Gender: Male Location: Bringing forth the apocalypse
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.
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
Gender: Male Location: Bringing forth the apocalypse
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.
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.
__________________ Paying member of the Official Cliegg Lars Fan Club
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
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).
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.
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: +40° 36' 5.70", -73° 57' 49.46
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
KMC Community Forums
Dec 24th, 2008 02:03 PM
, but both were very good for their respectable films, especially for their time period.
Attachment: 
