Which actor protrayed Batman the best in the movies?

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
What the hell? What villain has ever waged the same degree of emotional damage upon Batman, caused the same amount of harm to Gotham, and essentially won in the end? Let me get more specific:

1. What villain demonstrated the ability to morally corrupt the most 'good' character within the film?
2. What villain held an entire city under his virtual control through the usage of terrorist antics?
3. What villain spread endless panic and anarchy throughout the people of Gotham?
4. What villain is motivated by an ideology that has nothing to do with personal gain or money? Or more correctly; what villain's entire scheme was orchestrated around proving his ideological point?
5. What villain managed to cause an utter psychological breakdown of Batman's almighty 'no killing' rule, and pushed Batman close to the brink of moral corruption?
6. What villain managed to prevent Batman from achieving his personal goal (achieving a normal life) by leading him to commit indirect murder twice in the film, both of which times the murder was of a character vital to Bruce Wayne's desire for a normal life?
7. What villain left the movie without the answer to his scheme clearly "No! He's ideology is wrong and stems from him being abused by society!", but actually left the possibility open that maybe, just maybe, he had a degree of truth in his apparent madness?

All of these are extremely 'Joker-ish' qualities. The fact that he didn't assault Gotham with laughing gas and an array of silly, gimmicky weapons doesn't make him 'just like any other villain'.

And how is this relevant to the Batman debate? Well, it's everything Batman had to go through this movie. Without him- the emotional center of the movie, the man whose morality is being tested (and, especially in our current times, I can fully identify with that) and destroyed, the man who needs a rather insane disguise and method of operation in order to maintain his sanity, and the man who goes through all of the hopelessness and emotional turmoil, the film would have failed.

all great points Master but you took the words right out of my mouth,how is this relevant to the topic here of best actor to play Batman? 😆

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
1. Show me a single damn person Batman has ever killed. Capable of doing so? He doesn't kill the Joker, who consistently escapes Arkham like two days later and kills a family or something before being caught. Hell, he let Alexander Luthor Jr. live in Infinite Crisis, who had plans and was actually proven to be capable of causing the death of every being in the universe. Ironically, Alex was killed that day, but not by Batman, by Joker. But the point is, Batman does not kill, for any reason. Keaton can say whatever the fvck he wants. And he made Joker fall to his death, that is killing. Also, Batman killed when not "necessary," like the big black guy, he could have(hell, going by how Batman is supposed to be, SHOULD have) knocked him out, but no, sent him falling down from like 30 stories. Comic Batman would kick the shit out of Keaton for his portrayal of him, although in actuality they both suck anyway.

2. Chemical genius, sure. Strategic mastermind? No friggin way. Ledger's Joker kept the entire city behind him with his plans and plans within plans, you will never be able to prove Nicholson's Joker was a better strategist.

Yeah thats why Burtons Batman is a disgrace to the name of Batman.He should be shot for bringing that monstrocity of Batman-"in name only." to the big screen.Even in the beginning comics when Batman killed,he only did so when it was absolutley neccessary and there was no other way out.He could easily have avoided killing that big black guy and also those joker goons that he blew up.

Batman killed people in cowardly ways in the Burton movies.That idiot Burton must have thought he was directing a Punisher movie.I mean come on,thats how The Punisher operates not Batman.

Burtons Batman movies were such a disgrace to the name of Batman.Killing The Joker like he did,that was murder and he should have been wanted for murder for The Joker at the end instead of being treated like a damn hero regardless of The Jokers past actions.Horrible screenwriting for that movie.Killing The Joker, Batmans arch enemy,Burton should be shot for that disgrace and so should the screenwriters.Thats what I really loved about Nolans Batman movies.THEY were believeable.The police were after Batman even though he didn't kill anybody which is realistic cause nobody is allowed to take the law into their own hands.

btw Thundergod,if you despise Batman so much,how come you know so much about him and how come you read so many of his comics then? 😕

It was a side point. Great points by Master Crimzon, are you serious Mr. Parker? Guess what to get all the answer to all those questions you don’t even have to read the comics just watch the animated series and movies. Seriously Master Crimzon you actually feel that no other villain of Batman has done the things you mention? No other villain has done what the Joker did in the 1989 version that is a signature Joker move.

Thank you, Mr. Parker for mentioning that Batman killed in the beginning comics. People seem to forget that there are different versions of Batman.

Adam West and Christian Bale

I don't think you can really pick between the two though

West had the element of comedy, while Bale had the more serious element

Originally posted by Kotor3
Seriously Master Crimzon you actually feel that no other villain of Batman has done the things you mention?

Yes, that's about right. Not in the same manner, not for the same motives, and not to the same degree of success.

As for attacking Gotham with gimmicky weapons? Pretty much every Batman villain has done that.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Yes, that's about right. Not in the same manner, not for the same motives, and not to the same degree of success.

As for attacking Gotham with gimmicky weapons? Pretty much every Batman villain has done that.

Since this is a side point I will not go through all of your questions. Perhaps I will make a new thread. Simply put there are villains who have exceeded the Joker in certain areas. Batman’s identity has been discovered (Ra's Al Ghul) and Batman has been afraid to face certain villains (Vain). The Joker has never accomplished that.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
What the hell? What villain has ever waged the same degree of emotional damage upon Batman, caused the same amount of harm to Gotham, and essentially won in the end? Let me get more specific:

1. What villain demonstrated the ability to morally corrupt the most 'good' character within the film?
2. What villain held an entire city under his virtual control through the usage of terrorist antics?
3. What villain spread endless panic and anarchy throughout the people of Gotham?
4. What villain is motivated by an ideology that has nothing to do with personal gain or money? Or more correctly; what villain's entire scheme was orchestrated around proving his ideological point?
5. What villain managed to cause an utter psychological breakdown of Batman's almighty 'no killing' rule, and pushed Batman close to the brink of moral corruption?
6. What villain managed to prevent Batman from achieving his personal goal (achieving a normal life) by leading him to commit indirect murder twice in the film, both of which times the murder was of a character vital to Bruce Wayne's desire for a normal life?
7. What villain left the movie without the answer to his scheme clearly "No! He's ideology is wrong and stems from him being abused by society!", but actually left the possibility open that maybe, just maybe, he had a degree of truth in his apparent madness?

All of these are extremely 'Joker-ish' qualities. The fact that he didn't assault Gotham with laughing gas and an array of silly, gimmicky weapons doesn't make him 'just like any other villain'.

And how is this relevant to the Batman debate? Well, it's everything Batman had to go through this movie. Without him- the emotional center of the movie, the man whose morality is being tested (and, especially in our current times, I can fully identify with that) and destroyed, the man who needs a rather insane disguise and method of operation in order to maintain his sanity, and the man who goes through all of the hopelessness and emotional turmoil, the film would have failed.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Since this is a side point I will not go through all of your questions. Perhaps I will make a new thread. Simply put there are villains who have exceeded the Joker in certain areas. Batman’s identity has been discovered (Ra's Al Ghul) and Batman has been afraid to face certain villains (Vain). The Joker has never accomplished that.

Of course certain villains have achieved things the Joker didn't (mostly because he didn't try); that's what makes them unique, and special, instead of just Joker wannabes.

Regardless, however, the Joker's list of accomplishments- especially the level of emotional damage he has done upon Batman and Gotham- easily trump the actions done by any Batman villain.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Of course certain villains have achieved things the Joker didn't (mostly because he didn't try); that's what makes them unique, and special, instead of just Joker wannabes.

Regardless, however, the Joker's list of accomplishments- especially the level of emotional damage he has done upon Batman and Gotham- easily trump the actions done by any Batman villain.

First thing the Joker has tried to fine out Batman’s identity and make Batman afraid of him. He failed at both. Second we are stepping away from why I brought out the side point. No one is arguing that the Joker is Batman’s greatest villain.

Please look at my statement. It does not apply to the Joker in general but only to Ledger’s version. “I cannot think of one thing that Ledger’s Joker did that was different from any other villain Batman has fought”. What did Ledger’s Joker do, he blew up things and assassinated people. Now look at the villain in Batman Begins Ra's al Ghul, (who planned to destroy Gotham by distributing the toxin via the city's water supply, and vaporizing it with a microwave-emitter stolen from Wayne Enterprises.) could he have done the same thing? Yes, but what was going to do is way more devastating then what Ledger’s Joker did. The 1989 version of the Joker could have blown up buildings and assassinated people but his cosmetic scared was more dangerous than anything Ledger’s Joker did.

In Batman Begins and the 1989 version of the Joker we were able to see Batman detective skills at there best. Ledger’s Joker was nothing but a terrorist he did not require a superhero to defeat him and that is why Bale’s Batman does not win the contest. Instead of Batman they could have gotten Jack Bauer from 24 TV series to capture the Joker and he would have done it in one day.

Originally posted by Kotor3
First thing the Joker has tried to fine out Batman’s identity and make Batman afraid of him. He failed at both. Second we are stepping away from why I brought out the side point. No one is arguing that the Joker is Batman’s greatest villain.

No he didn't. If you think he's done that, cough up proof, please.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Please look at my statement. It does not apply to the Joker in general but only to Ledger’s version. “I cannot think of one thing that Ledger’s Joker did that was different from any other villain Batman has fought”. What did Ledger’s Joker do, he blew up things and assassinated people. Now look at the villain in Batman Begins Ra's al Ghul, (who planned to destroy Gotham by distributing the toxin via the city's water supply, and vaporizing it with a microwave-emitter stolen from Wayne Enterprises.) could he have done the same thing? Yes, but what was going to do is way more devastating then what Ledger’s Joker did. The 1989 version of the Joker could have blown up buildings and assassinated people but his cosmetic scared was more dangerous than anything Ledger’s Joker did.

Wow. First of all, the Joker's actions were ultimately far more psychological than physical in their ramifications. Can any other villain claim that? Certainly not Nicholson's Joker or Ra's Al Ghul. To say that he just 'blew up things' is incredibly idiotic.

Examine my list. Look at all the things Ledger's Joker has done; what he managed to do was corrupt Gotham's most 'noble citizen', bring the city (morally and physically) to its knees, and deal a level of emotional harm to Batman and his cohorts that Ra's al Ghul and Nicholson's Joker can't even come close to touching. Could they have done that? Absolutely not. They had different motivations and different methods.

Nicholson's cosmetic scare was more dangerous than Ledger's reign of terror? So it killed some people and then... what? Ledger's actions are likely to have killed far more people. And aside from that, Ledger's actions were psychological in their nature and were focused on proving a moral standpoint- that people are fundamentally evil, there is no point to morality, and that authority/laws serves no purpose due to this. This sort of morality puts the entire foundation of 'Batman' in danger, and, if proven correct (which it was, to some extent), would mean something terrible about humanity's psychology and the very concept of an organized society. And that, my friend, is infinitely more devastating than anything any Batman villain has ever done in the movies.

Also, do you need me to list the state of Gotham after TDK? Here's a hint; it's far worse than it was after anything Ra's al Ghul or Nicholson did.

Originally posted by Kotor3
In Batman Begins and the 1989 version of the Joker we were able to see Batman detective skills at there best. Ledger’s Joker was nothing but a terrorist he did not require a superhero to defeat him and that is why Bale’s Batman does not win the contest. Instead of Batman they could have gotten Jack Bauer from 24 TV series to capture the Joker and he would have done it in one day.

Yeah, 89 Batman is the ultimate detective. And '89 Joker? So dangerous, so utterly devastating in his diabolical scheme to poison cosmetic products.

Because '89 Joker's actions have absolutely nothing on 08's actions. Joker 08 was smarter and more dangerous; the same applies for Bale's Batman. Their battle was far higher-level.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
No he didn't. If you think he's done that, cough up proof, please.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Wow. First of all, the Joker's actions were ultimately far more psychological than physical in their ramifications. Can any other villain claim that? Certainly not Nicholson's Joker or Ra's Al Ghul. To say that he just 'blew up things' is incredibly idiotic.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Examine my list. Look at all the things Ledger's Joker has done; what he managed to do was corrupt Gotham's most 'noble citizen', bring the city (morally and physically) to its knees, and deal a level of emotional harm to Batman and his cohorts that Ra's al Ghul and Nicholson's Joker can't even come close to touching. Could they have done that? Absolutely not. They had different motivations and different methods.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Nicholson's cosmetic scare was more dangerous than Ledger's reign of terror? So it killed some people and then... what? Ledger's actions are likely to have killed far more people. And aside from that, Ledger's actions were psychological in their nature and were focused on proving a moral standpoint- that people are fundamentally evil, there is no point to morality, and that authority/laws serves no purpose due to this. This sort of morality puts the entire foundation of 'Batman' in danger, and, if proven correct (which it was, to some extent), would mean something terrible about humanity's psychology and the very concept of an organized society. And that, my friend, is infinitely more devastating than anything any Batman villain has ever done in the movies.

Originally posted by Kotor3
It was a side point. Great points by Master Crimzon, are you serious Mr. Parker? Guess what to get all the answer to all those questions you don’t even have to read the comics just watch the animated series and movies. Seriously Master Crimzon you actually feel that no other villain of Batman has done the things you mention? No other villain has done what the Joker did in the 1989 version that is a signature Joker move.

Thank you, Mr. Parker for mentioning that Batman killed in the beginning comics. People seem to forget that there are different versions of Batman.

but like I said,thats why Burtons Batman was a disgrace to the comicbook was cause he only did so when he absoultely had to and there was no other way out.He didnt do it in cowardly ways like he did in Burtons flicks.The Burton films were so horrible Burton should be shot for that travesty.

Originally posted by Selphie
Adam West and Christian Bale

I don't think you can really pick between the two though

West had the element of comedy, while Bale had the more serious element

thats pretty much what I said in my first post.Thats why I am glad this thread has been allowed to stay in the movie discussion section because you get opinions from people like Selphie who you normally wouldnt get in the Batman section. 🙂

Originally posted by Mr Parker
but like I said,thats why Burtons Batman was a disgrace to the comicbook was cause he only did so when he absoultely had to and there was no other way out.He didnt do it in cowardly ways like he did in Burtons flicks.The Burton films were so horrible Burton should be shot for that travesty.

You really hate the Burton films don't you? I only have that type of hatred for the X-Men and Resident Evil films.

Originally posted by Kotor3
No disrespect Crimzon but if you don’t know of case in which this happen you don’t have to search through the comics simply watch TDK or the animated series. The Joker tried to take off Batman’s mask in TDK when Batman crash with his motorcycle.

That's nice, because if you make a claim like 'Joker tried to find out Batman's identity and make him afraid of him [Joker]', you have to supply proof of it.

Also, as for the motorcycle scene, Joker himself did not attempt to take off Batman's mask; one of his henchmen did, without anything to suggest that it was under the Joker's orders. Hell, Joker is obsessed with the amusing idea behind Batman, not the person behind him. I wouldn't be surprised if he was completely disinterested in Batman's identity.

Originally posted by Kotor3
The Riddler, Scarecrow, Mad Hatter, seriously are you actually saying that the Joker’s actions are more psychological and less physical than them? The Joker can blow up a building simply because he fines it amusing. No psychology there! You are seriously missing the point. Nicholson’s Joker and Ra’ Al Ghul did things that were on a large scale and unique to there characters. Psychology is not the Joker’s unique quality.

Right. Read the Killing Joke and tell me that a nihilistic, anarchistic philosophy is not the true driving force behind the Joker. The interpretation of him being a man who just 'wants to watch the world burn' is incredibly simplistic; yes, he incredibly enjoys what he does, but, fundamentally, his motivation in TDK was to prove his ideology and therefore kill hope among the populace. Was it a way to justify his own actions? In a way. But that does not change that his primary motive is of a psychological nature.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Crimzon it is good to state opinion but come on here, emotional harm to Batman. The 1989 Joker killed his parents and made him the way he is. Stole his girlfriend. What is more emotional than that? Ra’s Al Ghul was loved by Batman as his teacher and mentor who betrayed him. He even burned Batman's parents house. Quite emotional I would say.

'89 Joker killed Bruce's parents as a random mugging; it wasn't directly aimed at causing emotional damage at him, and besides, the person who did that didn't even have the Joker's psychological makeup. 'Stole his girlfriend'? WTF? He tried to get along with her, but she rejected his offer and ended up being with Bruce. No emotional harm there.

Yes, Ra's has done considerable harm to Batman. But even at the final reveal, there is no indication that Bruce was all too sad or devastated by this- he never once displayed true love and affection for Ra's.

Joker caused Batman to indirectly kill both his love interest and his only potential successor, thereby both shaking his morality and preventing him from achieving his humane goal- that is, achieving a normal life. That's far more than anything anybody else has done to him, intentionally.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Ledger’s actions only killed more people because they were smaller in scale and Batman was too stupid to stop them. As for the cosmetic scare, I can’t help you there if you don’t see how dangerous that was. In the real world the United States were going to use nuclear weapons if Iraq decided to use chemical weapons. Chemical warfare has scared people much more than the threat of walking in a building and it blowing up.

... smaller in scale? I'm sorry, do you even know what you're talking about? Nicholson's poisoned cosmetics. Big deal. Ra's had the intention of destroying Gotham, but he failed. He never even managed to affect the entirety of Gotham. Ledger? He essentially took control and did whatever he wanted to Gotham, and successfully operated on a far larger scale than either of them. Batman wasn't too stupid. Aside from the fact that foiling the previous plots took no particular intelligence, this is merely proof that Ledger, using bombs and guns, was capable of outsmarting one of the world's most intelligent individuals. This is a testament in Joker's favor.

Also, don't even attempt to state that Nicholson caused more fear and panic in Gotham than Ledger. Just... don't.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
That's nice, because if you make a claim like 'Joker tried to find out Batman's identity and make him afraid of him [Joker]', you have to supply proof of it.

Also, as for the motorcycle scene, Joker himself did not attempt to take off Batman's mask; one of his henchmen did, without anything to suggest that it was under the Joker's orders. Hell, Joker is obsessed with the amusing idea behind Batman, not the person behind him. I wouldn't be surprised if he was completely disinterested in Batman's identity.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Right. Read the Killing Joke and tell me that a nihilistic, anarchistic philosophy is not the true driving force behind the Joker. The interpretation of him being a man who just 'wants to watch the world burn' is incredibly simplistic; yes, he incredibly enjoys what he does, but, fundamentally, his motivation in TDK was to prove his ideology and therefore kill hope among the populace. Was it a way to justify his own actions? In a way. But that does not change that his primary motive is of a psychological nature.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
'89 Joker killed Bruce's parents as a random mugging; it wasn't directly aimed at causing emotional damage at him, and besides, the person who did that didn't even have the Joker's psychological makeup. 'Stole his girlfriend'? WTF? He tried to get along with her, but she rejected his offer and ended up being with Bruce. No emotional harm there.

Yes, Ra's has done considerable harm to Batman. But even at the final reveal, there is no indication that Bruce was all too sad or devastated by this- he never once displayed true love and affection for Ra's. Joker caused Batman to indirectly kill both his love interest and his only potential successor, thereby both shaking his morality and preventing him from achieving his humane goal- that is, achieving a normal life. That's far more than anything anybody else has done to him, intentionally.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
... smaller in scale? I'm sorry, do you even know what you're talking about? Nicholson's poisoned cosmetics. Big deal. Ra's had the intention of destroying Gotham, but he failed. He never even managed to affect the entirety of Gotham. Ledger? He essentially took control and did whatever he wanted to Gotham, and successfully operated on a far larger scale than either of them. Batman wasn't too stupid. Aside from the fact that foiling the previous plots took no particular intelligence, this is merely proof that Ledger, using bombs and guns, was capable of outsmarting one of the world's most intelligent individuals. This is a testament in Joker's favor.

Also, don't even attempt to state that Nicholson caused more fear and panic in Gotham than Ledger. Just... don't.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Oh boy you actually are going to make me fine people Batman have killed. Of course the biggest name Joker has not been killed. What about regular criminals that he fights like hench-men. Anyway I will get back to you on people who Batman has killed unintentionally. Let us not forget the famous line from Bale in Batman Begins who had it in his power to save Râ's al Ghûl “I am not going to kill you but I do not have to save you”. What does he do? He lets Râ's al Ghûl die.

This one is for opinion. I do agree that Ledger’s Joker was portrayed to be a criminal mastermind. One thing though, I cannot think of one thing that Ledger’s Joker did that was different from any other villain Batman has fought. Usually the Joker stands out in that department.

2. ...Wut.

Ledger's Joker did not have the stupid, gimmick scenes, true, he did have things that Nicholson and no one else in the movies did though, the psychological obsession with Batman, the fact that his schemes were ultimately driven by his will to prove his anarchistic and deliberately amoral idealogy was correct, the murky backgroud which is meant to be a theme of Joker, and his incredibly intricate plans.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
1. No, not them either. Seriously, bring up someone Batman killed. Oh, and I mean recently, don't bring up Joe Schmoe from the ancient ass Batman Golden Era comics. He let him die, he did not kill him.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
2. ...Wut.

Ledger's Joker did not have the stupid, gimmick scenes, true, he did have things that Nicholson and no one else in the movies did though, the psychological obsession with Batman, the fact that his schemes were ultimately driven by his will to prove his anarchistic and deliberately amoral idealogy was correct, the murky backgroud which is meant to be a theme of Joker, and his incredibly intricate plans.

This is the whole issue here, you and Crimzon seem to prefer the updated version of Batman and the Joker where I prefer the original.

Originally posted by Kotor3
You can’t take out the ancient comics because that is how Batman was originally. Mr. Parker already confirmed for you that Batman has killed in the earlier comics. I also provided Batman Begins where Batman did not save Ra’s Al Ghul but let him die when it was clearly in his power to save him.

This is the whole issue here, you and Crimzon seem to prefer the updated version of Batman and the Joker where I prefer the original.

2. No, it seems more like you prefer the gimmicky and superficial materialistic character traits while we prefer the more deep and complex ones.

In short, we are Lord of the Rings fans, you are a Twilight fan.

Originally posted by Kotor3
I do not recall so I will take your word for it.

Good.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Look I know about the Killing Joke and Joker for that matter. Once again you seem to be missing the point, you already describe the Joker and then you don’t notice the difference in TDK and it is in your own statement. All of Batman’s villains are psychotic. As you said in TDK the Joker wanted to prove his ideology. That sounds more like Ra’ Al Ghul or the The Riddler not the Joker. Everything the Joker does is because it is a joke to him. His only ideology is destruction. What makes him unique is his way of causing destruction.

Joker is psychotic, but there is a reason to his madness. This is largely the point in the greatest Joker stories; he's not just an insane person killing for pleasure, otherwise he would have been a purely run-of-the-mill psycho.

So... Joker is unique because he kills people with laughing gas? Oh, hell no. On a superficial level, that might be true, but in order to truly find out why Joker is the greatest Batman villain, you have to dig in beyond the obvious and find out what truly makes his psyche intriguing. Yes, he's a psychopathic clown who kills for enjoyment, but that's not it. He's fascinating because of the philosophy he represents, he's fascinating because of his vast intelligence, he's fascinating because of his relationship with Batman, and he's fascinating because of what he represents. Oh, of course he's also a cool character because of his superficial traits, but that's not what makes him great.

If you want me to make a psychoanalysis of the Joker and a more detailed explanation of him, go right ahead. But I think you get the point.

Also, Ra's al Ghul operates because of an ideology, but his point is not to prove his ideology. Riddler? What the hell does he have to do with complex ideologies?

Originally posted by Kotor3
You stated that Ledger’s Joker caused the most damage now you are changing it to the only one who tried to cause direct damage to Batman intentionally. Which one is it? Anyway I don’t agree so I am dropping this point.

Ledger's Joker caused the most intentional harm to Batman (on the emotional level), the most physical harm to Gotham, the most emotional harm to Gotham's citizens, and represented the most disturbing psychology. This is essentially inarguable.

Originally posted by Kotor3
You are right Ledger’s Joker did take over the city. He was able to take over the TV stations when he wanted, make people scared to use any type of cosmetics, and hold a giant party in Gotham openly while throwing money in the air. I don’t think we are going to agree on this one. Our views are very different.

That's right, but you can at least logically support your points. In a nutshell, these are things you have to tackle:

1. Ledger's Joker best represents the deeper and less superficial psyche of the Joker. See 'The Killing Joke' for proof.

2. Ledger's Joker caused the most collective harm in the movie. Emotional, physical, to Batman, to Gotham's citizens, whatever.

3. Ledger's Joker was the greatest challenge for Batman. In fact, he was the greatest challenge for a more intelligent and physically capable Batman than Keaton.

4. Ledger's Joker was the only one who achieved semi-success in the end of the film.