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.
Cesar Romero was the best
shareI feel like the debates always end up being which joker you prefer and which Batman movie you prefer. It is pointless to debate, also this forum has this sucky thing where each new reply to a member becomes more narrow and it is impossible to scroll through so pls leave the reply numbers to minimum and just post a new reply to the thread. I will add that Burton reimagined batman as a gothic adventure and the comics and the cartoon embraced that aesthetic. Nolan went for a more realistic approach and some comics took his aesthetic so it is all relative. Different artist different interpretation and different comics. Batman 89 has a more accurate joker when comparing to classic comics though but on the other hand it doesn't really have a more accurate batman if you want to argue that. Either way it reimagined Gotham and batman and the whole aesthetic for a decade.
sharei like Jack the most
shareI will admit I prefer Nicholson but Ledger was good too. I will say I prefer the Burton films but still like watching the Nolan ones except Dark Knight Rises which I thought sucked.
shareThe best Joker is subjective, but I definitely don’t see how he can be considered more iconic than Heath Ledger’s take. Heath Ledger’s Joker is one of the most talked about performances of any film from the 2000s.
shareThe joker character and the movie was a great adaption from the show and comic.
It was a nice blend of super hero stuff and the real world
And no political messge which is great.
I'm replying up here because thread got too long.
It grossed over 116 million dollars in DVD sales. That is pretty good and I find it funny you attempted to side step that.
Rogue one is a spin-off also but it still grossed a lot of money. So why didn't bumblebee? Both are pre-existing franchises right?
Mad max is one of the most profitable film franchise ever made. Especially when you factor in it's budget vs what it makes in the box office. Mad max fury road comes nowhere close to matching any of the mad max films when comparing what profit the predeccedors made. That is an established franchise and it made only two million dollars more than Batman Begins did. It also had a bigger budget than Batman Begins. So are those bad numbers? According to you they are. So that means mad max beyond the thunderdome is better than fury road because it profited way more. The entire first trilogy creams fury road since the profit numbers aren't close.
No actually wrong. Did it have a bigger cultural impact yep but that doesn't mean it is seen as better. My raging bull vs rocky comparison is valid here. Rocky had more cultural impact but in terms of reception it leans toward raging bull. Check critics and users. Batman Begins has better user scores and critical scores.
Don't worry I will return to the joker debate.
It grossed over 116 million dollars in DVD sales. That is pretty good and I find it funny you attempted to side step that.
Rogue one is a spin-off also but it still grossed a lot of money. So why didn't bumblebee? Both are pre-existing franchises right?
Mad max is one of the most profitable film franchise ever made. Especially when you factor in it's budget vs what it makes in the box office.
No actually wrong. Did it have a bigger cultural impact yep but that doesn't mean it is seen as better. My raging bull vs rocky comparison is valid here. Rocky had more cultural impact but in terms of reception it leans toward raging bull. Check critics and users.
You side stepped it several times which proves you were doing your best to avoid it. It does not matter if Batman 1989 sold better on video the point stands that it sold well on home video.
Rogue One is 62 all time when adjusting for inflation. That puts it above Rise of Skywalker, attack of the clones and Revenge of the sith which are main entries in the franchise. Epic fail there. I do not care if you care about them it proves my point. Bumblebee did not come anywhere close to making what Rogue One did why not?
Not irrelevant nonsense it proves my point which is why you had no rebuttal. Mad Max Fury Road is considered a great film, it had a bigger budget than Batman Begins did and made only 2 million dollars more. Therefore that is bad box office numbers according to you. I mean after all Mad Max was an already established franchise. All the others made great profits. See how dumb your logic is yet? You will side step this also because it dismantles your point.
So if a movie being more impactful means it is better that means Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is better received by the general public than Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Raging Bull is seen as the better movie by both the public and critics. Check the user and critical scores if you do not believe me. A movie winning best picture does not mean it is a better film. Dances with Wolves is not seen as better than Goodfellas. Okay though since you want to play that way lets go there.
That would mean that Phoenix's Joker is better than Nicholson's then correct? He won the Oscar after all and Nicholson did not even get nominated. No death excuse to bail you out here. Want to double down on the Oscars? I thought you did not care what snooty critics thought?
You side stepped it several times which proves you were doing your best to avoid it. It does not matter if Batman 1989 sold better on video the point stands that it sold well on home video.
Rogue One is 62 all time when adjusting for inflation. That puts it above Rise of Skywalker, attack of the clones and Revenge of the sith which are main entries in the franchise. Epic fail there. I do not care if you care about them it proves my point. Bumblebee did not come anywhere close to making what Rogue One did why not?
Mad Max Fury Road is considered a great film, it had a bigger budget than Batman Begins did and made only 2 million dollars more.
Raging Bull is seen as the better movie by both the public and critics. Check the user and critical scores if you do not believe me.
That would mean that Phoenix's Joker is better than Nicholson's then correct? He won the Oscar after all and Nicholson did not even get nominated.
Want to double down on the Oscars? I thought you did not care what snooty critics thought?
Being low grossing has no bearing on the quality of the film. Or are you too ignorant to know that?
It does not matter if you care about Rogue One it illustrates my point. You said Rogue One made less money than the main entries in the Star Wars franchise. I proved you wrong by citing the data. There are exceptions to the rule your concession is noted. I admitted a mistake I made will you do the same? Doubtful.
No it is isn't. You just realize that your argument is falling apart therefore you want to contain it only in the context of how Batman Begins did financially. Mad Max Fury Road did basically the same type of box office numbers that Batman Begins did. Mad Max Fury Road and Batman Begins are established franchises, Transformers Revenge of the Fallen made way more than both of those films did. Transformers is also a well established franchise. Therefore according to your logic that means Revenge of the Fallen is better than those films right? I mean after all it made way more money.
Where did I mention imdb? Your strawman is dismissed. Check Rottentomatoes user score my friend. More popular does not equate to better quality. Oh no I am more than willing to accept that logic. That means Phoenix absolutely destroys Nicholson then. He won best actor where as Nicholson was not even nominated. I am sure Nicholson would take the Oscar over some rabid ignorant fanboy's opinion online lmao!
Lmao you look like you're about to burst into tears because I insulted your beloved Batman Begins.
Being low grossing has no bearing on the quality of the film. Or are you too ignorant to know that?
Where did I mention imdb? Your strawman is dismissed. Check Rottentomatoes user score my friend.
Not at all. I do not care what opinion people have on any film, however when they make blatant false claims I will correct them. The same way I corrected moviechatuser497 when he said Burton's Batman films were not culturally impactful or iconic. I unlike you am fair.
Word of mouth did spread which is why it sold well on home video. If it did as terribly as you are claiming they would not have let Nolan do a sequel to the film. Mad Max Fury Road did those same numbers. Actually you could argue it did worse since it had a higher budget and made only 2 million dollars more. That is without adjusting for inflation also... You lost this point quit while you are ahead. If George Miller called up WB right now with a sequel ready to go they would not deny him I can guarantee that.
Um not at all. It shows what people thought of the film after seeing it. Avatar is one of the highest grossing films of all time. So is Gone with the Wind. Gone with the wind beats it in every metric you can measure. Even look past gross. On Rottentomatoes, imdb, and metacritic the user score is higher. The critical score is higher for Gone with the Wind as well. Not to mention it won way more major Oscar awards. There is a thing called looking at something in retrospect. Judging something just based off of the gross is silly because you have no idea if people thought it was any good or not. You just see that it had lots of people going to see it. If we had no reviews, papers or sites that showed what critics or users thought of a film after seeing it, you would have Transformers Revenge of the Fallen on best of lists and films like Mad Max Fury Road, Batman Begins and others that are obscure like King of Comedy, Blade Runner, Iron Giant and Hugo nowhere to be found. So um no sorry again fail.
It did influence Batman the animated series but I feel the animated series took everything Burton did, expanded and perfected it. I do not deny it was a cultural phenomenon but that does not by default make it a better film. You are desperately trying to make that the case but it just is not so. Funny thing is I like Batman 1989 a lot actually and can openly admit it had a bigger cultural impact but it stops there. Also nice side step, Phoenix's Joker is better than Nicholson's correct? He won the Oscar and Nicholson was not even nominated. No death excuse here to help you is that why you keep avoiding this question?
Word of mouth did spread which is why it sold well on home video.
Mad Max Fury Road did those same numbers. Actually you could argue it did worse since it had a higher budget and made only 2 million dollars more.
It shows what people thought of the film after seeing it. Avatar is one of the highest grossing films of all time. So is Gone with the Wind. Gone with the wind beats it in every metric you can measure. Even look past gross. On Rottentomatoes, imdb, and metacritic the user score is higher.
I do not deny it was a cultural phenomenon but that does not by default make it a better film.
Also nice side step, Phoenix's Joker is better than Nicholson's correct? He won the Oscar and Nicholson was not even nominated. No death excuse here to help you is that why you keep avoiding this question?
Insinuate? I am providing facts okay let me link you this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Begins
Right underneath home video it provides this information.
The DVD of Batman Begins was released on October 18, 2005, in both single-disc and two-disc deluxe editions[72] and also released on VHS and UMD Video formats.[73] In addition to the film, the deluxe edition contained featurettes and other bonus materials. The edition contained a small paperback booklet, the first Batman story, featured in Detective Comics #27, as well as Batman: The Man Who Falls and an excerpt from Batman: The Long Halloween.[74] Batman Begins achieved first place in national sales and rental charts in October 2005, becoming the top-selling DVD of the fourth quarter of 2005. The DVD grossed $11.36 million in rental revenue.[75] The DVD held its position at the top of the sales chart for a second week, but fell to second place behind Bewitched on video rental charts.[76] The film had brought in $167 million in DVD sales by August 2006.[77]
Batman Begins has been cited as one of the most influential films of the 2000s.[87][88][89] In 2020, Empire magazine named it as one of "The 100 Greatest Movies Of The 21st Century".[90] Shawn Adler of MTV stated Batman Begins heralded a trend of darker genre films, that either retold back-stories or rebooted them altogether. Examples he cited were Casino Royale,[91] as well as the in-development RoboCop, Red Sonja, and Grayskull.[92] In 2012, Kevin Feige, film producer and president of Marvel Studios, stated, "Chris Nolan's Batman is the greatest thing that happened [to superhero films] because it bolstered everything."[93] In 2019, Kyle Smith of National Review wrote that it "set a new standard for its genre and has yet to be excelled by its many successors."[94]
The DVD of Batman Begins was released on October 18, 2005, in both single-disc and two-disc deluxe editions[72] and also released on VHS and UMD Video formats.[73] In addition to the film, the deluxe edition contained featurettes and other bonus materials. The edition contained a small paperback booklet, the first Batman story, featured in Detective Comics #27, as well as Batman: The Man Who Falls and an excerpt from Batman: The Long Halloween.[74] Batman Begins achieved first place in national sales and rental charts in October 2005, becoming the top-selling DVD of the fourth quarter of 2005. The DVD grossed $11.36 million in rental revenue.[75] The DVD held its position at the top of the sales chart for a second week, but fell to second place behind Bewitched on video rental charts.[76] The film had brought in $167 million in DVD sales by August 2006.[77]
Batman Begins has been cited as one of the most influential films of the 2000s.[87][88][89] In 2020, Empire magazine named it as one of "The 100 Greatest Movies Of The 21st Century".[90] Shawn Adler of MTV stated Batman Begins heralded a trend of darker genre films, that either retold back-stories or rebooted them altogether. Examples he cited were Casino Royale,[91] as well as the in-development RoboCop, Red Sonja, and Grayskull.[92]
Lol so this contradicts the point you made about no one caring. Let me say this again so you can hear it. BATMAN 1989 HAD A BIGGER CULTURAL IMPACT THAN BATMAN BEGINS!!! I never disputed this. I said that being more culturally impactful does not mean you are considered the better film. Transformers Revenge of the fallen was more culturally impactful than Mad Max Fury Road that does not mean it was the better film. Batman Begins is considered a better film than Batman 1989 was. Check user scores as well as critical scores.
You denied that it had any cultural impact. This also disputes your claim. Cultural impact is not the only thing that determines a film's quality.
I said that being more culturally impactful does not mean you are considered the better film.
Rottentomatoes, metacritic, and imdb all have users on them. You brought up imdb before I did. Box office gross shows how much of an appeal the movie has not what people thought of it. The only way to know what people thought is to see the scores they give and read what they have to say about the film. You want to look at the chart of the gross and go boom people loved it because it grossed a ton of money. With this logic that means Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is one of the best films of all time. Remember box office revenue is what matters.
Why are we discussing what James Cameron thinks? Okay do you think Michael Bay cares that Revenge of the Fallen got blasted by critics and fans? He made tons of money that is all he cares about. I did not bring up imdb you did. Also since the Oscars matter then does that by your logic mean Phoenix was better than Nicholson? Answer the question.
You brought up imdb first not me. I mentioned users on Rottentomatoes as well as metacritic.
Rottentomatoes, metacritic, and imdb all have users on them. You brought up imdb before I did.
You want to look at the chart of the gross and go boom people loved it because it grossed a ton of money. With this logic that means Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is one of the best films of all time.
Why are we discussing what James Cameron thinks? Okay do you think Michael Bay cares that Revenge of the Fallen got blasted by critics and fans?
No what has happened here is your taste does not line up with what the general public thinks. Anyway you also side stepped me citing critics as well. Rottentomatoes and metacritic have professional film critics on them.
What else are you offering? You offer me nothing else other than the cultural impact. With Titanic you can make a case for the academy adoring it but Batman is not well loved by the film industry like you want to claim. Dances with Wolves had a bigger cultural impact than Goodfellas. It also won the big Oscars over Goodfellas. Is it a better film? Most people as well as critics would tell you Goodfellas is head and shoulders above Dances With Wolves. According to your logic it is better. Titanic did win those Oscars but in retrospect there were other films released that same year that now as time has gone on people see as better.
Yes it does indicate what the general public thought. If you compile all those websites up it is a rather good indicator of what the general public thinks. So then Dances with Wolves is better than Goodfellas and Phoenix is a better Joker than Nicholson correct?
No what has happened here is your taste does not line up with what the general public thinks.
Anyway you also side stepped me citing critics as well.
What else are you offering? You offer me nothing else other than the cultural impact.
With Titanic you can make a case for the academy adoring it but Batman is not well loved by the film industry like you want to claim.
Batman Begins sold 167 million dollars on home video. That is not a muted reaction. Also I already showed you the impact it had. Do I need to post you the link again? That is not a muted reaction.
Also remember this quote from you.
The only notable name here is Kevin Feige, I couldn't care less what some random journalists have said about the movie. And let's not go down the road of comparing influence, because Batman 89 wins that argument 10 times out of 10.
Jon Favreau (Iron Man)[95]
Edward Norton (The Incredible Hulk)[96]
McG (Terminator Salvation)[97]
Alan Taylor (Terminator Genisys)[98]
Damon Lindelof (Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness)[99][100]
Robert Downey, Jr. (Sherlock Holmes)[101]
Lorenzo di Bonaventura (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)[102]
Hugh Jackman (X-Men Origins: Wolverine)[103]
Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class)[104]
Rupert Wyatt (Rise of the Planet of the Apes)[105]
Kevin Tancharoen (Mortal Kombat)[106]
Sam Mendes (Skyfall)[107]
Alex Kurtzman (Van Helsing)[108]
Gareth Edwards (Godzilla)[109]
Mark Wahlberg (The Roman)[110]
Marc Webb (The Amazing Spider-Man)[111]
Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton (God of War)[112]
David Ayer (Suicide Squad)[113]
Bryan Cranston (Power Rangers)[114]
Adam Wingard (Death Note)[115]
Patty Jenkins and Matthew Jensen (Wonder Woman)[116]
James Mangold (Logan)[117]
Simon Kinberg (Dark Phoenix)[118]
Andrew Kosove (Blade Runner 2049)[119]
Todd Phillips (Joker)[120]
Cathy Yan (Birds of Prey)[121]
Batman Begins sold 167 million dollars on home video. That is not a muted reaction.
These are film makers, screen writers, and producers who have mentioned Batman Begins to describe their project. So not random journalists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Begins
Jon Favreau (Iron Man)[95]
Edward Norton (The Incredible Hulk)[96]
McG (Terminator Salvation)[97]
Alan Taylor (Terminator Genisys)[98]
Damon Lindelof (Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness)[99][100]
Robert Downey, Jr. (Sherlock Holmes)[101]
Lorenzo di Bonaventura (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)[102]
Hugh Jackman (X-Men Origins: Wolverine)[103]
Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class)[104]
Rupert Wyatt (Rise of the Planet of the Apes)[105]
Kevin Tancharoen (Mortal Kombat)[106]
Sam Mendes (Skyfall)[107]
Alex Kurtzman (Van Helsing)[108]
Gareth Edwards (Godzilla)[109]
Mark Wahlberg (The Roman)[110]
Marc Webb (The Amazing Spider-Man)[111]
Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton (God of War)[112]
David Ayer (Suicide Squad)[113]
Bryan Cranston (Power Rangers)[114]
Adam Wingard (Death Note)[115]
Patty Jenkins and Matthew Jensen (Wonder Woman)[116]
James Mangold (Logan)[117]
Simon Kinberg (Dark Phoenix)[118]
Andrew Kosove (Blade Runner 2049)[119]
Todd Phillips (Joker)[120]
Cathy Yan (Birds of Prey)[121]
Filmmakers, screenwriters and producers who have mentioned Batman Begins or The Dark Knight Trilogy to describe their projects include:
LMAO! Now it is muted in comparison to Batman 1989. That is not what you originally said. You said it was a muted response. So now are we talking in comparison to Batman 1989 or just in general? Lets go to your original point. You said I insinuated it did well on dvd I proved you wrong on that. 167 million is not a muted response. It does not matter if Batman 1989 did better the response is not muted. Mad Max Fury Road made the worst return on investment of the entire Mad Max series. Does that mean it is the worst one?
Oh I have no issue saying that is there. Otherwise I would not have provided the link. Notice they referenced Batman Begins not just TDK trilogy. Those are not random journalists like you tried to claim.
Now it is muted in comparison to Batman 1989. That is not what you originally said. You said it was a muted response.
You said I insinuated it did well on dvd I proved you wrong on that.
Lol oh no every time I dismantle your point you revert back to well for a Batman movie. Where did I deny Batman Begins being a low grossing Batman film? I never tried to claim it did better numbers than any of the Burton films. I said the box office and cultural impact alone does not mean it is a better film. Batman Forever, Batman V Superman Dawn of Justice, when adjusted for inflation did better than Batman Returns, Batman Begins, and Batman Mask of the Phantasm. You are telling me that those two films are better than Batman Returns? I actually am a fan of Burton's Batman films both of them. BVS and Batman Forever are awful films that I would not be caught dead saying are better than Batman Returns, Batman Begins or Batman Mask of the Phantasm. SMH!
I never insinuated it did Titanic numbers another strawman. I said it did well on dvd which I proved it did. Batman 1989 did not do titanic numbers either on home video so by your logic nothing to brag about.
Lol oh no every time I dismantle your point you revert back to well for a Batman movie.
I said the box office and cultural impact alone does not mean it is a better film.
Batman Forever, Batman V Superman Dawn of Justice, when adjusted for inflation did better than Batman Returns, Batman Begins, and Batman Mask of the Phantasm.
Batman 1989 did not do titanic numbers either on home video so by your logic nothing to brag about.
Never did I deny that it was one of the lowest grossing Batman films. It however is considered one of the best live action Batman films. It had cultural impact as I proved to you with this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Begins
Read to me again what it says under impact? Or do you not know how to read?
No they are Batman movies. Okay lets omit Mask of the Phantasm. Which fyi even if I do it was a box office bomb. Even though it was not expected to make as much as the live action it was not expected to bomb. Anyways Batman Forever adjusted for inflation made 576,775,310.62 Batman Returns adjusted for inflation made 527,365,061.64. Which film had more cultural impact? So then Batman Forever had more cultural impact than Batman Begins also then correct?
Never disputed this you are talking to yourself. I said Batman Begins had cultural impact. I proved to you that it did therefore you lost this point. So by your logic Titanic had cultural impact and Batman did not because Batman 1989 did not have as much cultural impact as Titanic. Nice logic.
No response to this thread lol you are a joke.
shareYou're repeating yourself like a parrot bud, and it's pointless debating with someone who can't concede factual points.
Which film had more cultural impact? So then Batman Forever had more cultural impact than Batman Begins also then correct?
They prove that you're a raging fanboy who pretends he's deaf and blind when proven wrong. You said the amount they laugh is about even and you were WRONG. By any standard. Even if you include the Jack Napier screen-time.share
Ledger's uninterrupted laugh time is 1:23 minutes -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8troSSIhU
Nicholson's laugh time equals this in just 2 scenes. And I didn't even include this scene
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDPqvOYz7c
Which includes another 1 whole minute of uninterrupted laugh time. So that's bordering on 2 and a half minutes and i've still got the compilation video to play with. Lmao it's not even remotely close.
You've proven yourself to be just another delusional fanboy that can't accept facts. It's pointless even debating someone who can't concede when they've been factually proven wrong. It's like arguing with a brick wall. You have been comprehensively owned. Now wallow in your self-pity.
Lol you will not answer the question because you know you are wrong. Did Batman begins have cultural impact or not? Answer the question. Not did it have as much as Batman 1989 did it have cultural impact?
There is no point in arguing with someone who can't concede to admitting a film he did not like had cultural impact or not. You attempted to say it had no cultural impact. That was a lie. I proved you wrong. Let me link this to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Begins
Address this point and I will address yours. What did it say under impact? Read now little boy what did it say? Or are can you not read?
Radio silence here.
shareYou don't get my time buddy if you can't concede factual statements. If we can't get past 1+1=2 the rest of the conversation is useless.
You were unequivocally proven wrong here -
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 prove that you're a raging fanboy who pretends he's deaf and blind when proven wrong. You said the amount they laugh is about even and you were WRONG. By any standard. Even if you include the Jack Napier screen-time.
Ledger's uninterrupted laugh time is 1:23 minutes -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8troSSIhU
Nicholson's laugh time equals this in just 2 scenes. And I didn't even include this scene
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDPqvOYz7c
Which includes another 1 whole minute of uninterrupted laugh time. So that's bordering on 2 and a half minutes and i've still got the compilation video to play with. Lmao it's not even remotely close.
Provide the exact amount of time Nicholson spent laughing and then provide the video with all his laughs uninterrupted. I gave you the chance to do this. This is your last chance if you fail to do it I will not humor this anymore. Provide the exact time Jack spent laughing. I do not even care about video provide the exact amount of time in minutes and seconds Jack spent laughing. Total it out.
Stop acting like you're blind buddy, the evidence is all there. You look exactly like MovieChatUser497 right now, an in denial jackass. Once again -
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 prove that you're a raging fanboy who pretends he's deaf and blind when proven wrong. You said the amount they laugh is about even and you were WRONG. By any standard. Even if you include the Jack Napier screen-time.
Ledger's uninterrupted laugh time is 1:23 minutes -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8troSSIhU
Nicholson's laugh time equals this in just 2 scenes. And I didn't even include this scene
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDPqvOYz7c
Which includes another 1 whole minute of uninterrupted laugh time. So that's bordering on 2 and a half minutes and i've still got the compilation video to play with. Lmao it's not even remotely close.
So what is the total time? I asked for total time.
shareI don't need the total time jackass, i've provided well over 2 minutes of laughter vs 1:23 minutes for Ledger. The argument is already won with 3 scenes, that's how much of a landslide it is.
shareDid you equate the amount of time Jack was screen vs Ledger lol? Yes you do need the total time. I added up numbers now it is your turn.
shareLol did you fail remedial maths? I don't need the total time if the argument is already won. The deficit is so large the screen-time doesn't make a difference. Your desperation reeks lol.
shareThe screen time would make a difference considering Nicholson had more. Which is why you attempted to omit his time as Jack Napier.
shareIt would make a difference if it was close. But it's not. Nicholson had more laugh time in two scenes alone -
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj2rQaj25h4 the mirror scene actually contains 31 seconds of laughter (can't believe I trusted you since you clearly can't count) from 0:53 to 1:24.
That's 1:28 from 2 SCENES vs. 1:23 for Ledger from the entire movie. Lmao.
You lose. Again.
So the total amount of laugh time? It is fairly close actually. I provided the video and said in the end Nicholson had more but not by a huge margin. Ultimately he also had more screen time also. Also that was not a laugh at 53 it starts at 1:00. Caught you in another lie.
shareLol ok MovieChatUser497. You look like a complete idiot right now.
shareLol you will not address my point about cultural impact either. If you address that and provide the exact time I am more than willing to be fair. Ball is in your court. I am not going to address your points when you constantly side step mine.
shareLol dude I don't care about what you're willing to do. You look like a delusional moron that can't count. That's on you.
shareSo does a person who denies cultural impact. You denied an objective fact. I provided the link and you had no retort. Your retort was well Batman 1989 had more. WTF kind of retort is that? Just because one film had more cultural impact does not mean the one that had less had no cultural impact.
shareNope i'm not going to let you change the subject to avoid being wrong. Learn how to count, it's a useful skill to have -
They prove that you're a raging fanboy who pretends he's deaf and blind when proven wrong. You said the amount they laugh is about even and you were WRONG. By any standard. Even if you include the Jack Napier screen-time.share
Ledger's uninterrupted laugh time is 1:23 minutes -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8troSSIhU
Nicholson's laugh time equals this in just 2 scenes. And I didn't even include this scene
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDPqvOYz7c
Which includes another 1 whole minute of uninterrupted laugh time. So that's bordering on 2 and a half minutes and i've still got the compilation video to play with. Lmao it's not even remotely close.
So what is the total time?
shareCritics are one of the indicators that will determine where a movie goes in film history. The general public is not the only indicator of where a film will place in film history.
Yep and user reviews, critical reviews all across the board point to Batman Begins being better. Cultural impact does not determine which is the better film. Transformers Revenge of the Fallen had a bigger cultural impact than Mad Max Fury Road and Batman Begins is it a better film? You will not answer this because you know it destroys your argument.
Ok then if box office gross does not determine the quality and user reviews do not either then what is the big picture? All you do with Batman 1989 is say well it had bigger cultural impact and made more money. That is literally your entire argument. So if that is the case I have no issue citing the ratings of critics and users for Batman Begins. If your argument goes no further than cultural impact than I do not have to provide anything further than critical ratings and user ratings. What about retrospect? Remember when I said that? Sometimes a movie is not seen as good when people look back on it even if it was a cultural phenomenon. Avatar was a gigantic hit nowadays it is not considered a great film in the likes of something like Gone with the Wind. So answer this question is Dances with Wolves better than Goodfellas? By your logic it is. Phoenix is also better than Nichsolon right?
Mad Max was made in 1979 on a budget of 400000 and made 100 million in the box office. Which means it made 99.6% return on investment. No Batman film has matched that amount of return on investment. Which is why a film like the Blair Witch is considered such a success and considered a hit same goes for Paranormal activity. So um sorry but you failed again. Do you think before speaking?
No you realize my comparison is sound and dismantles your point. Gone with the Wind is considered a better film than Avatar even taking away the cultural impact Gone with the Wind is the more beloved film.
Then explain why it made 167 million dollars by August of 2006. If no one cared why did it do that well on dvd? Again also simply because a movie was more culturally impactful does not mean it is considered a better film. Is Transformers Revenge of the Fallen better than Mad Max Fury Road? Is it better than Batman Begins? According to you Revenge of the Fallen is better than those films.
Your concession is noted. You make this too easy.
Mad Max made in 1979 on a budget of 400000 and made 100 million in the box office. Which means it made 99.6% of what it cost to make.
Lol your concession is noted. Do not ever say Mad Max is not half the franchise Batman is ever again. You put your foot in your mouth.
shareLMAO
shareLol your concession is noted. Do not ever say Mad Max is not half the franchise Batman is ever again.
I did not say they were bigger. I said do not ever say they are not half the franchise Batman was. Your strawman is dismissed.
shareI said do not ever say they are not half the franchise Batman was.
Which is why the return on investment was better for Mad Max than any Batman film right? So you admit to using a strawman. You are a joke man.
shareYou're an idiot. Return on investment doesn't make your franchise bigger than another. Paranormal Activity has a higher ROI than all Avengers movies put together. It doesn't make PA a bigger franchise (or 'half the franchise' since you want to get hung up on that).
Lmao this is getting boring now putting you in your place. It's too easy.
I did not say it was bigger. Your strawman is dismissed.
shareIt doesn't make it half as big either. Don't pretend like you didn't see me address that -
It doesn't make PA a bigger franchise (or 'half the franchise' since you want to get hung up on that).
You stramanned first which shows you are losing a debate. Want me to take you seriously do not strawman.
shareLmao you're too scared to even defend your point because you know it's nonsensical. Mad Max is not half the franchise Batman is. Try and refute that you little weasel.
shareI already did with the return on investment but that was not the only point I made. Also Mad Max had major cultural impact on films. It was an original film that helped define the post apocalyptic genre. This is nothing to sneeze at. Therefore to say it is not half the franchise Batman is is simply not true.
Check this out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_series_legacy_and_influence_in_popular_culture#:~:text=Mad%20Max%20references%20are%20deeply,the%20series%20in%20their%20work.
James Cameron credits the movie as having a major influence on him. So um not some random journalist.
I already did with the return on investment.
Which is not the only argument I made. So since you decided to side step I will post what I said again.
I already did with the return on investment but that was not the only point I made. Also Mad Max had major cultural impact on films. It was an original film that helped define the post apocalyptic genre. This is nothing to sneeze at. Therefore to say it is not half the franchise Batman is is simply not true.
Check this out.://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_series_legacy_and_influence_in_popular_culture#:~:text=Mad%20Max%20references%20are%20deeply,the%20series%20in%20their%20work.
James Cameron credits the movie as having a major influence on him. So um not some random journalist.share
Lol this is pathetic.
I said Mad Max isn't half the franchise Batman is, in response to you talking about Mad Max box office numbers -
You - Mad Max Fury Road did those same numbers. Actually you could argue it did worse since it had a higher budget and made only 2 million dollars more.
Me - Mad Max isn't half the franchise Batman is. Again with the irrelevant comparisons. Dude come up with some new material.
Lol and I proved my point with the return on investment point I made. For a Mad Max film Fury Road did not do well in box office. However it is considered one of if not the best film in the franchise. Similar to Batman Begins... The cultural impact of the original Mad Max trilogy is unmatched. Yet Mad Max Fury Road is considered one of the best if not the best Mad Max movie. Which showcases having more cultural impact does not always mean it is a better film.
Nope you took my point out of context and strawmanned. Do not strawman it makes you look ignorant.
You look like an idiot right now, I hope you know that. Return on investment has nothing to do with the size of a franchise.
Mad Max is not half the franchise Batman is = fact. Not an opinion.
Which is why that was not the only point I made.
Answer this question did Mad Max 1979 have a cultural impact?
Nah I won't. Because if you can't concede factual statements there's no point having a conversation with you.
This is twice now where you've been factually proven wrong and you're too insecure to admit it.
Your concession is noted. You provided no facts at all only opinions. What facts did I not concede to?
Notice radio silence on my other points as well.
Mad Max not being half as big of a franchise as Batman is a fact.
The Joker laugh argument you were factually proven wrong with time stamps.
Both times you weren't man enough to concede you were wrong.
Repeating 'your concession is noted' every time you hit a logical brick wall just makes you look like an in denial jackass. You sound more and more like MovieChatUser497 every day lol, he repeats that same line. And believe me, that's the worst insult I can give you.
Because this is not true. Mad Max 1979 had a huge cultural impact and it's return on investment was much better than Batman 1989.
Who was the one who tried to omit the time Nicholson spent as Jack Napier? You did because you knew it did not help your point.
Nope I say it because you literally have no retorts or responses. Here are facts you did not concede to.
You said Batman Begins had no cultural impact and that it did not do well on dvd. I then proved to you it made 167 million dollars on home video. Your only retort was well Batman 1989 did better and it did not do Titanic numbers. That was not the point. You said no one cared about Batman Begins and those numbers disprove that.
You also tried to make the case that a movie being more culturally impactful by default makes it a better film. If that is the case Batman Forever and BVS are better than Batman Returns, Batman Begins and Batman Mask of the Phantasm. Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is also better than Mad Max Fury Road. You want to stand by this logic?
Because this is not true. Mad Max 1979 had a huge cultural impact and it's return on investment was much better than Batman 1989.
Who was the one who tried to omit the time Nicholson spent as Jack Napier? You did because you knew it did not help your point.
You also tried to make the case that a movie being more culturally impactful by default makes it a better film. If that is the case Batman Forever and BVS are better than Batman Returns
Which I why I also cited cultural impact. I am getting tired of repeating myself.
No because you would not have tried to omit that if that were true. Anyway I also never stated Heath had more laughing time I said it was fairly close. Another strawman you are desperately trying to cling to.
LMAO no that would be you. You tried to say Batman Begins had no cultural impact and I proved it wrong by citing you information. Then you backpedaled and went well it did not have as much as Batman 1989. That is irrelevant. It still had cultural impact. You then would not answer if Mad Max 1979 had cultural impact which shows you have no idea what it means.
So is something being more culturally impactful by default make it a better film? Also you will not answer my question about Phoenix why not? He gave a better Joker performance than Nicholson right? He after all won the Oscar.
Which I why I also cited cultural impact. I am getting tired of repeating myself.
Yeah it does actually. So now you just conceded that it had cultural impact lol. Now you can concede that Batman Begins also had cultural impact. Not more than Batman 1989 but cultural impact which you blatantly tried to lie about.
shareAt the time I thought Nicholson's portrayal was great.
In retrospect, I find it a bit subdued.