! And the dressing up as a nurse? Not to mention the blowing up of the hospital, you know when he keeps pressing the button to make a bigger explosion. All of those traits and gags are true to the Joker. Therefore, Heath's Joker rocks.

QFT...

Dark Knight wasn't about Batman... It was about Joker...

That portrayal was the best... and it will never be seen again... bawling

Originally posted by MisterAJ
QFT...

Dark Knight wasn't about Batman... It was about Joker...

That portrayal was the best... and it will never be seen again... bawling
BAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!11!!

Originally posted by MisterAJ

Dark Knight wasn't about Batman... It was about Joker...

That's not a good thing. The story should always be about the hero, not the villain.

Except when the villain has a better actor/pulls off a better acting performance, which was the case in TDK. Bale was great in Batman Begins, but his performance in TDK was nothing special in comparison. I never had a problem with his voice though like some seem to have.

I never thought Bale was GREAT in either movie. He is adequate but he never really gets a ton to work with. I'm starting to think it's the character of Batman on screen though. As Bruce mainly broods, entertains people and then he is most compelling when he is fighting crime. I personally though think Batman got to do the most in this film and I was happy with that, especially the action scenes this time.

A load of Burton fans are confused as to why Nolan fans are praising Heath's Joker and his dominance of the film while condemning the fact that the villains upstaged the hero in the original movies. Well, I think that's a misunderstanding. The Dark Knight is fundamentally about Batman and his conflict; he's still the central character with human emotions and real moral conflicts. After all, it's his ethical dilemma that carries the film's narrative.

In the Burton movies, Batman is really just a one-dimensional, uninteresting character with little emotional relevance to the story.

I don't think that is necessarily true. The scripts were not as good in the Burton films I agree but I still felt the struggle between his two identities and his life of isolation and obsession with crime. And thankfully in the Burton movies Batman had a lot less dialogue. He talked way too much IMO in the Dark Knight and that voice grated.

I didn't feel any sort of struggle coming from Bruce. I mean, seriously- the man had no problem getting whatever he wants. The Batman identity never got in the way of his personal desire and such. He displayed no sort of moral or emotional value to the story; in fact, he repeatedly murdered people (and got a completely selfish 'revenge', too), and that is shown to be completely okay. He doesn't mind it. That's simplistic and one-dimensional.

Bale's Batman, however, was a very interesting character who adds a lot to the story; his ethical choices are, in particular, riveting and thought-provoking. He's a flawed character, even directly within the movie. The Dark Knight also questions Batman's motives and the general sanity of a vigilante who dresses up like a bat; did Burton's films have any of that? No.

The revenge aspect isn't shocking considering what he discovered though that whole plot twist wasn't right. Even Bruce went after Joe Chill in Begins. I don't feel he was simplistic or one dimensional at all. And I don't think Bruce was 100% complex in the Dark Knight either. I think he had more compelling stuff to work with in Begins, but Begins was boring to me.

I don't think the plot twist 'wasn't right'. I didn't have any problem with the fact that the Joker killed Bruce's parents; the only problem was that the whole plot point was undeveloped and endorsed simplistic vigilante justice by letting Bruce kill the Joker and be absolutely cool with it. In Batman Begins, Bruce didn't kill Joe Chill, and the movie portrays that aspect of selfish revenge as wrong. Really, do you want a Batman who is perfectly fine with killing nonstop, using selfish revenge, and has the ability to lead a perfectly normal life and still has no actual emotional conflict or dilemmas to deal with? THAT'S one-dimensional.

Btw, I agree that Bruce's story in Begins was more compelling, but that's because the whole movie was about him. TDK is really an ensemble movie.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I never thought Bale was GREAT in either movie. He is adequate but he never really gets a ton to work with. I'm starting to think it's the character of Batman on screen though. As Bruce mainly broods, entertains people and then he is most compelling when he is fighting crime. I personally though think Batman got to do the most in this film and I was happy with that, especially the action scenes this time. One of the things I was suprised by when I first saw the movie was how impressive Bale was and how overhyped Ledger was. I think that was mostly because it is usually more impacting to see a tragic character rather than pure evil. Bale did everything that was required of Bruce Wayne, which is a human being trying to become an ubermensch. He is an almost perfect human being physically and mentally, but is having his ethics pushed to the limit. If the character seems boring, it is because he is almost at the pinnacle of perfection, or tries to be. This idea that an actor try to push "beyond" the role required makes little sense for Bruce/Batman because he is his philosophy.

And Jack wasn't overhyped for his time?

I think Jack was the only good part of '89 Batman. His performace is very underrated by Ledger fanboys(though I admit that Ledger was better). '89 Batman is a failure on all levels when compared to TDK, even the visuals are better.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
After watching the performance a couple more times (thanks to my TDK DVD), I think we overrated Heath Ledger's (R.I.P.) Joker a tiny bit...

Don't get me wrong, he's still bar none the best live action Joker we've ever had the pleasure of viewing (Jack's is still good, though, especially during the Joybuzzer scene), but he didn't seem "amazing" anymore after the first viewing (maybe that's just me)...

Let me put it this way: Is Heath's Joker the best we've seen? Hell yeah. Is he untouchable in the role? Absolutely not.

I think it's just like with Christian Bale as Batman: The first time you saw him in character, you were in awe, and immediately went on the internet to rant about how awesome he was, but after repeated viewings, you begin to realize it isn't the perfect performance...

But yeah, Ledger > Nicholson, though I still enjoy Jack's Englehart/Rogers Joker...

The same could be said with just about any role, not just Heath's Joker.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I don't think the plot twist 'wasn't right'. I didn't have any problem with the fact that the Joker killed Bruce's parents; the only problem was that the whole plot point was undeveloped and endorsed simplistic vigilante justice by letting Bruce kill the Joker and be absolutely cool with it. In Batman Begins, Bruce didn't kill Joe Chill, and the movie portrays that aspect of selfish revenge as wrong. Really, do you want a Batman who is perfectly fine with killing nonstop, using selfish revenge, and has the ability to lead a perfectly normal life and still has no actual emotional conflict or dilemmas to deal with? THAT'S one-dimensional.

Btw, I agree that Bruce's story in Begins was more compelling, but that's because the whole movie was about him. TDK is really an ensemble movie.
I don't really consider Batman having killed the Joker. I feel like the Joker did himself in by trying to escape that desperately after getting tethered to that statue.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I think Jack was the only good part of '89 Batman. His performace is very underrated by Ledger fanboys(though I admit that Ledger was better). '89 Batman is a failure on all levels when compared to TDK, even the visuals are better.
I still like 1989 and appreciate what it did for the genre at the time but yes TDK is superior but it's superior to every comic book movie

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I don't really consider Batman having killed the Joker. I feel like the Joker did himself in by trying to escape that desperately after getting tethered to that statue.

Batman wanted to kill the Joker, and there is no indication he wouldn't have done it otherwise.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Batman wanted to kill the Joker, and there is no indication he wouldn't have done it otherwise.
Yea but that doesn't mean he did do it. Which I don't think he did. I think there was a point where he wanted to kill him in the Dark Knight as well

'89-Batman killed Joker because of the Hollywood-isation of Batman, not
because it had anything to do with who, and what, the Batman is...

(Same hollywoodisation lead to Batman and Robin... )

Batman begins and Dark knight is more in tune with Batman as we know it...

Now, I love Burton's movies, even today...
I loved them when they came out...

I think Jack did a great Joker...

But, in the end, ledger WAS better, because in that one, we got to see his TWISTED side... his FEARLESS side...

And, although that was more of a script thing, not a actor thing, in TDK, the Joker WAS portrayed as a criminal GENIUS...

(But man am I glad none of us ever got to see Jack in a nurses uniform... LOL...)

Good point.

Looking back, I also enjoyed what Joel Schumacher did with Batman Forever. Sure, it may have been a bit more kid-friendly as opposed to Batman 89 and Batman Returns, but it was still a big hit. Schumacher just got carried away with the use of corny lines in Batman & Robin (one of the first lines in the movie being "chicks dig the car", and those countless ice/freeze puns). Of course, that was the least of the film's problems.

As pleased as I was with Batman Forever for its time period, still kinda makes me wonder how much better it and Batman&Robin might have been had Tim Burton also directed them instead of Schumacher.

Batman didn't kill Joker in 1989; just got his leg tied to the building so he couldn't escape in the helicopter. That he eventually lost his grip wasn't his fault. (Hey - how come he didn't just remained tied to the building after he let go?)
Batman was a little more ruthless with lethal force in that film, but they were reflecting the very early days of the comic, where criminals did die & Batman shrugged it off as part of the good fight. That got pulled back in the late 40's - same time as it happened with Superman - and this editorial edict of 'Batman Doesn't Kill' took hold.


Oh - Joker 08 beats Joker 89.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Good point.

Looking back, I also enjoyed what Joel Schumacher did with Batman Forever. Sure, it may have been a bit more kid-friendly as opposed to Batman 89 and Batman Returns, but it was still a big hit. Schumacher just got carried away with the use of corny lines in Batman & Robin (one of the first lines in the movie being "chicks dig the car", and those countless ice/freeze puns). Of course, that was the least of the film's problems.

As pleased as I was with Batman Forever for its time period, still kinda makes me wonder how much better it and Batman&Robin might have been had Tim Burton also directed them instead of Schumacher.
Even as a kid I thought Batman Forever was shit And I knew it was when they showed me Batman's ass for no reason

Originally posted by roughrider
Batman didn't kill Joker in 1989; just got his leg tied to the building so he couldn't escape in the helicopter. That he eventually lost his grip wasn't his fault. (Hey - how come he didn't just remained tied to the building after he let go?)
Batman was a little more ruthless with lethal force in that film, but they were reflecting the very early days of the comic, where criminals did die & Batman shrugged it off as part of the good fight. That got pulled back in the late 40's - same time as it happened with Superman - and this editorial edict of 'Batman Doesn't Kill' took hold.


Oh - Joker 08 beats Joker 89.
The Joker held on and kept trying to take off until one of the gargoyles came lose and it pulled him to his death. That's why he died when he let go.

Personally I don't think anything Batman did in 1989 was even THAT ruthless. For example I don't think him blowing up Axis chemicals was any worse than what Batman did in the Dark Knight by blowing up all those cars to "intimidate" the thugs when he first appeared. Batman blew up Axis chemicals with all those thugs inside true but he didn't go there to kill the thugs he went there to destroy the chemicals the Joker was using to kill everyone else. Though I do believe he'd be more careful than that if it was true to character. However I don't get how that is anymore wreckless than the "intimidate" scene because when he blew up those cars he had no way of knowing no one would die or get hurt.

And when he flipped over the Joker's truck he had no way of knowing the Joker wouldn't die or that none of his henchmen weren't in there could potentially die too. But you rarely hear anyone complaining about his irresponsibility with human life in those cases

I did react to that...

However, it does seem "less" lethal now a days due to heat seeking cameras/motion detectors/etc. being able to distinguish between living
and on-living objects...

(Yes, it's quasi-science, but just go with it...)

89-Bat judo-threw thugs off the bell tower...

Originally posted by MisterAJ
I did react to that...

However, it does seem "less" lethal now a days due to heat seeking cameras/motion detectors/etc. being able to distinguish between living
and on-living objects...

(Yes, it's quasi-science, but just go with it...)

89-Bat judo-threw thugs off the bell tower...
And Begins Bats lets them die on crashing trains without any remorse. I think both series have problematic portrayals of his no kill policy. 1989 completely ignored it though I agree but I think they were going for a different Batman portrayal period. But even as it has been played up as an important aspect of his character in the new series there have been too many careless moments on Batman's part to ignore.

as my friend once said all the previous incarnation of the Joker and Batman is very much geared towards the children but with the new milenium, theyre making very dark and more like the comics

especially the Joker. before Ledger's performance, the Joker wasnt really a serious villain to be dealt with, very weak and kiddie clown like. but with TDK the Joker was based more on the comics so he comes off as the baddest mother****er youve ever dealt with

same with the comics industry, Marvel aims more at children while DC is more adult oriented

Originally posted by Doc Ock
That's not a good thing. The story should always be about the hero, not the villain.

I disagree. It's always about the good guy. It gets boring. Bring us something about the bad guys. They have cooler costumes, sometimes better catchphrases and well, they are cooler in every way.

Originally posted by DethRose
I disagree. It's always about the good guy. It gets boring. Bring us something about the bad guys. They have cooler costumes, sometimes better catchphrases and well, they are cooler in every way. I respect people who think TDK is all about the Joker, but I disagree. It is very much about Batman and his ethics, as well as the ethics of vigilance in general.

Yea I think TDK is about Batman and the Joker's struggle for control over the fate of Gotham and everyone else in it are just pawns or bit players. Unfortunately for my beloved Two Face

Yeah.. We may have not gotten as much Face as we might have liked, but he served his purpose. The emphasis was put on Dent rather than Two-Face. A genius move, as Harvey is very tragic and captures the audiences' emotions in TDK.
And he's my favorite Batman villain, so yeah.

As my second favorite Batman villain I think he was gyped be being made just a pawn in the Joker's game. I like Two Face and Harvey about equally but I would have preferred this movie being a set up to Two Face being a villain in the third than having him offed like that before he really got to do any real damage as a villain.

Yes it was emotional to see Harvey fall but what I liked about Two Face especially his portrayal in the animated series is that seeing him fall made watching him as a villain that much MORE compelling and created more conflict for Batman when it came to fighting him because Batman was still obsessed with saving him even though really there was only half a man left to save and not the Harvey that Batman can't seem to let go of.

There is a complexity there that was completely missed or short changed in my opinion because of how quickly he was gotten rid of

I preferred Romero.

Originally posted by MisterAJ
I did react to that...

However, it does seem "less" lethal now a days due to heat seeking cameras/motion detectors/etc. being able to distinguish between living
and on-living objects...

(Yes, it's quasi-science, but just go with it...)

89-Bat judo-threw thugs off the bell tower...

In Detective Comics #27, in one of the panels after the criminal dies (because Batman PUNCHED HIM INTO A POOL OF ACID), Batman says "a fitting end for his kind"...

Burton's Batman was a different portrayal, is all...

I just watched 89 Batman, and I can't lie, Jack's Joker was pretty much like the comic one, he had no idea what he was doing. Then I watched Ledgers performance, and he knew what he was doing, he was just crazy. I like both, but IMO, Jack's is better because he did it just like the real Joker. Both Jack and Heath did better than Cesar Romero.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Romero.nicholson.ledger_%28joker%29.jpg

He looks like a comedian.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
In Detective Comics #27, in one of the panels after the criminal dies (because Batman PUNCHED HIM INTO A POOL OF ACID), Batman says "a fitting end for his kind"...

Burton's Batman was a different portrayal, is all...

Yeah, in "the old days", batman killed villains left, right and center...

Trowing them of buildings and stuff... Think he even shot a guy once, but thats not really the "modern batman", is it..?

Originally posted by Ultimate Wil
I just watched 89 Batman, and I can't lie, Jack's Joker was pretty much like the comic one, he had no idea what he was doing. Then I watched Ledgers performance, and he knew what he was doing, he was just crazy. I like both, but IMO, Jack's is better because he did it just like the real Joker. Both Jack and Heath did better than Cesar Romero.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Romero.nicholson.ledger_%28joker%29.jpg

He looks like a comedian.

To be honest I thought that Heath took the character much more seriously than the other two. Jack just seemed to be acting as himself if he got drunk on Halloween while dressed up as a clown. I enjoyed the performance, I really did, but no one went as in depth with the psyche and twisted nature of the Joker like Heath did.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Yea but that doesn't mean he did do it. Which I don't think he did. I think there was a point where he wanted to kill him in the Dark Knight as well

You're kidding, right? Batman clearly killed the Joker in the '89 version. He shot a wire around his legs and wrapped it to a gargoyle so he'd fall. If that's not intentionally killing someone, then what is? Also, in TDK, he didn't kill the Joker. There's a HUGE difference between wanting to kill someone, and actually doing it.

'89 Joker - Dead
'08 Joker - Alive

Originally posted by Tommy Jarvis
You're kidding, right? Batman clearly killed the Joker in the '89 version. He shot a wire around his legs and wrapped it to a gargoyle so he'd fall. If that's not intentionally killing someone, then what is? Also, in TDK, he didn't kill the Joker. There's a HUGE difference between wanting to kill someone, and actually doing it.

'89 Joker - Dead
'08 Joker - Alive

How come that does not make sense...."He shot a wire around his legs and wrapped it to a gargoyle so he'd fall".....does it really mean that much to you that you come up with this illogical notion?.....dont you think he wanted the joker to be stuck to the gargoyle so he would not get away....the joker did not let go of the ladder and he paid the price for it.....please comments like this make me feel like a 8 year old is trying to defend his ideal batman to the point of making up ones own reality

Originally posted by Tommy Jarvis
To be honest I thought that Heath took the character much more seriously than the other two. Jack just seemed to be acting as himself if he got drunk on Halloween while dressed up as a clown. I enjoyed the performance, I really did, but no one went as in depth with the psyche and twisted nature of the Joker like Heath did.
i agree with ya there

Does anyone have a body count for TDK's Joker? As in, confirmed, on-screen deaths? I remember I did one for B89's Joker, and it came to around 14-16 people... I'm curious to see which Joker killed more people...

The Joker in Burton's film killed many more than 14-16 people. He released a gas that killed a restaurant full of people.

Originally posted by starlock
How come that does not make sense...."He shot a wire around his legs and wrapped it to a gargoyle so he'd fall".....does it really mean that much to you that you come up with this illogical notion?.....dont you think he wanted the joker to be stuck to the gargoyle so he would not get away....the joker did not let go of the ladder and he paid the price for it.....please comments like this make me feel like a 8 year old is trying to defend his ideal batman to the point of making up ones own reality

Illogical notion? Also, you're honestly telling me that I sound like an 8 year old when your entire paragraph is full of mispelled words and non-existent sentences? Dude, if I wrap a wire around your leg and it's connected to a gargoyle, then gravity dictates you'll fall because there is weight wrapped around your body and it's bringing you down. If Batman simply didn't want him to get away, he'd have connected him to something lighter. I like how you think my ideal Batman is one who kills, because it isn't. The Batman in the Burton movies killed many, many people, and the Batman I know doesn't kill, as in the BB & TDK movies.

Before you try to sound all smart and correct someone, it's best you do so without making assumptions. Nice try, though.

Originally posted by Tommy Jarvis
Illogical notion? Also, you're honestly telling me that I sound like an 8 year old when your entire paragraph is full of mispelled words and non-existent sentences? Dude, if I wrap a wire around your leg and it's connected to a gargoyle, then gravity dictates you'll fall because there is weight wrapped around your body and it's bringing you down. If Batman simply didn't want him to get away, he'd have connected him to something lighter. I like how you think my ideal Batman is one who kills, because it isn't. The Batman in the Burton movies killed many, many people, and the Batman I know doesn't kill, as in the BB & TDK movies.

Before you try to sound all smart and correct someone, it's best you do so without making assumptions. Nice try, though.
Ummm if he connected him to something lighter he would have gotten away. Batman didn't do that so the Joker would plunge to his death. The Joker plunged to his death because he continued to try to escape loosening the gargoyle and it fell.

And Batman killed people in Batman Begins too. I guess people like to forget that there is no guarantee all those people got out of that dojo he blew up trying to save that so called murderer (who by the way he didn't even make sure if that guy got out safe). I watched BB over recently and some of those people seem like they didn't make it out of there before it blew up but Bruce was hardly concerned if they did or didn't except for Ducard.

And how is the gargoyle thing killing the Joker and cruel, but having Gordon blow up the train rails by his instruction and then leaving Ras on the train to die not just as bad?

Both series of movies have had flawed portrayals. I think Nolan's has definitely tried to enforce his no kill rule but Batman has still done reckless things in his films too. He also had no clue the Joker wouldn't die when he flipped that semi over in the Dark Knight and there was no guarantee someone wouldn't be fatally injured during the Intimidate scene when he was blowing up those cars. So let's cut the crap

He's not directly responsible for Ra's death. As he said, he didn't have to kill or save him. The plan wasn't ever to kill Ra's, only to stop him from wiping out Gotham. In Burton's movie Batman blatantly said he was going to kill the Joker, which he did. I don't have to cut the crap if it's only spewing from you.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Ummm if he connected him to something lighter he would have gotten away. Batman didn't do that so the Joker would plunge to his death. The Joker plunged to his death because he continued to try to escape loosening the gargoyle and it fell.

And Batman killed people in Batman Begins too. I guess people like to forget that there is no guarantee all those people got out of that dojo he blew up trying to save that so called murderer (who by the way he didn't even make sure if that guy got out safe). I watched BB over recently and some of those people seem like they didn't make it out of there before it blew up but Bruce was hardly concerned if they did or didn't except for Ducard.

And how is the gargoyle thing killing the Joker and cruel, but having Gordon blow up the train rails by his instruction and then leaving Ras on the train to die not just as bad?

Both series of movies have had flawed portrayals. I think Nolan's has definitely tried to enforce his no kill rule but Batman has still done reckless things in his films too. He also had no clue the Joker wouldn't die when he flipped that semi over in the Dark Knight and there was no guarantee someone wouldn't be fatally injured during the Intimidate scene when he was blowing up those cars. So let's cut the crap Batman had it all planned out.
This IS Batman.

Originally posted by Tommy Jarvis
He's not directly responsible for Ra's death. As he said, he didn't have to kill or save him. The plan wasn't ever to kill Ra's, only to stop him from wiping out Gotham. In Burton's movie Batman blatantly said he was going to kill the Joker, which he did. I don't have to cut the crap if it's only spewing from you. I believe Burtons Batman also rolled up with machine-gun fire and some grenade type of things that popped out of the batmobile too? Been a long time since I watched that.

Originally posted by Tommy Jarvis
He's not directly responsible for Ra's death. As he said, he didn't have to kill or save him. The plan wasn't ever to kill Ra's, only to stop him from wiping out Gotham. In Burton's movie Batman blatantly said he was going to kill the Joker, which he did. I don't have to cut the crap if it's only spewing from you.
How isn't he directly responsible for Ra's death? His car and his accomplice under HIS instruction blew up the beams to the train he and Ras were both on and he left Ras on that train to die. Yea he didn't have to save Ras, but he created the situation in which Ras died anyway through Gordon.

Yes Batman told the Joker he was going to kill him but the gargoyle to the leg was not him trying to kill him at all it was trying to prevent him from escaping period if the Joker had simply stopped trying to climb the ladder the gargoyle would have never come lose.

There is no crap spewing from me I'm just not such a fanboy/fangirl that I can't see the flaws in both sets of films when it comes to his no kill rule. The Batman I know doesn't let people die nor does he kill them. He believes no one is above saving, that's why he tries time and time again with the Joker even though he is clearly beyond saving. That's why he won't give up on a city that is CLEARLY going to remain crime ridden one way or another. He's obsessed. I still think him letting Ras die is crap and not true to character and he was responsible for his death no matter how you cut it.

Originally posted by Juntai
I believe Burtons Batman also rolled up with machine-gun fire and some grenade type of things that popped out of the batmobile too? Been a long time since I watched that.
Right because Nolan's batmobile didn't have machine guns and explosives that it fired off in the presence of goons?

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Right because Nolan's batmobile didn't have machine guns and explosives that it fired off in the presence of goons?

That's absolutely correct... I hate how everyone gets all bothered by Burton's Batman having a machine gun on the Batmobile (which he only used to open the garage door to Axis, he didn't kill anyone with it), but they're perfectly all right with Nolan's Batman having machine guns on the Batpod (which were for a similar purpose)

Both have been responsible for the death of a criminal, but I think it's worse that Nolan's Batman didn't save Ras, simply because it makes Batman a hypocrite...

I've mentioned this before, but throughout the whole film (Batman Begins), you have Bruce talking about how no one is beyond saving, and then he goes and refuses to save Ras... WTF is up with that?

Not even just the bat pod the whole intimidate scene in the Dark Knight he was blowing up cars and stuff with the Batmobile and there was no way to know that no one would be fatally injured when he was doing that. Neither movie has respected his no kill rule to my satisfaction. I will say Nolan seems to have tried and definitely had it woven deeply into his storyline but there are a few instances in his franchise where he has come up short.

If Batman had killed or fatally wounded someone, don't you think the cops or news would've brought it up? Wouldn't he be persecuted for it? Yes, he would be, so stop with the nonsense.

Originally posted by Tommy Jarvis
If Batman had killed or fatally wounded someone, don't you think the cops or news would've brought it up? Wouldn't he be persecuted for it? Yes, he would be, so stop with the nonsense.
O so because the news didn't cover it, him having the train posts that carried the train that Ras was on blown up doesn't count....gotcha.

But does him "killing" Dent and all the others does count because the Gotham news obviously covered it and he is on the run at the end of the Dark Knight?

God...no one can be this d...

I was referring to the chase sequence in TDK, not in BB.

Originally posted by Tommy Jarvis
Illogical notion? Also, you're honestly telling me that I sound like an 8 year old when your entire paragraph is full of mispelled words and non-existent sentences? Dude, if I wrap a wire around your leg and it's connected to a gargoyle, then gravity dictates you'll fall because there is weight wrapped around your body and it's bringing you down. If Batman simply didn't want him to get away, he'd have connected him to something lighter. I like how you think my ideal Batman is one who kills, because it isn't. The Batman in the Burton movies killed many, many people, and the Batman I know doesn't kill, as in the BB & TDK movies.

Before you try to sound all smart and correct someone, it's best you do so without making assumptions. Nice try, though.


There is no assumption in your statement."He shot a wire around his legs and wrapped it to a gargoyle so he'd fall"...keep defending your beloved batman.....both movies were not true to the essence of batman and his no kill rule...get over it!

So lets look at your newest statement...."Dude, if I wrap a wire around your leg and it's connected to a gargoyle, then gravity dictates you'll fall because there is weight wrapped around your body and it's bringing you down"..are you so desperate to prove your point..that you now are telling me that my leg attached to a gargoyle...means i will fall to my death?.....there are way too many posters explaining that the gargoyole came loose because the joker would not let go and still tried to get away.....

Originally posted by Tommy Jarvis
God...no one can be this d...

I was referring to the chase sequence in TDK, not in BB.
The point isn't that he didn't kill anyone though the point is that Batman would never be reckless enough to put people in danger like that at least in my opinion.

I just don't think either series has accurately handled his no kill rule. I think Nolan has definitely tried where as Burton was not concerned with it at all.

Just watched TDK again Heath Ledger is outstanding 10/10 He kicks jacks joker out the window .

Now I will never watch batman 89 again lolz

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Not even just the bat pod the whole intimidate scene in the Dark Knight he was blowing up cars and stuff with the Batmobile and there was no way to know that no one would be fatally injured when he was doing that. Neither movie has respected his no kill rule to my satisfaction. I will say Nolan seems to have tried and definitely had it woven deeply into his storyline but there are a few instances in his franchise where he has come up short. He's an expert marksman.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
He's an expert marksman.
The Batmobile was shooting not him and there is no guarantee with people running around, and car gas tanks exploding because of being shot that no one would be fatally injured.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
The Batmobile was shooting not him and there is no guarantee with people running around, and car gas tanks exploding because of being shot that no one would be fatally injured.


i agree

The scene implicates that he timed it. What you're saying is of course plausible, I don't see why he would do it if he saw the gangsters entering a truck.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
The scene implicates that he timed it. What you're saying is of course plausible, I don't see why he would do it if he saw the gangsters entering a truck.
Whether he timed it or not when you are blowing up gas tanks in a parking structure with people in close proximity there is no way to know you won't kill someone. Or that he wouldn't startle someone into running into the wrong direction and getting blown up or something. It was not something I think Batman would have necessarily done with the whole shadow ninja angle. Definitely not subtle and definitely not safe.

These are two totally different versions of the character but if I absolutely had to choose and had a gun to my head, I'd say Ledger's Joker is better. But, both are always a joy to watch. I can see myself watching both performances millions of times before I leave this planet.

I prefer Joker 89 even though joker 08 was amazing. In all fairness though. Joker 08 had much more movie time than Joker 89 and a script that was designed to make him look good unlike the script for Joker 89 which was designed for Batman.

Also, since was Joker 89 was the first real Batman movie in a long time I believe Burton tried his best to make the fans happy by including as much of what we know about the joker in the movie as possible. Norton did not have to do this we already had the Burton movies. This allowed more movie time for Joker 08.

to me there is NO comparison between Jack's Joker and Heath's Joker..

Jack was good, but Ledger was just simply a whole lot better


Also another main difference which I loved between the two..was the fact that Ledger's Joker had no origin story he was simply there and wanted to cause chaos and anarchy , while Burton had to give Jack a silly origin by having Batman drop him into the acid which I thought was horrible

Originally posted by NemeBro
Read The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth and then tell me that Jack's Joker is more faithful to the comics.

The original and current Joker is an intelligent lunatic with a sadistic sense of humor, but also with some sort of method to his madness.

He wants to prove as Crimzon said, morality is bullshit, and insanity is the natural thing.

Sure, Jack had all the funny gadgets, but those are just superficial things. He lacked the Joker ideology.

Joker has an obsession with Batman, and desires to make Batman just like him, a murderer.

All are traits of Heath's Joker.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
I know all about the Joker.. Burton did a bad job especially saying that Batman is responsible..

I disagree, I felt Burton did a great job and his version of the Joker touched on more of the characteristics that we known the Joker to have.

Do you even read the Batman comics Kotor3 because BruceSkywalker does especally how he said "I know all about the Joker"

so yeah who has the better opinion of the Joker.......BruceSkywalker does.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Do you even read the Batman comics Kotor3 because BruceSkywalker does especally how he said "I know all about the Joker"

so yeah who has the better opinion of the Joker.......BruceSkywalker does.

I am not even going to answer that question. If BruceSkywalker is your critic for Batman then fine, don't bring it up to me. I could care less.

Look go out and read The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth then reply back.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Look go out and read The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth then reply back.

I really do not know what your problem is. Nolan's version is based upon those not Burton's. You do know when The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth were released?