NationStates Jolt Archive

Who was the better joker; Jack or Heath Ledger? I say Ledger by a mile.

Ledger by more than a mile. Ledger left Jack in the dust!

Ledger. Absolutly brilliant. I couldn't have pictured the character played any more perfectly. He managed to make the character somewhat playful without losing the dark aspect, with just a touch of sociopath. And the scene in the hospital...

I'd say Ledger. He managed to make the Joker quite funny, but at the same time so frightening.

"You were a schemer. You had plans. Look where it got you."

Ledger, hands down.

Ledger did for comic-book based villains what Downey did for comic-book based heroes....set the bar to a new standard that all subsequent performances will (rightfully) be compared to.

I'm guessing it's true, but I must know for sure.

Is Ledger's Joker anything like Kefka from Final Fantasy VI?

If Jack Nicholson didn't set an impressive benchmark with the 1989 movie, then the film franchise wouldn't have even gotten anywhere near The Dark Knight, and the only live Joker performance anyone would remember is Caesar Romero's Golden Age goofiness, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the Comics Code sanitized Joker.

Jack Nicholson made the Joker his own and completely unique from any joker before him just as surely as Heath Ledger did. Comparing them isn't really fair because I don't think Ledger's joker would have been possible without a Jack Nicholson Joker to try to diverge from.

Ledger. Absolute brilliance. Why don't we have raise dead spells in real life?

Cesar Romero

[QUOTE=Delator;13865214]"You were a schemer. You had plans. Look where it got you." [QUOTE]

"I'm just a dog chasing cars. If I caught one, I wouldn't know what to do with them."

Ledger.

I know I loved Nicholson's Joker, but I cant remember it that well. Ledger was incredible.

I think Nicholson's had more shear insanity(not surprising in a Tim Burton film). Ledger's Joker however probably had an edge in creepiness and pure evil. Nicholson's was a madman. Ledger's was a force of nature, symbolic of evil, fear, and anarchy in human society.

What was it the Joker said to Batman in their final fight? "When a force of nature meets an immoveable object..."

If I had to choose, I'd say Ledger's Joker. But I don't want to. So,

"Why so serious?":)

Ledger. Absolutly brilliant. I couldn't have pictured the character played any more perfectly. He managed to make the character somewhat playful without losing the dark aspect, with just a touch of sociopath. And the scene in the hospital...

A hell lot more than a touch. Ledger's Joker was as close as I can think of to the embodiment of humanity's sociopathic tendencies.

Ledger's Joker was the best villain I've ever seen. I still like Nicholson's Joker but Ledger was better, too bad he died :(

Nicholson was a better classical joker I would say, more of what you'd expect from the Joker. Ledger was better I'd say though because his was just so evil, and the ironic thing is that he never seems to laugh.

No, he was so crazily evil he made you laugh. Its weird. He's almost the most deranged sadist imaginable, and the audience was laughing all through the movie.

Ledger. Just saw it for the second time yesterday... pure enjoyment. Made me wish they'd made the whole movie about him, rather than batman. He was such a letdown by comparison. Then again, most people would be compared to the deranged, maniacal, and yet not entirely evil villain which was the Joker.

I mean, ol' Jack's will always have a place, but it was ridiculous compared to Ledger's/

The superiority of Heath Ledger as the Joker isn't all b/c of him. The script (his dialog), the blocking the director gave, his makeup and costume all played a part in making him good. The original Batman movie had a serving tray used as improvised armor, corny music playing while the Joker dances and adds to artpieces, etc. This Joker says a similitude of, "everybody's comfortable w/a plan, even if it's horrific. A criminal dies and nobody's bothered b/c it's according to the plan. A hundred soldiers die and nobody panics. One itty-bitty insignificant old man gets killed -everybody panics. I'm just want to show folks how meaningless their plans really are".

Just saw the bootleg. I liked the new Batman. 8/10. However:

Nicholson was completely appropriate as Keaton's nemesis. He was late-80s perfection. Ledger is very good as Bale's nemesis. I like Ledger's Joker as a character, but Nicholson's Joker better in context. The animosity between Batman and the Joker is more developed and rewarding in Keaton's Batman than it is in Dark Knight, even if Ledger's Joker is a more hip, nihilistic, modern take. Great stuff, though.

Yes, Nicholson's Joker matched Batman very well. They were like two haves of the same being. This was summed up in Batman's line at the end of the older film.

"You made me. I made you."

I'd say Ledger. He managed to make the Joker quite funny, but at the same time so frightening.

I laughed at his pencil magic trick. What a way to make a pencil disappear...

Ledger. Clearly. Nicholson is an awful actor anyway.

My beef with the Ledger joker is that he lost his momentum. The pencil trick was the most awesome thing I have ever seen in a movie. He just couldn't satisfy after that.

Still props to the dead man. He actually played a joker that you didn't want to see die.

The superiority of Heath Ledger as the Joker isn't all b/c of him. The script (his dialog), the blocking the director gave, his makeup and costume all played a part in making him good. The original Batman movie had a serving tray used as improvised armor, corny music playing while the Joker dances and adds to artpieces, etc. This Joker says a similitude of, "everybody's comfortable w/a plan, even if it's horrific. A criminal dies and nobody's bothered b/c it's according to the plan. A hundred soldiers die and nobody panics. One itty-bitty insignificant old man gets killed -everybody panics. I'm just want to show folks how meaningless their plans really are".

In that respect many of the decisions made really contributed to my being impressed with the movie. First of all, making the origin of the Joker obscured, to the sense that even he doesn't really know. The 'world' implications of Batman, that there would officially be a policy to arrest him on sight, the imitators. Those things intrigue me. But most of all, establishing it as a continium, that Scarecrow was in the beginning, and the Joker telling him, "I have a feeling we'll be doing this again and again." This has been a major problem with all of the comic book movies, the killing of the nemesis at the end of the movie-Burton's Batman the Joker was a footnote in Batman's life, after he was killed that was it. He was less a nemesis and more a temporary enemy.

There, too, where some giant 'fuck you's to the Spiderman series. First, it had the balls to follow through on the girlfriend vs. the masses conflict. In Spiderman I they replayed what happened in the comic, except in the comic the Goblin dropped Gwen Stacey and a tram full of people and Spiderman killed Stacey attempting to save both. This deeply effected and changed Parker. In the movie, it's Mary Jane and Spiderman pulls it off. With Dark Knight, they have the balls to do what Spiderman did in the comic, have that conflict come out badly. Even worse, she dies telling Dent she loves him, essentially dumping Wayne, though Wayne goes on to think she was going to leave Dent for him. Dark Knight essentially had the balls to do something that is in the Spiderman cannon.

The second was the conflict in the populace over the responsibility of having a super hero. After having the balls to blow Dawes to hell, there was tension with the two ferries. Gordon losing his cool ("I have to save Dent!"), you actually started to see the toll this kind of environment starts to take. Now, obviously, Spiderman will never, and should never, be as dark as Batman, and I don't want to give the impression that I didn't like Spiderman, I did, but hopefully if anything, Dark Knight has shown that you don't have to water down these stories. And the pen trick was about the best intro a character could hope for. While we all talk about Ledger's Joker, this was still a movie about Batman and I think that lent to its success.

The choice to have the Joker painting his face instead of it being a freak accident made him creepier. Well, and the scar smile...

EDIT: New spoiler tag action, I approve.

I have to admit I've never seen the Nicholson one. I still thought Ledger was utterly brilliant, and I really wished he hadn't died.

And the movie would have been a lot better still if the boats had been blown up. Seriously, I realise this is comic books and Hollywood, but if you're going to make a dark, gritty movie, take it to its logical conclusions and leave Batman to pick up the pieces of his idealistic self in the next installment. Maybe Ledger's brilliance made me want to see the Joker win, or maybe I'm like that anyways, but in the real world those ferries would have been blown up, and the Joker may have been defeated physically, but he would have carried the day in principle.

I know I loved Nicholson's Joker, but I cant remember it that well. Ledger was incredible.

I think Nicholson's had more shear insanity(not surprising in a Tim Burton film). Ledger's Joker however probably had an edge in creepiness and pure evil. Nicholson's was a madman. Ledger's was a force of nature, symbolic of evil, fear, and anarchy in human society.

What was it the Joker said to Batman in their final fight? "When a force of nature meets an immoveable object..."

If I had to choose, I'd say Ledger's Joker. But I don't want to. So,

"Why so serious?":)
It was "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmoveable object"
I have to admit I've never seen the Nicholson one. I still thought Ledger was utterly brilliant, and I really wished he hadn't died.

And the movie would have been a lot better still if the boats had been blown up. Seriously, I realise this is comic books and Hollywood, but if you're going to make a dark, gritty movie, take it to its logical conclusions and leave Batman to pick up the pieces of his idealistic self in the next installment. Maybe Ledger's brilliance made me want to see the Joker win, or maybe I'm like that anyways, but in the real world those ferries would have been blown up, and the Joker may have been defeated physically, but he would have carried the day in principle.


I don't know that that is true. The people on the two boats had already proven that they couldn't destroy one another, throwing their message in the Joker's face. The principle was destroyed. BNlowing both of them up would simply have said "See? I will keep my word", giving him more authority the next time. The Joker's sociopathic principle had already failed to win. Blowing them up would have a) been specticle for those on land and b) killed the witnesses that would then go on land and say "He gave us the ultimatum and we won".

Heath was a good deal better. However, I still think that the ultimate incarnation of the Joker is neither Jack nor Heath but Mark Hamill!

"You can't kill me out of some sense of self righteousness, and I can't kill you because you're too much fun."

Ledger

"You can't kill me out of some sense of self righteousness, and I can't kill you because you're too much fun."

Ledger

you do know that heath ledger didnt create that line himself eh? one of the writers did. all ledger did was SAY it.

you do know that heath ledger didnt create that line himself eh? one of the writers did. all ledger did was SAY it.

To be fair, he did say it quite well.

you do know that heath ledger didnt create that line himself eh? one of the writers did. all ledger did was SAY it.

Delivery counts for a fair bit though.

Delivery counts for a fair bit though.

sure does.

in the movie.

on the page, not so much.

sure does.

in the movie.

on the page, not so much.

Fair enough.

Kevin Michael Richardson

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1204613/article_images/thejokerhopsaroundlikeanapeanddoesntwearshoes.jpg

Best Joker Ever.

*can not wait to see Dark Knight tonight*

I don't know that that is true. The people on the two boats had already proven that they couldn't destroy one another, throwing their message in the Joker's face. The principle was destroyed. BNlowing both of them up would simply have said "See? I will keep my word", giving him more authority the next time. The Joker's sociopathic principle had already failed to win. Blowing them up would have a) been specticle for those on land and b) killed the witnesses that would then go on land and say "He gave us the ultimatum and we won".
I meant the people would blow each other up. That's the part that seemed very Hollywood to me. Even assuming there was some sort of moral prisoner who saved the civilians, you can't seriously expect a boat full of everyday people to sacrifice themselves like that. I was fine with the way they held a vote (I was already coming up with the TG I'd be sending Soheran about it regarding collective decisionmaking in a situation like that :tongue:), but it was just plain stupid that they then wouldn't enforce the decision. I would much rather have the Joker win on principle and the Batman face the fact that maybe the people he's saving aren't worthy of quite as high a moral value as he places on them. Would have made for a far superior third movie.

I meant the people would blow each other up. That's the part that seemed very Hollywood to me. Even assuming there was some sort of moral prisoner who saved the civilians, you can't seriously expect a boat full of everyday people to sacrifice themselves like that. I was fine with the way they held a vote (I was already coming up with the TG I'd be sending Soheran about it regarding collective decisionmaking in a situation like that :tongue:), but it was just plain stupid that they then wouldn't enforce the decision. I would much rather have the Joker win on principle and the Batman face the fact that maybe the people he's saving aren't worthy of quite as high a moral value as he places on them. Would have made for a far superior third movie.

This is only because you're a future super villain, you know...;p

Kevin Michael Richardson

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1204613/article_images/thejokerhopsaroundlikeanapeanddoesntwearshoes.jpg

Best Joker Ever.

I'll vote for him too, even though I've never heard his Joker.

After all, he was also Sarevok - Teh best villain in any computer game. ;)

I liked Ledger's portrayal a better but Nichelson did a bang up job as well.

My favorite "Jokerism" from the movie was the whole speach about schemers, especially:
"I'm the guy who shows the schemers how useless thier plans really are." or something to that effect.

I meant the people would blow each other up. That's the part that seemed very Hollywood to me. Even assuming there was some sort of moral prisoner who saved the civilians, you can't seriously expect a boat full of everyday people to sacrifice themselves like that. I was fine with the way they held a vote (I was already coming up with the TG I'd be sending Soheran about it regarding collective decisionmaking in a situation like that :tongue:), but it was just plain stupid that they then wouldn't enforce the decision. I would much rather have the Joker win on principle and the Batman face the fact that maybe the people he's saving aren't worthy of quite as high a moral value as he places on them. Would have made for a far superior third movie.

The whole point was that, while the civilians were more than happy to vote to kill the prisoners to save themselves, none of them were truly despicable enough to be the one that actually pressed the button to condemn them to death. They all wanted to blow the prisoners up, but none of them were willing to be the one that had to live with it on their conscious.

Besides, if Joker won on principle and Batman had to realize that the people of Gotham maybe were totally unredeemable, what would be the point at all of a third movie? You wouldn't want Batman to defeat the next supervillain because you would want the people of Gotham to suffer for being such bad people. There has to be that glimmer of hope that maybe there is something in Gotham to save for the audience to continue to want to see Batman try to save them.

Mark Hamill was the best.

I liked Ledger much better.

Jack didn't give me bad dreams ... *shrugs*

The way he made the Joker come to life, a completely different style, was what did it for me. I could see him. Heath made the character so darned realistic ...

The whole point was that, while the civilians were more than happy to vote to kill the prisoners to save themselves, none of them were truly despicable enough to be the one that actually pressed the button to condemn them to death. They all wanted to blow the prisoners up, but none of them were willing to be the one that had to live with it on their conscious.

Besides, if Joker won on principle and Batman had to realize that the people of Gotham maybe were totally unredeemable, what would be the point at all of a third movie? You wouldn't want Batman to defeat the next supervillain because you would want the people of Gotham to suffer for being such bad people. There has to be that glimmer of hope that maybe there is something in Gotham to save for the audience to continue to want to see Batman try to save them.
Interesting, also, is the fact that Batman never actually defeats The Joker. At best, he fouls The Joker's plan to have the cops shoot hostages dressed to look like henchmen, but even then it puts Batman at odds with himself and sets up the sacrifice he has to make at the end. The only defeat that The Joker suffers is the people refusing to actually push the button, and that doesn't come from Batman, it's not even inspired by him. Batman is behind the ball on The Joker the entire time. Even his capture plays into The Joker's hand. The Joker underlines the fact that Batman can't actually beat him and never really will. The Joker proved his point throughout the movie and it's why Batman had to sacrifice his reputation at the end. He had to go from high minded protector to sin eater. The movie already had the sack to kill Dawes, so killing one of the boats would really have been gratuitous. I don't find it difficult to accept that ordinary citizens have a hard time becoming executioners. Especially as they got closer to the deadline and realized that the prisoners hadn't blown them up.

The movie already had the sack to kill Dawes, so killing one of the boats would really have been gratuitous.

I find it entertaining that this movie had the balls to do the Spiderman/Gwen Stacy storyline that the Spiderman franchise didn't.

I find it entertaining that this movie had the balls to do the Spiderman/Gwen Stacy storyline that the Spiderman franchise didn't.

I said earlier in another spoiler tag that in some respects this movie seemed almost like a giant 'fuck you' to the Spiderman movies. This didn't need to be in spoilers, but they're just awesome...

I said earlier in another spoiler tag that in some respects this movie seemed almost like a giant 'fuck you' to the Spiderman movies. This didn't need to be in spoilers, but they're just awesome...

Ah, I see that you did. I think you posted that before I saw the movie, so I didn't want to see your spoiler.

And I agree with you about Batman being a step behind the Joker the entire movie. In fact, Batman never really defeated the Joker; the people of Gotham did. It's too bad that the Joker storyline was left hanging like it was.

Ah, I see that you did. I think you posted that before I saw the movie, so I didn't want to see your spoiler.

And I agree with you about Batman being a step behind the Joker the entire movie. In fact, Batman never really defeated the Joker; the people of Gotham did. It's too bad that the Joker storyline was left hanging like it was.

Ha, punny! (When last we see The Joker is hanging by his foot...) Actually, I liked that he was left like that. Nolan is establishing the cannon, not summing it up. The Joker and Batman are going to tangle again and again, this is, as the first movie title states, the beginning of Batman, which is intertwined with a recuring Joker. It was a refreshing change from the 'kill the bad guy' adaptations that sum up a serial character in a stand alone movie.

Ha, punny! (When last we see The Joker is hanging by his foot...) Actually, I liked that he was left like that. Nolan is establishing the cannon, not summing it up. The Joker and Batman are going to tangle again and again, this is, as the first movie title states, the beginning of Batman, which is intertwined with a recuring Joker. It was a refreshing change from the 'kill the bad guy' adaptations that sum up a serial character in a stand alone movie.

Normally I would agree, but with Ledger's untimely passing, it's almost unfortunate that Nolan didn't attempt to end the character like he did Ra's in the first one. Of course it would be impossible for him to know, but in hindsight you almost wish he had taken the easy way out so the Joker thread could have closure.

I wish they hadn't killed Harvey Dent, too. I always felt that Two-Face was a much more meaningful villain for Batman because of their history and former friendship. As iconic as the Joker was, he and Batman did not really have any background to their struggle except good guy vs. bad guy (until the Joker killed Jason Todd, but since Nolan has sworn up and down that Robin will never be in one of his movies, that storyline will never be explored). With Two-Face, you have a villain that you feel bad for, and you have a villain that Batman has trouble bringing himself to face, because of the very personal nature. Sort of a "there but by the grace of God go I" thing.

I believe they should have explored the Scarecrow more, but c'est la vie. They couldn't overpopulate the movie with bad guys.

Normally I would agree, but with Ledger's untimely passing, it's almost unfortunate that Nolan didn't attempt to end the character like he did Ra's in the first one. Of course it would be impossible for him to know, but in hindsight you almost wish he had taken the easy way out so the Joker thread could have closure.

I wish they hadn't killed Harvey Dent, too. I always felt that Two-Face was a much more meaningful villain for Batman because of their history and former friendship. As iconic as the Joker was, he and Batman did not really have any background to their struggle except good guy vs. bad guy (until the Joker killed Jason Todd, but since Nolan has sworn up and down that Robin will never be in one of his movies, that storyline will never be explored). With Two-Face, you have a villain that you feel bad for, and you have a villain that Batman has trouble bringing himself to face, because of the very personal nature. Sort of a "there but by the grace of God go I" thing.

I believe they should have explored the Scarecrow more, but c'est la vie. They couldn't overpopulate the movie with bad guys.
I whole heartedly agree on Two Face, but feel that a dead Joker really makes it not Batman anymore. Keep in mind that the movies have limited legs, he's got maybe two more in him before he gets bored or wears himself out. The Joker is never resolved, and that's the nature of The Joker-the implication is that after these movies, the story is ongoing, like a proper comic book character. Nolan isn't going to do the end of Batman's career unless it's a giant step, this is just the beginning, so things should be left unresolved (and Two Face alive, but we agree on that...)

I whole heartedly agree on Two Face, but feel that a dead Joker really makes it not Batman anymore. Keep in mind that the movies have limited legs, he's got maybe two more in him before he gets bored or wears himself out. The Joker is never resolved, and that's the nature of The Joker-the implication is that after these movies, the story is ongoing, like a proper comic book character. Nolan isn't going to do the end of Batman's career unless it's a giant step, this is just the beginning, so things should be left unresolved (and Two Face alive, but we agree on that...)

I'll pose this to you then. Since we can safely assume that the Joker won't feature in any future Nolan Batman movies, who do you suppose will be Batman's nemesis in the next movie? Which of Batman's remaining villains carry the right kind of attitude to fit into Nolan's Gotham City?

Who was the better joker; Jack or Heath Ledger? I say Ledger by a mile.

Heath Ledger. By ten thousand miles. His Joker made you laugh, but when he was pointing a gun, you knew it wasn't a trick gun.

Heath Ledger. By ten thousand miles. His Joker made you laugh, but when he was pointing a gun, you knew it wasn't a trick gun.

Whereas the classical Joker would be pointing a gun that looked like a flag gun the first time he pulls the trigger, only for it to turn out to be a spear gun when he pulls the trigger the second time.

Whereas the classical Joker would be pointing a gun that looked like a flag gun the first time he pulls the trigger, only for it to turn out to be a spear gun when he pulls the trigger the second time.

Well, the fact that he doesn't use trick guns makes Ledger's Joker more threatening.

I find it entertaining that this movie had the balls to do the Spiderman/Gwen Stacy storyline that the Spiderman franchise didn't.
I, too, was impressed that they actually went up to that idea, and moreover that they completed the action. One of the true surprises of the movie
I said earlier in another spoiler tag that in some respects this movie seemed almost like a giant 'fuck you' to the Spiderman movies. This didn't need to be in spoilers, but they're just awesome...
Spiderman deserves the "fuck you". And I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes these new spoiler things
Ha, punny! (When last we see The Joker is hanging by his foot...) Actually, I liked that he was left like that. Nolan is establishing the cannon, not summing it up. The Joker and Batman are going to tangle again and again, this is, as the first movie title states, the beginning of Batman, which is intertwined with a recuring Joker. It was a refreshing change from the 'kill the bad guy' adaptations that sum up a serial character in a stand alone movie.
one of the most irritating things of superhero movies. I personally hope that, at the close of the series, the joker has not been killed or put to an end. The two are too integral to eachother to destroy either, even at the end of the cannon
Normally I would agree, but with Ledger's untimely passing, it's almost unfortunate that Nolan didn't attempt to end the character like he did Ra's in the first one. Of course it would be impossible for him to know, but in hindsight you almost wish he had taken the easy way out so the Joker thread could have closure.

I wish they hadn't killed Harvey Dent, too. I always felt that Two-Face was a much more meaningful villain for Batman because of their history and former friendship. As iconic as the Joker was, he and Batman did not really have any background to their struggle except good guy vs. bad guy (until the Joker killed Jason Todd, but since Nolan has sworn up and down that Robin will never be in one of his movies, that storyline will never be explored). With Two-Face, you have a villain that you feel bad for, and you have a villain that Batman has trouble bringing himself to face, because of the very personal nature. Sort of a "there but by the grace of God go I" thing.

I believe they should have explored the Scarecrow more, but c'est la vie. They couldn't overpopulate the movie with bad guys.
I can see two things happening. One, they might recast the Joker. This is what I think they should do. Sadly, I can't think of a single person who could fill the spot. Two, they might decide that twoface isn't dead. Plausable...he could just be unconscious.



With mentioning this incarnation, I'm pretty glad Robin doen't exist.
I'll pose this to you then. Since we can safely assume that the Joker won't feature in any future Nolan Batman movies, who do you suppose will be Batman's nemesis in the next movie? Which of Batman's remaining villains carry the right kind of attitude to fit into Nolan's Gotham City?
I think that Holiday could fit in with some modification...I could see that play well...Holiday becomes Gothams new "hero", killing mobsters, that has to be stopped by Batman. I've also kinda loved Zodiac Master...he was never a major foe, but could be turned to one fairly easily

Nicholson couldn't have done what Ledger did. Nobody would have played the movie-back then, they actually cared what people put on screen.

That being said, I think Ledger was terrifying. He honest to god scared me shitless in parts of that movie. Absolutely amazing.

I'll pose this to you then. Since we can safely assume that the Joker won't feature in any future Nolan Batman movies, who do you suppose will be Batman's nemesis in the next movie? Which of Batman's remaining villains carry the right kind of attitude to fit into Nolan's Gotham City?

This doesn't have to be in the tags, but fuck it, it's fun. I could see a way for them to have Two Face still exist, they never said he was dead. But that would mean that Gordon was going to great lengths to hide him, and that if he escaped it would shatter the illusion that Batman and Gordon tried to create, and they'd be forced into trying to save a house of cards. However, Nolan had plenty of opportunity to reverse or set up Two Face still being alive and he didn't. So I don't think this will be it.

Someone mentioned Fox saying, "[The suit] will stop a cat." as a seed for Catwoman. They've cleared his romantic plate, and with Catwoman he'd have to face the fact that he's doing this for thrills, which shatters his own illusion.

Nolan has said NO to Penguin, which I think is a shame. Penguin is the dark side of Wayne the playboy, Penguin is a facilitator, and someone he can't just beat up to stop, an Al Capone figure that's able to flaunt himself. Taking the theme of using Batman villains that are reflections of Batman himself, I think he's a great choice. He doesn't have to be 'unrealistic' as Nolan contends, he's just an odd looking eccentric. No stranger than a guy in a Batsuit.

I think Riddler is too Joker, to be honest. I've always thought of The Riddler as a light weight Joker with a specific theme. Doing Riddler movie would almost be like trying to xerox the intensity of this one, and I think would fall short.

IDK, I think Nicholson had the laugh down pat a little better...

But, i think i like Ledger's portrayal overall a little better, although, to be fair, it may have alot to do with the Script which i think was better written than the '89 Batman, which is saying something cause i love that movie, lol...

Im just sad that we'll never get to see Harley Quinn in a Movie...Poor Ledger :(

This doesn't have to be in the tags, but fuck it, it's fun. I could see a way for them to have Two Face still exist, they never said he was dead. But that would mean that Gordon was going to great lengths to hide him, and that if he escaped it would shatter the illusion that Batman and Gordon tried to create, and they'd be forced into trying to save a house of cards. However, Nolan had plenty of opportunity to reverse or set up Two Face still being alive and he didn't. So I don't think this will be it.

Someone mentioned Fox saying, "[The suit] will stop a cat." as a seed for Catwoman. They've cleared his romantic plate, and with Catwoman he'd have to face the fact that he's doing this for thrills, which shatters his own illusion.

Nolan has said NO to Penguin, which I think is a shame. Penguin is the dark side of Wayne the playboy, Penguin is a facilitator, and someone he can't just beat up to stop, an Al Capone figure that's able to flaunt himself. Taking the theme of using Batman villains that are reflections of Batman himself, I think he's a great choice. He doesn't have to be 'unrealistic' as Nolan contends, he's just an odd looking eccentric. No stranger than a guy in a Batsuit.

I think Riddler is too Joker, to be honest. I've always thought of The Riddler as a light weight Joker with a specific theme. Doing Riddler movie would almost be like trying to xerox the intensity of this one, and I think would fall short.
I think Catwoman, of these, is the best bet. I wish they would do two face, as he is the most complex in my mind, and has the most potential to give Batman a proverbial mind-fuck given her final words. Riddler would be a mistake (not to mention, he has always annoyed me)

Yeah, i think a Catwoman/Two-Face movie would be the way to go, they could really fuck with Batman somethin Fierce, lol...His Friend and is New Squeeze teamin up to kill him, who wouldnt be fucked...

*throws pies at anyone who peeks*

*throws pies at anyone who peeks*
...:(...

Whats with all the txt buttons?

Whats with all the txt buttons?

A way of hiding movie spoilers. I don't know how it works.

A way of hiding movie spoilers. I don't know how it works.

Are the last two pages of text buttons working for you? They don't seem to be working for me... strangeness.

A way of hiding movie spoilers. I don't know how it works.

Ah, that makes sense...I was afraid it was some new Jolt feature, and i was like this is annoying as hell, lol...

A way of hiding movie spoilers. I don't know how it works.

You put spoiler tags around words you want hidden

"spoiler tags" are not among the options I am given.

Ledger for best supporting actor

I think Catwoman, of these, is the best bet. I wish they would do two face, as he is the most complex in my mind, and has the most potential to give Batman a proverbial mind-fuck given her final words. Riddler would be a mistake (not to mention, he has always annoyed me)

You know, I was thinking that as well on catwoman. He doesn't have a love interest anymore, leaving a bit of a void. My only problem is that Catwoman seems like a character that is all to easy to pull off as campy, but rather difficult to pull off as someone who you could expect to find in real life, as it is with the current villains.

As for Dent, that is my huge problem is that as soon as Two-Face were to start showing up, people would likely wise up pretty quick, and all of their work to maintain his "white night" image would crumble down. Of course, this could be an interesting story, but I don't think it would work to well given how the next movie seems to be set up, that being that Batman is now a wanted outlaw hated by the city. Perhaps, if they make a fourth, they could do it then, but with the tone they are creating for the next, it would be rather... disappointing, really. And, it is very heavily implied that he is dead. So... yeah.

I would think that Hush could make an interesting character. The only problem I can see with it, however, is that they would have to introduce a character that has not yet been mentioned, which could make it seem as though it came out of nowhere. However, with proper writing, I can see how such a character could work, as Batman is now considered an enemy of Gotham, and Hush, who is trying to stop him, could be considered a "hero", in a sense. I don't know, though.

As for the riddler, well... He would be difficult to portray in this cannon. It would be far to easy to portray him as a Joker-lite, however, I can see it being done. Just very seriously, and dark, but not Heath Ledger the God Joker insane dark. Just a very dark character all around.

I have a slight feeling, however, that Zsasz may appear as a minor type of Villain. He was said to be an assassin in the first movie, however after escaping Arkham, he was given the gas that turns people insane. Hence, he could turn from before being an assassin into now being an insane serial killer.

I was surprised by how good Ledger was. After all the hype I went into the movie intent on not liking his Joker as much as Nicholsons' but he was amazing.

The whole thing was so dark and the script so intelligent, for an action film, that I think Ledger will be a shoe in for an Oscar this year. Dying didn't hurt his chances either.

I really liked Ledger's portrayal but the insane comedy of Nicholson was good as well. I did watch Batman ('89) right before the new one and I do think Ledger got a better role, but that could be the changes in movie society plus Batman now being not nearly as campy. I find portrayals such as Ledger to be much more terrifying, even compared to IT because Ledger's character to me is much more believable as to actually existing.

Aside from Hannibal Lector, Anthony Hopkins style, I can't think of a better villain on screen.

Nicholson's performance was too over the top.

Nicholson's performance was too over the top.

Well, that's the thing. The original Batman movie was, in a sense "over the top". It was quite a bit more adhering to the comics than this series. So really, Nicholson's Joker was perfect in that world.

However, what most people gripe about is that the Joker in this movie is not "Joker" enough. However, the problem is that if he were like the Joker of the comics, he simply would be out of place. It would have ruined the entire movie, as that Joker has absolutely no place in the world being fleshed out by Nolan. This is a different, darker, more realistic universe than previously explored. It takes the original content, and applies it in a meaningful way to this world being explored.

As such, you can't exactly compare the two Jokers. Nicholson played that Joker extremely well for that universe, however Ledger plays it entirely different, and does extremely well(To the point that at no time does one realize that Ledger is actually playing the role, really), but in an entirely different world. They both are well fit for the movies that they are in, which other than being "Batman" movies, couldn't be any more different from one another.

txt buttons are so lame

I loved Heath Ledger's Joker. But for me, the real star of the movie was Aaron Eckhart's Two-Face. Creepy!

And Andaras, The Joker laughs frequently throughout the movie.

What? The Burton Joker wasn't anything like the comic Joker. For starters, they confused Joker with Joe Chill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Chill), which completely undermines Batman's efforts at fighting crime: he fights crime in no small part because he can't get revenge on the man who killed his parents.

Nicholson's Joker was something we thought was effective because of Nicholson, not because of Nicholson's acting. When Nicholson smiles, he's got a Joker grin, and he can be more than a bit wierd at times, but he's by no means the sadistic incarnation of chaos you see in the comics. I'd say he might not have been quite as good as Cesare Romero in that respect, because he's clearly going for the same route to Jokerdom.

Ledger, by contrast, was a Joker performance that I didn't see coming; I thought it was a miscast when he got the part instead of Mark Hamill. Man, did Ledge prove me wrong. Right script combined with the right actor. It's a testament to just how good his performance is that when people think of great villian roles in cinema, the widely-lauded and Oscar-winning performance by Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men isn't even mentioned; in fact, I'd bet it was completely forgotten. And in some sense, that's justified. Ledger's Joker is right up there with Darth Vader, the Model 101 Terminator, and Hannibal Lector for best villian performance ever.

I was surprised by how good Ledger was. After all the hype I went into the movie intent on not liking his Joker as much as Nicholsons' but he was amazing.

The whole thing was so dark and the script so intelligent, for an action film, that I think Ledger will be a shoe in for an Oscar this year. Dying didn't hurt his chances either.

You make it sound like he deliberately planned his own death in order to increase his Oscar chances. That probably wasn't your intention, so it's just my wacky interpretation of something that was innocently written.

Honestly, I think they were playing the role so differently that I can't compare them that way.

Though there is one area where I can compare them pretty directly: makeup.

Ledger was unrecognizable to me in his Joker costume. Jack looked exactly like he always does, just a tad more pale. To me, that made Jack a much more scary Joker...

Personally I think Jack Nicholson played a better role as the president of the USA in Mars Attacks, but that's also because Jack looks a bit like the sadistic brother of Nixon.

Who was the better joker; Jack or Heath Ledger? I say Ledger by a mile.

I depends on what you consider Better?

a sadisically lunatic Joker: Jack Nicholson.

a Sociopathic Joker: Heath Ledger.

a Whimical, frivolous Joker: Cesar Romero

Ledger was AMAZING. the thing is, he summed up evil, at least as I saw it. He was evil in all its "glory" and he was perfect.ohhhh how perrfect...

Ledger was a great character, all 'pure evil' or 'chaos' or whatever you wanna call it, but I've never directly equated those qualities with the Joker. I wish there was more Two-Face as well. I think the Riddler could be done. He (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddler#The_Batman) entertained me, anyways.

Indeed.

Ledger was extremely dull. If that was the worlds most impressive psychopath and symbol of evil the world just became a far less scary place in my eyes.

Not that Jack was all of that, but hey. At least he was slightly interesting.

Heath was deliciously original, but Jack was truer to the comics. All-in-all, Mark Hamil beat them both (with just his voice!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld0uIhst3TA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcCOqRbSM4g