Still the funniest and most iconic Joker there ever will be. Also the most comic book accurate.
Ledger was decent as the Joker but massively overrated due to his death. And I don't know who the hell Joaquin Phoenix was playing, but it wasn't the Joker. Great performance in general, but he was playing a different character altogether.
Ledge played a great psychotic villain, no doubt. He didn't so much make a great JOKER, though. No one wants to hear that, though. I agree about Phoenix, but no one wants to hear that either. Jack was without a doubt the best actual JOKER. Glad I'm not alone on that.
shareLedge played a great psychotic villain, no doubt. He didn't so much make a great JOKER, though.
Yeah Burton's Joker was actually kind of accurate to comics and cartoon depictions, even the 60ties show. Ledger is a modern spin on the Joker, it is still a cool character but I don't like it when the new generations dismiss Burton's Joker just because it is too cartooney. That is what the joker was supposed to be like for over 50 years, the modern portrayal is something new or a redesign of a character where the character loses a lot of the characteristics and gains some new ones.
shareLedger is a modern spin on the Joker
In what comic did Joker kill Bruce's parents?
shareNever heard that one before. Nobody said it was perfectly accurate, just the most accurate out of the major live-action portrayals. The fundamental characteristics are satisfied unlike Ledger's Joker.
shareWhat fundamental characteristics are you talking about? The only thing Joker has on Ledger that is more comic book accurate is the bleached skin. Thing is you can then say well Ledger's Joker did not kill Bruce's parents which is a point for him being more comic book accurate. He has white makeup, the purple suit, is insane, has a maniacal laugh and is a strong obstacle for Batman. What has happened here is since you prefer Nicholson's you are going to say he is more comic book accurate simply because you prefer him. Joker has been around for many years, there are many ways to interpret this character. So no Nicholson's is not the most comic book accurate. Why do bleached skin when Burton already did that? Do you want to see the same thing every interpretation? Part of the reason Man of Steel's Zod was not a standout like Terrence Stamp's Zod is they go over the same story beat thus making the villain uninteresting and cliched. We already saw the vat of acid and bleached skin in Batman 1989 we did not need to see that again in TDK.
Also did not laugh much? Here is a comparison of both of their laughs from each film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmrhC9RS_mM
As you can see from the video the amount of time they laugh in the films they are in is about even.
I agree.
In fact as far as Ledgers performance is concerned I feel his is better. When I first heard Ledger was playing the Joker I was like WTF!!!! That guy from a Knights Tale and the Patriot? Came out of the theatre after watching TDK thinking WOW!
Jack Nicholson played the same character as he did in the Shining and Witches of Eastwick for me. Jack Nicholson does manic well, but a bit too often for me to make his Joker any different from those characters he plays in the movies I mentioned.
Yep exactly. I like Nicholson's Joker a lot but the thing is it is derivative of other roles he has played. While he is good I see Jack Nicholson. With Ledger I saw Joker and did not see Ledger at all. I like Nicholson's a lot but I prefer Ledger's. Thing is I feel we are spoiled as Joker fans. Romero, Nicholson, Hamill, Ledger and Phoenix are all good Jokers in their own way. Honestly though if I had to say which one is most comic book accurate I would say it is Hammil's. I am not saying that by default makes him better than any of the others just more comic book accurate.
shareHonestly though if I had to say which one is most comic book accurate I would say it is Hammil's.
They are different but in the end I believe Batman the animated series is the most comic book accurate representation of Batman to date. No live action Batman film has managed to match it in terms of accuracy to the source material. Also no Nicholson was not the most accurate if we are being honest.
shareThey are different but in the end I believe Batman the animated series is the most comic book accurate representation of Batman to date.
Animation is still cinematic and a form of story telling. So my point stands.
shareJack Nicholson played the same character as he did in the Shining and Witches of Eastwick for me.
Meryl Streep has more acting nominations than him number one, number two even great actors can fall into a comfort zone that is their wheelhouse. Deniro has done it and so has Nicholson. Am I saying they are not great actors? Nope but what I say is true.
shareMeryl Streep has more acting nominations than him number one
Acting is making you believe the character. In Batman all i saw was Jack Nicholson. In the Dark Knight I didn't see Ledger, I saw the character. That's acting.
shareLike I said, you don't know what acting is. Acting is not about changing your appearance and voice, otherwise Eddie Murphy would be one of the all time greats. It's primarily about being emotionally engaging/believable, and making you believe the characters plight and intentions. The majority of the greatest performances of all time are not chameleonic. Examples -
Al Pacino as Michael Corleone/Serpico/Dog Day Afternoon - 3 of the greatest performances of all time and yet he clearly still sounds and looks like Pacino.
De Niro as Jake LaMotta and Travis Bickle.
Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.
The problem with Ledger's Joker was actually not his fault, but an issue with the script. The character had no depth at all. He's just crazy for the sake of being crazy.
"The character had no depth at all. He's just crazy for the sake of being crazy."
I don't fully agree with this; his lack of a backstory and clear motivation does not mean he is without depth. And he is not crazy for the sake of being crazy. He is dedicated to proving his assumptions about the world being crazy and chaotic. He is demented and manipulative; he lies so he is unreliable source of information but he his dedication to his cause is a sign of depth; he is not concerned with his personal well being as long as his point is proven; that kind of crazy dedication to a cause is a form of depth I would say.
Acting is about performance. I never thought that the guy from A Knights Tale could put in a performance like that. It was the very definition of acting.
It's primarily about being emotionally engaging/believable, and making you believe the characters plight and intentions.
^^^^
Exactly. Nicholson just made me believe it was Nicholson getting paid to be himself.
The majority of the greatest performances of all time are not chameleonic. Examples -
Al Pacino as Michael Corleone/Serpico/Dog Day Afternoon - 3 of the greatest performances of all time and yet he clearly still sounds and looks like Pacino.
De Niro as Jake LaMotta and Travis Bickle.
Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.
^^^^
Don't disagree.
You have a shallow view of acting.
^^^^
As do you.
You have gone on and argued your point with other posters yet in the end it is simply an opinion. Bringing in other actors performances etc...doesn't make you right, it simply reinforces your opinion...to yourself. I don't agree with you on this, but that doesn't make you wrong and me right. It simply means I prefer Ledgers performance over Nicholsons. Hell, I preferred Caeser Romeros Joker over Nicholsons. The worst Joker might have been a better topic, but hey you started the thread so should have expected people to disagree with you eh?
Bringing in other actors performances etc...doesn't make you right, it simply reinforces your opinion...to yourself.
Except I don't need to defend my opinion. You on the other hand feel the need to not only defend yours but tell everyone else theirs is wrong.
Good luck with that!
Except I don't need to defend my opinion.
Except I didn't. I gave my reasons for preferring Ledgers performance over Nicholsons. If anything, I defend my right to have an opinion. That is something you seem to miss. Time to put on your big boy pants and realize that people are not always going to agree with your view of the world.
That is because you were already so familiar with Jack Nicholson in such roles; because he has done so well over and over again. You didn't see Jack Nicholson; you saw the roles Nicholson played before and false attribute that as a representation of the actor and not their performance.
Acting is about delivery and how convincing the actor is with facial expressions, body language, voice, tone, etc. Jack Nicholson was all of these at least as much as Ledger was; but the difference is Nicholson was already established for such roles; with Ledger it was one of his first times doing something like that; but that does not mean it was better by default just because we were not used to seeing him like that.
I don't disagree with you there, but I still feel Ledger was the better Joker. I wasn't used to seeing him act like that it's true. What's even more true is I didn't think he had a performance like that in him.
Believe it or not, overall I prefer Nicholson as an actor over Ledger, so this isn't some fanboy thing.
Fair enough; Ledger's performance was great no doubt and it was surprisingly good to; with Nicholson it was more like 'he is as great as he always is' so it has less of an impact for sure.
Did you see Ledger in Brother's Grimm? IMO he gives a better performance in that than as the Joker; but the movie is not very good. Basically his performance is the only reason it is even worth watching.
Yeah, I saw that movie (well some of it). I never got the chance to really rate his performance as I got bored with the movie and switched it off after about 20 mins. Might give it another look after what you've said about his performance.
shareYeah the movie itself is hard to sit through but his performance is impressive.
shareDude Nicholson was just playing the same character he played for the past 15 years or so, granted he does that very well but his Joker performance was just a stock Jack Nicholson performance. With Ledger however you don't see Heath Ledger you see the Joker, Ledger was better.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you st
shareGot it, you can't defend your position. Now leave the internet.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to youYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Please, will you st
shareRequest denied.
shareThis is the most delusional post i've read in a while. But here we go...
What fundamental characteristics are you talking about? The only thing Joker has on Ledger that is more comic book accurate is the bleached skin.
Thing is you can then say well Ledger's Joker did not kill Bruce's parents which is a point for him being more comic book accurate.
What has happened here is since you prefer Nicholson's you are going to say he is more comic book accurate simply because you prefer him.
Why do bleached skin when Burton already did that?
Also did not laugh much? Here is a comparison of both of their laughs from each film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmrhC9RS_mM
Secondly, why do anything then? Let's just put Batman in a crow suit. Fuck it, as long as he's called Batman
The bleached skin, the gag weapons, killing in creative and comical ways, the wisecracks, basically everything that makes the Joker his own character and not just some generic villain in face-paint. In fact, if you take off the face-paint you wouldn't even know who Ledger is trying to portray.
That's called a plot point buddy, not a characteristic. Nicholson's Joker had the more widely known personality traits of the Joker. Ledger pretty much played a generic villain who occasionally laughs a little bit.
Oh the lack of self awareness is so hilarious I might have to start laughing like the Joker. As demonstrated, Nicholson's Joker has the unmistakable characteristics of the Joker. Even if you get rid of his makeup he's still very distinctly playing the Joker. Ledger? Not so much. He's just playing generic crazy man who constantly goes on about his scars.
I am going to make this pencil disappear. That was a creative kill bud.
If you took off the face paint you would still have the purple suit and his maniacal insane behavior.
Weapons how about the potato peeler?
A plot point that is part of the character bud. Plot points help paint characteristics. An insane clown is what the Joker is Ledger had that down. Simply because it is a different take does not make it any less Joker than his was.
If there was no makeup for Nicholson he would be just a guy that killed Bruce's parents who is insane.
First of all, Burton didn't do that, the comics did that, hence it being accurate to the comics. Secondly, why do anything then? Let's just put Batman in a crow suit. Fuck it, as long as he's called Batman right, let's strip him of everything that makes him Batman. Your argument is ridiculous and nonsensical. I understand if you prefer Ledger's Joker but if something is more accurate to the comics then it's more accurate to the comics. Try and be a little more honest with your assessment otherwise you're veering off into fanboy territory.
So since it has been done why do you want to see that again in a film? Don't you think it would be repetitive if every time we see Joker in a new adaption we see him fall into acid?
Part of the charm of a character is doing something new with them and not retreading over the same ground.
Provide all of Nicholson's laughs then and I will provide all of Ledger's. Lets compare who had more laughs and averaged more laughs for their screen time.
By the way you had a previous screen name that was justanicknamed huh?
Correct TDK is not an origin story, so why does his skin need to be bleached? I thought the characteristics defined the character not the plot point? Are you backpedaling here? Would a simple oh his skin is bleached really have added that much to the character in TDK then?
No my argument is the same. If you want to argue about accuracy to the comic then you have to hold every adaption to the same standard. Burton's Batman films while influential took many liberties with the Batman source material. If Burton gets a free pass for liberation then Nolan should as well. If Nolan gets flak for deviating so should Burton that is only fair. Even if Nicholson were more comic book accurate which I do not believe he is that does not by default make him better. Alfred in Burton's Batman films is more comic book accurate than Nolan's Alfred, however I believe Nolan's Alfred was much more layered of a character. Terrence Stamp's Zod was vastly different from his comic book counterpart. In the end Stamp's Zod is the most iconic Zod. He was so good that even the comics molded the character after that interpretation. Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark is different from his comic book counterpart guess what same as Stamp's Zod he is the face of Iron Man now even more than the comic. So as you can see sometimes a liberation of something can make it better not always but sometimes.
We also need to measure screen time now don't we? Do you have that measurement as well? All of Ledgers laughs now remember he also had less screen time than Nicholson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8troSSIhU
Getting reamed in what debate. This is not a debate this is you getting educated. I said the amount they laugh is about even. I never said it was definitive even. You will see though when you calculate their screen time it comes out fairly close. I have a feeling that is you behind that username you are using now. He made these same points and was not objective at all.
Correct TDK is not an origin story, so why does his skin need to be bleached? I thought the characteristics defined the character not the plot point?
If you want to argue about accuracy to the comic then you have to hold every adaption to the same standard. Burton's Batman films while influential took many liberties with the Batman source material.
So as you can see sometimes a liberation of something can make it better not always but sometimes.
We also need to measure screen time now don't we? Do you have that measurement as well? All of Ledgers laughs now remember he also had less screen time than Nicholson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8troSSIhU
I said the amount they laugh is about even. I never said it was definitive even.
I have a feeling that is you behind that username you are using now. He made these same points and was not objective at all.
Plot points do have a hand in determining a character. A character's motivation and psychology is a huge part of what makes them what they are. Bleached skin is a trait but it doesn't need to be there in order for the character to maintain a lot of the characteristics. Phoenix's Joker is actually more accurate to source when you consider him being a failed comedian. You can argue that him falling into acid is a plot point. Which is why he has bleached skin. The bleached skin is not essential like the batsuit bad comparison.
Burton took tons of liberties that you want to omit simply because you prefer his version. Either we excuse all liberation or none.
Not moving any goal post I am calling out hypocrisy where I see it. The most comic book accurate Joker on film is Hammil's not Nicholson. You could actually even make the case for Romero in terms of live action over Nicholson.
It's so funny you are literally saying because if more laughter it makes it more comic book accurate. Do you know the measurement for their screen time?
No actually. When you measure the amount of screen time the time they spend laughing it is pretty close. So nope nice try.
Bleached skin is a trait but it doesn't need to be there in order for the character to maintain a lot of the characteristics.
Phoenix's Joker is actually more accurate to source when you consider him being a failed comedian..
Either we excuse all liberation or none.
Not moving any goal post I am calling out hypocrisy where I see it. The most comic book accurate Joker on film is Hammil's not Nicholson.
Do you know the measurement for their screen time?
No actually. When you measure the amount of screen time the time they spend laughing it is pretty close. So nope nice try.
Um it actually is a plot point. Him falling into acid and becoming the Joker is a plot point. So actually it is both.
Unanimously agreed? Which data did you use to determine this? Provide this data please. Provide the unanimous data that says Phoenix took the most liberation.
It does work that way. You want to be biased and only give flak when you do not like a version of the character. Either we omit all liberation or none period. Do not like it too bad.
Way to cherry pick my post. Apparently you missed me referencing Romero as well then correct? He was live action and was before Nicholson. Your dishonesty is dismissed. Nicholson's Joker would not exist without the comic creation or Romero what is your point?
Jack Nicholson's Joker had 32 minutes and 15 seconds. Heath Ledger's Joker had 25 minutes and 15 minutes and 15 seconds. So now average out the time they spent laughing. My original clip is the true to form one. It only takes the laughs there is no pause like in your video. Heath Ledger had a total of 2 minutes and two seconds of laughing. Nicholson had 1 minute and 42 seconds of laughter. However out of fairness they did omit his mirror scene therefore I looked it up. He has 24 seconds of laughter there. Therefore he had 2.1 minutes of laughter.
My links. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmrhC9RS_mM
Jack starts at the 7 second mark, and ends at the 1:49 mark. Ledger starts at the 1:50 mark and ends at the 3:17 mark.
The mirror scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj2rQaj25h4 Nicholson starts at the 1:00 mark and ends at the 1:24 mark.
So in the end Ledger averaged more laugh time when equating in screen time. Your education was free today I will not charge you do not worry.
Um it actually is a plot point. Him falling into acid and becoming the Joker is a plot point.
Nicholson's Joker would not exist without the comic creation or Romero what is your point?
Jack Nicholson's Joker had 32 minutes and 15 seconds. Heath Ledger's Joker had 25 minutes and 15 minutes and 15 seconds.
My original clip is the true to form one. It only takes the laughs there is no pause like in your video. Heath Ledger had a total of 2 minutes and two seconds of laughing. Nicholson had 1 minute and 42 seconds of laughter.
Your education was free today I will not charge you do not worry.
And you do not need that trait in order to maintain the psychology or personality of the character. Only in your deluded mind.
Nope I am honest. I never denied Batman's impact or nfluence but you deny Nolan's Batman influence and impact. Romero cane before Nicholson period.
Oh nice backpedal so when he has not become joker we are omitting lol. So then I guess we can excuse any liberation by Phoenix since he wasn't him until the end...
Nope my video is the true one and you know it don't lie it makes you look ignorant.
I stood corrected on a point I made will you? I doubt it.
Lol.
I'm just shaking my head in second hand embarrassment right now. That's not even a rebuttal.
Nope my video is the true one and you know it don't lie it makes you look ignorant.
You are shaking your head out of ignorance bud. You tried to say Joker's bleached skin is the same as Batman Batman suit... Do I need to say more?
Nah I simply know a blind ignorant person when I see them. So radio silence on me disabling your point about Batman Begins not being a success right? Thought so.
You're a sad little man. Everyone can see you were unequivocally and factually proven wrong on the Joker laugh argument -
Are you deaf? The video is chock full of pauses. This is the video which shows all of Ledger's laughs with no pauses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8troSSIhU Which is hilarious because you posted it yourself and now you're trying to pretend like it doesn't exist.
That's 1:23 total and that's being generous as the first 15 seconds shouldn't really count but i'll let it pass.
Now for Nicholson's Joker. I'll only add uninterrupted laughter to be fair - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0H5Gy5yNb0 - 1:15 to 1:36, 1:44 to 2:08 (minus 5 seconds for speaking in between), 3:44 to 4:01 and 24 seconds in the mirror scene. That's 1:21 minutes from two scenes alone! Lmao! And i've still got the rest of the movie to play with. Add the laughs from this video and it's a landslide - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmrhC9RS_mM which by the way STILL isn't all the laughs from the movie. What's that? Yeah you just got owned. Again.
I told you this is a losing battle buddy but you want to go down this road. 10 bucks says you won't even admit that you're wrong.
Um no I just know hypocrites when I see them. No I called every laugh and the funny thing is you had no idea about their screen time until I old you what it was. You then tried to omit the time of Nicholson's Joker by not including the Jack Napier stuff. That was you grasping at straws.
You are the just the Burton fanboy version of moviechatuser497. I can acknowledge the flaws in Nolan's version but I also can acknowledge the flaws in Burton's version as well. My favorite version is the animated series. I feel that captures Batman better than any live action movie has.
For me being right no you owe me 10 bucks.
You then tried to omit the time of Nicholson's Joker by not including the Jack Napier stuff.
Lol nope. If that were true you would not have attempted to do that.
In what way? I never said that Ledger had more laughter I said it was fairly close. I proved that it was close. So um...
You can't even count can you? Have some dignity dude this is so sad...
shareI count an Oscar win for Phoenix and none for Nicholson not even a nomination. So I guess he is better by default right?
shareLol it's hilarious how confidently you posted those timestamps and YouTube links. Now look at you...ego completely shattered.
shareMy ego is not anywhere. I admitted to when I made a mistake or was wrong. You said I insinuated Batman Begins made 167 million on dvd sales. Nope unlike you I cited my facts and you backpedaled. As it stands Phoenix won the Oscar and Nicholson was not even nominated. Chew on that. There is no death excuse to help you either.
shareI admitted to when I made a mistake or was wrong.
You said I insinuated Batman Begins made 167 million on dvd sales. Nope unlike you I cited my facts and you backpedaled.
As it stands Phoenix won the Oscar and Nicholson was not even nominated. Chew on that.
Nope I admitted areas where I was wrong. You have not done the same.
167 million is good numbers. You already conceded to this point lol. You said that is the only area Batman Begins did well in. Also Dvd did not exist back in 1989 dvd came out in 1997 in the US. Notice I included the first year of Batman Begins dvd sales. So it was calculated until 2006. Epic fail again. 150 million dollars which is what Batman 1989 made in home video sales is the equivalent of 244,979,253.11 if you measure it to 2006.
Batman Begins made 167 million during that time. Now if you equate them both to today's standards it would be 319,884,647.30 for Batman 1989 and 218,062,286.59 for Batman Begins. Batman had the bigger cultural impact I never denied that but that is still selling well in home video. Titanic sold 500 million in it's first three months which equates to 810,132,408.58 today. So because Batman 1989 came nowhere close to Titanic that means it had no cultural impact. See how dumb that sounds?
Your quote.
These are only impressive figures for Batman Begins, due to the box office performance being so mediocre. Batman 89 grossed more in the US alone adjusted for inflation than Batman Begins entire box office run AND the DVD sales put together. The impact both movies had on the general public is not even comparable.
Nope I admitted areas where I was wrong.
Also Dvd did not exist back in 1989 dvd came out in 1997 in the US.
You just conceded that those are impressive numbers for dvd sales. Think before typing please.
You said I insinuated Batman Begins made 167 million on dvd sales. Nope unlike you I cited my facts and you backpedaled.
Yes I did. I provided my time stamps you tried to omit. Do not lie now.
Where did I ever say Batman Begins had more cultural impact than Batman 1989? Provide where I ever said that.
They are impressive generally. You just want to point to the fact that Batman 1989 had better numbers which I never disputed. You lose again.
Um okay lets see here. Your quote.
Again, it didn't do the spectacular numbers that you're insinuating. It's still one of the lowest grossing Batman movies.
to suggest or hint slyly:
He insinuated that they were lying.
Yes I did. I provided my time stamps you tried to omit. Do not lie now.
Are you deaf? The video is chock full of pauses. This is the video which shows all of Ledger's laughs with no pauses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8troSSIhU Which is hilarious because you posted it yourself and now you're trying to pretend like it doesn't exist.
That's 1:23 total and that's being generous as the first 15 seconds shouldn't really count but i'll let it pass.
Now for Nicholson's Joker. I'll only add uninterrupted laughter to be fair - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0H5Gy5yNb0 - 1:15 to 1:36, 1:44 to 2:08 (minus 5 seconds for speaking in between), 3:44 to 4:01 and 24 seconds in the mirror scene. That's 1:21 minutes from two scenes alone! Lmao! And i've still got the rest of the movie to play with. Add the laughs from this video and it's a landslide - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmrhC9RS_mM which by the way STILL isn't all the laughs from the movie. What's that? Yeah you just got owned. Again.
They are impressive generally. You just want to point to the fact that Batman 1989 had better numbers which I never disputed.
I insinuated nothing I gave facts. You are ignorant. The definition of insinuate is
to suggest or hint slyly:
He insinuated that they were lying.
What was it I was proven wrong about? What do the time stamps prove? Go ahead and tell me what the time stamps prove. Second you attempted to omit the time Nicholson spent as Jack Napier because you knew it would not help your case. Third I provided the laughter for each of them where was I dishonest?
No those are still good numbers it just is not as good as Batman 1989. I am taking your logic actually. Batman 1989 had no cultural impact at all because it did nowhere near the numbers Titanic did. Does this sound stupid to you?
I said they it did good on dvd sales. I never said it did better than Batman 1989 but that it did good. This dismantled you saying no one cared about Batman Begins and it was a muted response. I then dismantled your point about it having no cultural impact when on the wikipeia page it gives you people in the film industry who cite it's influence.
What was it I was proven wrong about. What do the time stamps prove? Go ahead and tell me what the time stamps prove.
And it is fairly close as I originally said. Provide a video of uninterrupted laughter from Nicholson. Provide the exact amount of time. No interruptions. Or pauses.
I will wait.
The evidence has already been provided. You're like a child putting his fingers in his ears and closing his eyes.
shareAnd I provided evidence of cultural impact which you lied about.
shareFinally you accept you were wrong. Good on you buddy. Only took 10 years.
shareI am glad to know you admit you were wrong about cultural impact. Your education today was free. I will not charge you anything.
shareYou are unable to do basic math and you want to talk about education lmao.
shareOh is that why when I provided an exact number you tried to lie about it? Your whole argument is so stupid. It basically is this well since Batman Begins did not have as much cultural impact as Batman 1989 it had no cultural impact. So then by that logic since Batman 1989 did not have as much cultural impact as Titanic it had no cultural impact. That is your logic.
shareDude stop trying to move on to another subject because you got your ass reamed on the Joker argument. I'm not going to let you move on and save face. YOU WERE WRONG. Lmao. Accept it like a man.
shareLol exactly no response. You know you got reamed on cultural impact.
shareSince you're dm'ing me, I want to remind you of the time you got your ass reamed. Loser lmao.
shareNoticed you stopped replying to this thread lol. I win you lose. You are a Burton fanboy.
shareI find it surprising that you consider Ledger's Joker as a generic villain. In my own personal view, the Joker from TDK was one of the most unique villains.. scratch that... unique characters I ever saw. Even if we take the face paint off. The way he talks, his demeanor, his laugh. Anyways... points of views differ. I won't crap on Jack Nicholson's Joker either as he was my favorite one before Ledger's.
And it's an honest opinion. I'd be grateful if you don't insinuate I think that because the man's dead. His performance blew my mind. Nowhere did I recognize him. Au contraire I totally forgot who Heath Ledger was during that movie. I was light years away from picturing Batman and the Joker inside a tent in the mountains.
I'd be grateful if you don't insinuate I think that because the man's dead. His performance blew my mind.
I'd bet with you he would have been praised even alive. We just won't ever be able to verify this.
shareLedger did give a great performance that would be recognized as a great performance (and probably most would consider him on par with Nicholson) him dying inflated the popularity and recognition of the performance and turned into legendary.
Do you think Ledger would have even been nominated for an Oscar had he not died? I seriously, seriously doubt it.
I understand what you say and I don't doubt that his passing most probably inflated his popularity and/or the popularity of his characterization. But even so.. he was nothing short than brilliant in that role. I don't think he's unworthy of that Oscar. My opinion only.
Performance wise, I consider him above Nicholson because of the amount of work he had to put behind this character. Like someone else already said, Nicholson was already quite in his element with this crazy role. He's a natural. Maybe I'm mistaking (correct me if I am) but it was something completely new for Ledger. He was outside his comfort zone. So I think Ledger has more merit for his performance as the Joker even though both were outstanding.
I agree that he 'deserved' at least an oscar nomination; but comic book movies often get overlooked for such awards; there is an internal bias against. Many within the industry do not consider them 'serious' films. But Ledger's untimely death certainly elevated the recognition and guaranteed a nomination.
That is tough to say; the amount of work someone does, doesn't really matter; only the product matters. Even if someone worked harder doesn't mean the performance was better; in fact if someone is a 'natural' and within their comfort zone the product is likely to be better. I think Nicholson's performance was better (but that might be subjective) but they are certainly close to equal; as I said in another post; just look at the "new and improved Joker products" scene or when he is talking to the dead mob boss. The delivery in those scenes is simultaneously off the walls silly yet disturbingly demented; I do not think Ledger could have done such subtle delivery. I would argue those 2 scenes alone blow any of Ledger's scenes out of the water.
Also Ledger had done a 'similar' role at least once; The Brothers Grimm he delivers a very great performance of a deeply troubled man. IMO that movie was not very good but his performance in that film was better than that of the Joker even.
Interesting. Did Heath's death guarantee a nomination, like you suggest? Probably. But the movie still got 8 nominations. Does it mean it wouldn't have gotten any if he stayed alive? Nothing is less sure. Just as a comparison... no one died around the filming of Joker and it got 11 nominations.
"Even if someone worked harder doesn't mean the performance was better"
I agree with that statement. But my point wasn't just that. Let's pretend something.. just for the fun of it:
Let's say that we consider Nicholson's and Ledger's performances equal. Two great actors, two great characterizations that score exactly the same on the awesomeness scale. You have to give one prize to the best actor between the one who had it easier, since he was a natural for that kind of role, and the actor who had to work to the point of risking his own sanity by going through extreme "method acting" for months. Which one will you give the prize to?
Then again, if one of the two has the slightest performance edge over the other, then he gets the prize, of course. But at equal performances I think merit(the amount of hard work, sacrifices, struggle) is a good way to set two actors apart.
I'm not saying you are wrong by thinking Jack was the better Joker. I couldn't say that as it is subjective after all. You can also disagree with how I see things. It's ok. Maybe that's not how things work. But that's how I see them.
That is an interesting question; this was 2008-2009 time frame; CB movies did not get nominations let alone wins all that often before; and never (I think) were even considered for any Acting nominations. But as you said, nothing is for sure. His performance was great and maybe even deserved it; but it can't be viewed in a vacuum because he did in fact die under tragic circumstances which inflated the hype around the performance. I don't think "Joker" is a fair comparison; Ledger (and his death) started a precedent around the character getting 'special' appeal.
That is also tough to say; no 2 performances can be said to be 'exactly' equal, they can be close and I think Nicholson's and Ledger's Joker are close. But hypothetically if they were exactly equal; I would say which film was better overall should be the one that gets the award; but I guess considering other factors such as sacrifices that needed to be made to achieve could be a consideration. But I don't think the performances were equal: I specifically brought up 2 scenes from Batman 1989 that I think Nicholson gives better performance than anything Ledger did; and if I remember correctly Nicholson was not even considered for any 'serious' awards.
Yeah; everything is cool, some of it will come down to subjective preference; Ledger's performance was great and he probably deserved the oscar and he might have been better than Nicholson and I am too subjective in my view of the performances; I try not to separate my preference with what is objective but it is impossible to do perfectly.
One thing I will say though; part of the reason why I argue this way about this is because since Ledger's death I think his entire career got inflated and especially his role of Joker became overrated; at the same time Nicholson's Joker is getting underrated.
This argument has been debunked before but I will go ahead and do it again. Why wasn't James Gandolfini nominated for an Oscar for his role in Enough Said a critical smash hit film that came out after he died? Surely the guy who played Tony Soprano the academy would have been more than ready to at least give him a sympathy charity nomination right?
shareI am not sure how this questioning of why Gandolfini not getting a oscar nomination debunks anything. Gandolfini and Enough said did not have nearly the commercial reach that Ledger or Nolan's dark knight had. Enough Said I didn't even hear about until after he died and that it was his last role. Also Gandolfini had health problems and died of natural causes; not exactly the same thing as a young star dying as a result of bad meds and drug mixing. Those 2 situations are not even close to the same. That in no way shape or form 'debunks' the question of would Ledger have gotten a nomination let alone a win if he had not died?
shareSlumdog Millionaire did not have even close to the commercial reach TDK had and yet it took home the best picture Oscar. The nomination I could almost bet my bank account on. Everyone was skeptical of him before the film was released. Buzz started going around even before his death about his performance.
shareDid a popular actor die tragically around the release of Slumdog Millionaire? Did Slumdog Millionaire even have a single acting related Nomination?
You might be right about Ledger getting a Nom even if he didn't die; it is hard to say for sure but I doubt it. But I don't think these 'proofs' you are trying to bring up such as Enough Said or Slumdog Millionaire are great arguments one way or the other about the question; in fact they are shifting the goal posts so far I can't even understand what you are trying to say by bringing them up.
You are feeding into my point about Slumdog Millionaire. No no actor died and no one was nominated. Thing is Enough Said was released after the actor who starred in it died. This proves that just because the actor died it doesn't guarantee there will be an Oscar nomination.
When a villian is iconic and showcases lots of acting ability to that potent of a level you are likely to get nominated. Not always but it's a strong possibility. 2007, 2008, and 2009 supporting Oscar wins were all villains. Anton, Joker, and Hans Landa.
That is not at all what I said; I did not say "ALL" cases where an actor dies they get a guaranteed oscar nomination. I was talking SPECIFICALLY about the case with Ledger which is not comparable to your other examples you brought up. I do not think he would have won and maybe not even been nominated for an oscar if he did not die. You have done nothing even close to "debunking" that. You disagree and think he would have, that is fine; you have no more evidence than I have. My only evidence is the fact that no actor before got an oscar nomination for their role in a comic book film. That is not 'proof' that ledger still might not have been the first; I just doubt it is all.
Yes, but not for Comic Book villains. Before Ledger no actor was even considered and are you saying that no comic book villain before ledger was iconic enough to be considered? The entire point of my argument is pointing out the Bias the academy had against comic book films and why Ledger's death might have been one of the major contributions to why they started considering actors in Comic book films when before they didn't.
Brandon Lee is a tragic death. He was around the same age as Ledger when he died. Yet there was no nomination. Yeah you can say you don't think he would have and I can't prove it completely wrong I can concede there and stand corrected. However the mold was eventually going to be broken. Prior to Lord of the rings no fantasy film had ever won best picture.
Nope there have been previous comic book performances I felt were great actually. It took a while to get comic book movies to be taken seriously is all. Tdk had that perfect storm because it was following up on Batman Begins an already critically liked film. I'm just waiting for a science fiction film to finally win best picture.
Brandon Lee is a tragic death. He was around the same age as Ledger when he died. Yet there was no nomination.
That is true about Brandon Lee; he was basically a nobody relying on his dad's name to score any roles at all. The Crow was his first real break out role and he did a good job; he had potential so we can't know how good he could have been; it is obvious his 'status' was elevated by his death
Ledger would have got recognition for the performance; it was a very successful movie and he was a big part of it's success especially from the marketing. I do agree it was inflated by his death but by how much I am not sure. My one main belief is he would NOT have gotten the oscar and likely not even a nomination without his tragic death. His death took the great performance and inflated it to something legendary.
That is true; the mold would eventually be broken; I just don't think it would have been Ledger's role that did it without him dying. It could have don't get me wrong; it was definitely good enough to be considered but those old biases die hard.
Yes, I think you get my point. I think it took his death before they really realized their bias and to do a bit of self reflection (of course it might have just been them trying to greedily exploit his death for increased viewership and sponsors). It is a crime that Sci-fi and comic books get as neglected as they. The fact that films like Alien or Blade Runner or 2001 were not even considered for best picture is asinine.
I get your view but what annoys me is most people use this as a cop out scapegoat to discredit the film. I'm fine with that belief but with most people it doesn't stop there. Batman Begins beats any Burton Batman film critically and by the mass majority of users. Check the user scores on rottentomatoes and metacritic. Batman Begins wins. Notice I didn't reference IMDb. Then if you go well critics are more open to comic book films now I will gladly cite Donner's Superman which is higher regarded critically than Batman Begins is. That predates Batman 1989. Now by user batman Begins still edges Superman but I digress. Batman Begins wins overall and no Ledger death bail out excuse. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with the majority but do not give me the Nolan's film is only more liked because of Ledgers death crap.
I agree I personally feel scifi has been so snubbed. It's my favorite genre actually when done well of course.
Well if people are making an argument to say that Ledger or the film was bad and only popular or highly rated because of his death; that is ridiculous; even without his death it was highly rated. I am simply making the argument that is was in fact inflated (even higher) as a result of his tragic death; and I think that is a reasonable conclusion. I never have agreed with the position that Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is only liked because of Ledger's death; that would be totally inaccurate. It was already highly popular. 2 things can be true at once; the films could already be popular and then a tragic death shortly after release can inflate that popularity.
Also; I prefer 1989 Batman over begins (this might be subjective) but I always felt like Batman begins was a film that left something to be desired; like a really long Pilot episode or a long prologue. On its own I don't think it stands up as well as Tim Burton's Batman which is a well rounded film. Now I might view it that way because of my subjective preference; but I stand by the argument that Begins feels like an origin story without a real payoff. However Dark Knight (despite my personal preference) is clearly a better film than Batman; despite my preference for Nicholson's Joker it would be objectively false by just about every measure to say Tim Burton's batman was better.
Batman Begins beats any Burton Batman film critically and by the mass majority of users. Check the user scores on rottentomatoes and metacritic. Batman Begins wins. Notice I didn't reference IMDb.
Blade Runner was a box office flop and is now considered one of the best films of all time, so poor example on your part. Word of mouth for Begins was actually good even though it did not blow up the box office the dvd sales for the film were really good. Now you are grasping at straws here. A movie grossing less has nothing to do with the reception of the film. Sometimes even well received movies do not do well financially. Batman Begins beat Batman 1989 reception wise both by people and by critics. Accept it.
shareBlade Runner was a box office flop and is now considered one of the best films of all time, so poor example on your part.
Does not matter the point stands.
Lol I can simply look up the numbers and prove your point wrong. It is better received than Batman 1989 either way. I love it because no Ledger death excuse to bail you out on this one.
By your logic since box office gross equals better reception than that means Batman Forever was better received than Batman Begins was since it made more money if you adjust for inflation. Say Batman Forever had better numbers to me with a straight face. Every metric of measuring what people or critics voted would put Begins far above Batman Forever. GTFO kid!
Lol I can simply look up the numbers and prove your point wrong.
By your logic since box office gross equals better reception than that means Batman Forever was better received than Batman Begins was since it made more money
It is one of the lowest grossing but that has nothing to do with how well critically it was received, or what fans who saw it thought. The force awakens even if adjusted for inflation made more than empire strikes back, is it better received? This logic of yours is so easy to pick apart it is sad.
Blade runner says high. Also Blade Runner 2049 a movie sequel based off something with a strong cult following made less than transformers revenge of the fallen. Therefore I guess transformers revenge of the fallen was better received than Blade Runner 2049. I also guess transformers revenge of the fallen is better received than mad max fury road also. You lost man give up.
It is one of the lowest grossing but that has nothing to do with how well critically it was received, or what fans who saw it thought.
The force awakens even if adjusted for inflation made more than empire strikes back, is it better received?
Also Blade Runner 2049 a movie sequel based off something with a strong cult following made less than transformers revenge of the fallen.
That explains the great dvd sales right?
Which explains why gone with the wind is still the highest grossing film ever when adjusted for inflation right?
Spiderman 2 is considered best of the raimi trilogy
by critics and users yet it grossed the least in the trilogy. Is Spiderman 3 considered better then? Same franchise remember so apples to apples.
Pathetic points which are easily dismantled.
Which explains why gone with the wind is still the highest grossing film ever when adjusted for inflation right
Spiderman 2 is considered best of the raimi trilogy
by critics and users yet it grossed the least in the trilogy. Is Spiderman 3 considered better then?
No it is relevant you tried to argue the reason the force awakens made more than empire is because of a larger audience. Also way to side step my point that's why it sold amazingly well on DVD right?
So as long as it's comparable is what matters. You are backpedaling but ok let's humor your view. So that means bumblebee is received worse by critics and audiences than transformers revenge of the fallen right? I mean after all it did nowhere close the box office numbers revenge of the fallen did.
Sometimes a movie gets more appreciated with time than on initial release. Iron Giant and Hugo were box office bombs but as you can see both of those are considered very good films. They also target a big demographic for audiences considering neither is r rated. Blade Runner developed a strong cult following yet the sequel still didn't do well despite rave reviews by critics and users. King of comedy, and blade runner were similar in that they got appreciated after initial release. Rocky and raging bull are both great films. Rocky is more culturally impactful but when comparing the quality of films it is debatable and you can make a strong case raging bull is just as good if not better. Just because a movie had a bigger cultural impact does not mean it was by default better. Batman Begins creams any Burton Batman flick critically and by users I hate to ripoff the band-aid.
No it is relevant you tried to argue the reason the force awakens made more than empire is because of a larger audience. Also way to side step my point that's why it sold amazingly well on DVD right
So that means bumblebee is received worse by critics and audiences than transformers revenge of the fallen right? I mean after all it did nowhere close the box office numbers revenge of the fallen did.
Sometimes a movie gets more appreciated with time than on initial release. Iron Giant and Hugo were box office bombs but as you can see both of those are considered very good films. They also target a big demographic for audiences considering neither is r rated. Blade Runner developed a strong cult following yet the sequel still didn't do well despite rave reviews by critics and users. King of comedy, and blade runner were similar in that they got appreciated after initial release.
Batman Begins creams any Burton Batman flick critically and by users I hate to ripoff the band-aid.
Just imagine if Nicholson tragically died after completing his Joker performance, the level of hype and praise would've been off the charts. Not that he needs it, the performance is iconic as it is.
shareThat is a good question; I think the hype would not have been as inflated though; Jack was already a very well respected actor that had many iconic performances and awards. Him dying tragically would not have been the same as with Ledger who's performance as the Joker was really his first big break out role. If that makes sense.
shareMaybe, he was a lot younger too. There's also this perception that he died because he was so into his role and method acting, which I don't think was the case.
shareYeah from what I heard about it; the 'depression' he was feeling was more from his role in Broke Back Mountain then from Joker. I don't think he wanted that role all that much but was pushed to do it by his agent as 'the means' to getting better offers. Made sense because he was at risk of getting type cast as 'heart throb' and little more. Then the Joker role probably exacerbated his already weakened mental faculties leading to medication abuse.
but also, i think that 'so into the role' stuff is often exploitation by the marketing departments. They did that with Dicaprio too for the Aviator. I think anytime a role takes a toll on the actor the producers see an opportunity to 'sell' it as a proof of a truely special performance.
Yes I agree with this; Ledger gave a really great performance; but it was definitely inflated by his death and the fact that the character was written more serious and less subtle (more akin to Hannibal Lecture than Joker I would say). Same deal (from what I have heard) with Phoenix, that his Joker is more like Travis Bickle than Joke; I can't confirm this as I have not seen it yet.
The disappointing thing about this is Nicholson's performance is now underrated. People will say 'Jack is just acting like he did in the shinning' I saw a few comments like that already in this discussion. Totally inaccurate. Just look at scene's like when he is doing the "new and improved Joker products" commercial or the scene when he is talking to the dead mob boss he just fried. Ledger does not even coming close to catching that demented mania. And the performance by Jack is legendary. Ledger gets too much credit because the Dark Knight trilogy was more 'serious' and realistic than Burton's Batman.
Now that being said; Ledger's performance was great (and arguably rivals Jack's performance) but as you point out; Ledger's Joker was such a different imagining it is hard to call them the same character. And IMO I still prefer Jack.
Nicholson was the only decent thing in this sour movie. However, he is the 2nd least accurate Joker. Comic book Joker has gone through many changes but is fundamentally the same. Hamil's Joker is the ultimate. While Phoenix's Joker was done well, it is the least accurate.
If you think Jack's was the best then you probably consider the 60s tv show to be some sort of foundation cannon.
Accuracy:
Hamil>Romero>Ledger>Leto>Nicholson>Phoenix
Performance:
Hamil>Ledger>Phoenix>Romero>Nicholson>Leto
The 60ties show is not that inacurate when you consider the comic books from that time were campy as well. Burton batman was a serious reimagining of the character aimed for adults. I just don't understand how you and so many put Hamill's joker from the animated show so high for accuracy and Nicholson joker low when they are basically the same character. Gangster turned crazy from falling into some chemicals who then assumes clown persona and does crimes. Also animated show was heavily inspired by Burton's films 8n terms of aesthetics and approach to characters.
share"Burton batman was a serious reimagining of the character"
LOL totally disagree.
Disagree all you want. I find Burton Batman even to be a darker character than Nolan's batman. It is for sure a darker take on the character compared to the old batman cartoons and the TV show. The only dark takes on the character were in some comics made by Frank Miller and the guy that did the Watchmen but in most media the character was not that dark and on screen never that serious.
shareObviously you are not a comic book reader.
shareSays the douchenozzle with his one line responses and zero evidence to back up anything he says.
And anyone who puts Nicholson anywhere near Leto can have their opinion dismissed.
Plenty of quality Batman comics that are serious. It is absurd to claim that Miller and Moore are the only ones. Only someone who hasn't read comics would think these crazy things. Burton himself said that he "would never read a comic book." Yep, may you be proud of being like Burton.
There is entertaining irony in your reply.
"And I don't know who the hell Joaquin Phoenix was playing, but it wasn't the Joker."
Very true. I think they invented a new character in order to do what they want with it. Nowhere does Arthur Fleck ever appear in the DC universe.
Joker was a great movie and Joaquin Phoenix put up a great performance... but I didn't recognize the Joker outside of him laughing hysterically. Even then... his laughing was an uncontrollable condition. Since when the Joker laughed when he didn't want to?
I don't know. Mark Hamil really did a good job. So my vote is with him.
shareHe did a really good job at voicing the Joker. Not acting it. Therefor, I don't even know why his name is mentioned in this thread...
shareThe op asked who the best joker is, not who acted. So, I went with my opinion.
You're right that he didn't play a live action joker. He still added the best Joker in my opinion.
The op asked who the best joker is, not who acted. So, I went with my opinion.
He's still the best in my book. You disagree. That's ok.
shareThat one can go either way; there is a difference between Live action and voice acting only. But if I was blind; I would say Hamill might be the best; even better than Nicholson. but I am not a big fan of the Animated stuff and there is a difference in overall performance that the audience gets to see.
sharelol
shareI'm kinda torn between Nicholson and Ledger. I love both, though they are very different. I cannot stand Phoenix so I have never bothered to watch.
shareYou are right.. they were both great in their roles.
I like Joaquin Phoenix and even though I have seen the movie twice, I have a hard time seeing his Joker as THE Joker. It's like it's a whole other character in a whole other setting in a "Batman-related" universe. It's difficult to imagine this simple minded man becoming a criminal mastermind. Movie was still good though.