Not apologetically but you have to admit the 66 one is cheesier.
"1-800 Spank me? I know that number." Scott Calvin, The Santa Clause.

Are you apologetically defending Batman 89 by comparing it to Batman 66?
.and then the bong hits him on the head and he falls RIGHT over the realitY

I don't know which is funnier That he just happened to have it with him, or that he always carries it, just in case
"A big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff"
The Tenth Doctor explains all.

At least it doesn't have a scene where Batman gets a shark attached to his leg for 5 minutes and needing shark repellent to get it off.
"1-800 Spank me? I know that number." Scott Calvin, The Santa Clause.

Touch lol

I definitely se what you mean
.and then the bong hits him on the head and he falls RIGHT over the realitY

meh.

I thought it was me when it came out, and I've grown to despise it. Tim Burton was so wrong for Batman, and I can't understand those who regard it as a classic. The only thing revolutionary about it was the ad campaign; the marketing was so great that it added to the movie's reception.

You have a point haha
I am the forefunkel of jiggerjab.

It's as campy as your average comic book, and comic books are taken WAY too seriously. I'm not saying they should be comedy but dang, the Joker dances to a Prince song and you over-obsessive fanboys absolutely lose your s*** over it.

Visually the Nolan verse is much less campy. I didn't say it was free of camp, there are many laughable scenes in Nolan verse like the fight scenes and batman s voice

Well, I'm sure you are aware of other Batman movies that are much less campy. Nolanverse in other words. So a Batman flick need not be as campy as Batman 89.
The Nolanverse? The Nolanverse is hammy as hell, I had a harder time taking TDK and TDRK seriously than I had with B&R. B&R features absurd characters in an absurd world, the Nolanverse on the other hand somehow thinks it's a good idea to place these absurd characters in a supposedly real world. A guy dressed like a bat, a clown, a Sega Genesis boss character, all doing cartoony voices, all being taken seriously by the police, the DA, etc. I'm sorry, I just can't buy it. Maybe they were all too busy delivering the most pretentiously unnatural monologues to notice. Still, I'll take camp over ham any day.
Perhaps your definition of camp is broader than mine. When someone says camp I think of John Waters movies and Batman 66.
I agree.
Now of course, this movie is from 89 which was a very campy time to live in I guess, altho I'd prefer to use the term cheese when referring to the 80s and 90s.
The 80s were definitely more about cheese than camp, although keep in mind that, when dealing with a character like the Joker, who is, literally, a clown, the camp is supposed to be there. Sure, it was toned down in TDK but, makeup aside, he didn't act like a clown in that movie, which just went against the core of the character, in my opinion.

Well, I'm sure you are aware of other Batman movies that are much less campy. Nolanverse in other words. So a Batman flick need not be as campy as Batman 89.
Perhaps your definition of camp is broader than mine. When someone says camp I think of John Waters movies and Batman 66. Now of course, this movie is from 89 which was a very campy time to live in I guess, altho I'd prefer to use the term cheese when referring to the 80s and 90s.
In any case, it is not necessarily bad if you convince me to see your point of view. I can be convinced of anything if the arguments are good enough.
.and then the bong hits him on the head and he falls RIGHT over the realitY

You don't, but when you're dealing with a guy dressing up as a bat to fight crime the camp is always part of the package, as it should be, you might as well accept it instead of acting like it's a bad thing.

I know, but you don't need to be campy to have humor. Or am I wrong?
.and then the bong hits him on the head and he falls RIGHT over the realitY

I was being ironic.

Should it?
I am the forefunkel of jiggerjab.

Yes because a movie about a guy dressing up as a bat to fight crime should be devoid of absolutely all humor.

Maybe he'd never been that camp before. Maybe it was creepy. But all in all he was still another Nicholson villain, and felt like it too. Ledger and Leto really lost themselves in these roles to the point of being virtually unrecognizable, as the OP said. I don't see an incredible amount of difference between sayhis villain in the 'The Shining' and 'Batman'. Sure, one may be more violent while the other is simply creepy, but the point is, a lot of big-name actors have their trademarks. And while that's not necessarily a bad thing, I'm simply pointing out that Jack Nicholson felt like a Jack Nicholson moreso than a Joker. And I fail to see where his "camp" comes into play. Usually "campy" means cheesy to me. Take the '66 Batman movie/TV show. That's always been described as camp, and I don't know if I'd call Nicholson camp in comparison. Besides, to a certain B-movie level of enjoyment, camp may be alright. That seems to be what a lot of people enjoy about the '66 Batman these days. But I don't like Batman being reduced to that in all honesty, and I don't think I'd like it if Nicholson DID come across as camp to me.
I know, this is all being used for "my definition". I might not be using camp in the complete correct context. It's just my opinion.
"We're not too old for this sh*t!" -Riggs and Murtaugh, 'Lethal Weapon 4' (1998)

Nicholson wasn't playing himself in makeup. Nicholson had never been that creepily camp in a role before. Furiously, scarily, violent but never that creepily camp. And, no, Nicholson isn't creepily camp in real life. Nicholson's the American Oliver Reed -totally robust and totally delicate, gentlemanly, at the same time.

I never cared for Burton's nor Schumacher's films. I like that you pointed out how Nicholson was just playing himself with makeup, whereas Ledger and Leto were actually the Joker. Good reason as to why they're superior

whereas Adam West is very William Shatner in his approach
I've often thought that West and Shatner might have shared a drama coach!
All for a box of chocolates

Of course they're not mutually exclusive but I've never heard "dark camp" before and I just spontanously thought that, if something is campy, who cares if it's dark or not, it's still campy you know? That being said , yes it has darkness. And if you include Returns, even moreso, because Penguin is quite disturbing, visually and conceptually.
Glad we agree on the Basinger romance lol
DISCLAIMER: If the post above is stupid, explain my stupidity instead of name-calling.

It has campy moments, but they're mixed with dark, and disturbing ones. I don't want to sound like I'm insulting your intelligence, but a movie can have both qualities, without being aggressively, simply one thing or the other. It's a not a strict binary, although it would be easier to judge a movie if things were so black and white. To me, that would be excessively reductionist, however. Modern movies are sort of to blame for encouraging simple-minded movie going, because they tend to spell things out and overexplain so even the slowest audience member is on board (even the Nolan movies had some of this, with all those speeches on "becoming a symbol", and "introducing anarachy" blah blah blah)
It helps that Michael Keaton plays the movie like an 80's drama, whereas Adam West is very William Shatner in his approach. It's definitely a hard movie to digest for someone who just wants simple thrills. I would say the worst thing about it is the sappy romance with Basinger, which is totally unconvincing - I'm glad they made fun of it in
Batman Returns.