Love this guy.
-
haroldbishoplives — 10 years ago(December 07, 2015 02:03 PM)
I think Heath Ledger was the definitive live action Joker. Jack Nicholson's performance was just Jack Nicholson in grease paint. Not that there was anything wrong with that, he was good. Just not great.
-
robertmichel — 9 years ago(June 04, 2016 04:54 AM)
Jack's performance wasn't seen as "funny" in 1989, but as dark and quite threatening especially considering what had come before. Even if you prefer Ledger's performance, you can't underestimate the role that the Tim Burton film (and Nicholson's performance in it) played in making the transition from sixties camp to the seriousness with which superhero movies are approached today (and even going too far in that direction, as with the Zack Snyder Superman films).
-
fritzfassbender — 10 years ago(December 12, 2015 06:03 PM)
I don't think I can reasonably argue that Heath Ledger is not universally regarded as the better Joker, but I also think that Nicholson deserves the title.
Some say that he's just playing the Jack character, but I don't think that's really a factor. If Jack's the better Joker, he's the better Joker even if it was easier for him to get there. That's like saying a natural athlete shouldn't be considered as good as someone who trained h238arder but didn't go as far.
I've never heard anybody else express this opinion, but I was always reminded of Richard Nixon by Heath Ledger's performance. Just imagine Nixon saying, "It's simple. We, uh, kill the Batman" or "A little fight in you. I like that" and tell me that it's nothing like Heath Ledger. -
wolf-w49 — 10 years ago(December 30, 2015 05:28 AM)
And there has to be some consideration given to the movies each actor starred in. Jack's
Batman
was considerably more light-hearted and very 80s. With Ledger and Bale, the franchise had gone very dark, exploring territory only hinted at in the Keaton film. The original film was very much a comic book movie.
The Dark Knight
was wading in waters somewhat outside the comic book landscape. That had to inform the evolution of the Joker role, and how the actor was bound to portray it. -
fritzfassbender — 10 years ago(February 07, 2016 06:21 PM)
Jack's Batman was considerably more light-hearted and very 80s.
It's always been fascinating to me regarding the different Batman incarnations how quickly the fans will turn on them, then inevitably find their way back.
When Batman '89 came out, so many people would talk about how stupid the Adam West show was and how dark and realistic this new version was.
When The Dark Knight came out, so many people would talk about how stupid the Tim Burton films were and how dark and realistic this new version was. But at the same time, a wave of nostalgia brought Batman '66 right back in play and the world collectively kicked themselves for ever turning its back on it.
Now, there's a new Batman coming and Michael Keaton's back in the public eye, and the same folks who ridiculed Keaton's movies 10 years ago (even though he didn't personally take a lot of flak) are talking how awesome this guy and his version of Batman was.
There's a big difference between "dark" and "boring"
"It was a dark and boring knight." Tee hee. -
psmithyyyyy — 10 years ago(April 03, 2016 10:29 AM)
I'm sure these movie stars do there job, try to make the best movie possible, and then forget about it. the fans are so looney and back and forth, its hard to take them serioiusly. however I will say, jack is for me, the definitive live action joker. if you want to talk about comic book accuracy, AND brilliant classic performance for the ages, he was both. hes jack Nicholson!! he IS the joker! heath ledger was darker sure, but he was just a basic serial killer in lame looking crappily applied makeup with badly died hair. joker never had a scar smile, nor did he wear "war paint". he had no jokes, no laughing gas, no nothing. how people can say ledger was "better" doesn't make any sense to me.
-
] — 3 years ago(January 24, 2023 11:33 PM)