Will Heath Ledger's Joker top Jack Nicholson's?

Originally posted by Emil Blonsky
I do think his Bruce Wayne could've been better but his Batman was straight out of the comics. Dark, brooding, and as quiet as possible when he needed to be. Honestly, I don't see why anything in the 1989 movie gets so much hate because it was so well put together.

I feel the same way...

His Wayne needed work, but his Batman was the sh*t...

Bale's Bruce Wayne is spot on, but he should take a page from Keaton when it comes to Batman... Then we would TRULY have Batman on the big screen...

And as far as Joker is concerned, Ledger has surpassed Nicholson, which is a shame, because Nicholson could have done so much with the role had he played it a little darker and more psychotic (but still kept the twisted humor)...

But Ledger's Joker is really looking excellent in this movie... Oscar worthy? Maybe, maybe not, but no doubt a great movie villain...

I actually liked Bale's Bruce Wayne, and the whole voice thing, because he's trying to make himself seem as different as possible with both personas instead of using his voice.

I can't say anything about that just yet until next week but I have no doubt I'll love the performance. Heath may be the main factor in me seeing the movie at least twice.

I was wrong. Ledger's Joker was better. I think the role took it's toll on him though. I can see him getting an Oscar for this. & this wouldn't be a pity Oscar either. He really did a great job.

Ledger's Joker>Nicholson's Joker

Originally posted by brainchild81
I was wrong. Ledger's Joker was better. I think the role took it's toll on him though. I can see him getting an Oscar for this. & this wouldn't be a pity Oscar either. He really did a great job.

exactly, from what I have heard I think he would have won it either way.

Im gonna have to say overall, Jacks joker is still better imo. I think that jacks portrayal was closer to the joker that ive seen from the tv series, cartoons and the comics. Jack showed the gadgets as well as showing to be more of a mass killer as to where ledgers joker was a bit more of a 1 to 1. Personality wise, jacks joker was...well...more of a joker, lol.

I like both renditions of Joker by both Jack and Heath, but as a fan of Joker, im gonna hve to say Jacks version was still better. Imo that is.

Ledger's Joker was better as far as the acting, it's not even a contest.

Jack's joker was Jack, you never see past Jack Nicholson in that role. He was Jack first and the Joker second.

Ledger disappeared into the character. You almost didn't recognize him. And his Joker was MUCH MUCH more villainous and monstrous, a better villain.

^ I dont 100% agree. They were kinda like 2 different characters. Ledgers joker role was more drama-like as to where Jacks was more Joker-like imo. I was able to see way past Jack with that role because its totally different from anything Jack has played(next to the shining). Most of Jacks roles are tight and serious and his Joker role was something almost completely different.

I also think Jacks Joker was more villainous and monstrous. Imo, his degree was just a bit higher than Ledgers. 89 Joker wanted to kill people by the hundreds and thousands. It just seemed that 89 Joker operated on a bigger scale.

Most of Jack's roles aren't tight or serious. The roles that he's known for he's always a little out there (The Shining, Cuckoo's Nest, etc.) Jacks Joker wasn't really very different from what he's done in the past. More comical and silly, not scary at all because he was goofy and kinda likeable. Ledger's was not, his was based in reality much moreso than Jack's was, and so his viciousness was more believable in the end.

And from what I've heard Ledger's Joker is MUCH more true to the comcs than Jack's was. Ledger's joker felt like a real pyschopath, like if there was a monstrously insane guy who put on makeup for shits and giggles, you'd expect him to act more like Ledger than Nicholson.

And I'm not talking about scale, scale doesn't matter when a character isn't believable. I can't picture Nicholson's character actually existing, because it's purely comical and mostly cartoony, Ledger's was more plausible, so it made him more frightening.

But yes, they are two very different characters, no doubt.

In about 70% of Jacks roles before 89, his characters were more serious, tight and straightforward type. Cuckoos nest and Shining are 2. There maybe 1 or 2 more out there. Overall, the joker role was something kinda new that we've seen from jack.

Ledgers Joker was nothing short of what we see today pretty much as far as villains go. Someone setting up a bomb etc, etc. You mention Jacks joker being kinda likeable and silly. True, but thats until you realize youre gonna die. Jacks joker gave you more of a wtf? Like throwing a parade and give me money, just to kill me in the end. Like poison my deodorant, mouthwash, toothpaste, hair products, etc then come on tv and tell me you did it while the effects are already starting to take place. Thats way more scary to me.

Cuckoos Nest and Shining are his two most known roles. His Joker feels like a more over the top extension of Jack Torrance from The Shining than something wholly new. It's hard to be new when he's done similar things in the past, which he has.

I'll grant you that the antics of Jack's Joker are more elaborate, but that's because the goal was very different. They wanted to go with an over the top villain and they did. With Dark Knight and Ledger's joker they took a more real world approach, doing things that are believable and that could happen in real life, even doing things referencing actual real life events. And the bottom line, something isn't scary if I can't imagine it happening in real life. If I think something is an utter impossibility then it won't be scary, no matter how cool it may be, period. This is why Ledger's joker and his antics are more frightening to me. They're believable. They can, and have, happened.

Originally posted by jrodslam
Im gonna have to say overall, Jacks joker is still better imo. I think that jacks portrayal was closer to the joker that ive seen from the tv series, cartoons and the comics. Jack showed the gadgets as well as showing to be more of a mass killer as to where ledgers joker was a bit more of a 1 to 1. Personality wise, jacks joker was...well...more of a joker, lol.

I like both renditions of Joker by both Jack and Heath, but as a fan of Joker, im gonna hve to say Jacks version was still better. Imo that is.

😐

Originally posted by jrodslam
89 Joker wanted to kill people by the hundreds and thousands. It just seemed that 89 Joker operated on a bigger scale.

Gothams largest hospital wasn't full of thousands?

Dude, those two boats together had over 500 people in them.

400 something in the civilian boat and like 187 in the prison boat.

I really think your arguing out of fanboyism and not a justifiied opinion. If you like Jack better because of the "blankie" effect, great. Just say so. There's very few things wrong with that.

I have to admit it that I thought that this movie was going to be so over hyped because of the untimely death of Heath Ledger.

However, Ledger gave us quite the proverbial Swan Song.

Jack Nicholson's Joker was nothing more than a regurgitated version of Caesar Romero's Joker from the campy 1960's Batman series with just a splash more of evil.

Ledger, in my opinion, gave such an ecstatic performance, in that he gave us, the viewer, the greatest gift of all: He left us wanting more. This, my internet friends, is the true mark of a talented actor.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Gothams largest hospital wasn't full of thousands?

Dude, those two boats together had over 500 people in them.

400 something in the civilian boat and like 187 in the prison boat.

I really think your arguing out of fanboyism and not a justifiied opinion. If you like Jack better because of the "blankie" effect, great. Just say so. There's very few things wrong with that.

Originally posted by BackFire

And from what I've heard Ledger's Joker is MUCH more true to the comcs than Jack's was. Ledger's joker felt like a real pyschopath, like if there was a monstrously insane guy who put on makeup for shits and giggles, you'd expect him to act more like Ledger than Nicholson.

Oh.

Guess that means he has nothing in common with the comic book Joker.

Originally posted by BackFire
Oh.

Guess that means he has nothing in common with the comic book Joker.

Personally I like Jack's Joker for 1989 and Heath's for The Dark Knight. I'm really not that invested to sit and argue about who was better since they played two different interpretations of the same character in two different interpretations of the Batverse 20 years apart. I could care less.

I didn't make an error. I didn't say that he did that in the comic, simply that Ledger did it in the movie.

O well perhaps I misinterpreted your post. My apologies.