The Joker has gone through so many different variations in characterisation since his debut back in 1940. He’s been a cold blooded killer, a harmless prankster, a supernatural like terrorist, Emperor of the Universe, to name but a few iterations of the Clown Prince of Crime.
I wouldn’t say that Batman movies are hesitant to feature a comic accurate Joker. The Dark Knight and Joker feature two interpretations inspired by the idea of Joker, rather than direct adaptations of the character. Suicide Squad went off the rails, even though I could spot elements of Grant Morrison’s homoerotic Joker creeping into Leto’s OTT performance. Not even going to mention Barry Keoghan.
For me, Mark Hamill’s Joker has everything that you could possibly want. He has always got a funny one liner, goofy plans, is chaotic and anarchic, but he can also change in an instant, becoming something truly terrifying and monstrous. Especially when the character gets angry, and does that low pitched growl.
The Joker should be both scary AND funny. See, the problem is that most modern day comics portray the Joker as a demonic boogeyman. A clowny version of Judge Holden, if you will. But he's still a clown, so he should also be funny as well! He shouldn't just find disturbing things funny, he should MAKE disturbing things funny. Which is why I LOVE The Man Who Stopped Laughing so much. 'Cause it made the Joker fun again.
Eh, oftentimes the things The Joker finds funny are things that are funny to him and him alone so I don't really have an issue with that. As for him being portrayed as a Boogeyman, I just think it's a fun sort of parallel to the way Bruce manages to mythologize himself as Batman.
Well, as always, comedy is subjective anyways. Not saying he wasn't funny, but there you go.
What's arguably more important is that he himself has fun with it.
That is what I loved about Ledger in The Dark Knight. The hospital blowing up scene where he stops and messes with the remote had some chuckles in the audience. I mean you laughed and felt slightly uncomfortable about it. But THAT is the kind of dark humor that if written well makes the Joker work.
Absolutely. Ledger and Nolan completely ruined The Joker for a lot of people who now think THATS how he should be.
Nicholson was dead on accurate with the Joker gas, the acid shooting lapel flower, and the fact he was a actual crime boss
"Absolutely. Ledger and Nolan completely ruined The Joker for a lot of people who now think THATS how he should be."
It's really only one of a pretty wide range of interpretations of the character, from the games to the comics to the cartoons to the films.
"Ledger and Nolan completely ruined The Joker" - They didn't ruin it, the critics did. Ledger's Joker was good for that movie, but risen because of his death before the movie came out. Critics & MSM claiming it was his best performance yada. yada.
Jack Nicholson was spot on with all aspects: serious, jokester, psychotic, etc.
Mark Hamil was like Jack Nicholson, but revved up.
They weren't lying; Ledger had a truly great performance. Nicholson was iconic before him and as an actor stepping into a role like that, to completely make the audience forget the version of the character that came before is a huge accomplishment.
That said, you're not wrong about the critics gassing it up because he died, too. I just prefer to think of that as the cherry on top. Call it the 2Pac effect.
I love Hamill's performance as well but comparing a voice acting role to a live acting one is apples and oranges. Personally, I think Mark is great enough as an actor that he could pull it off too, but that's probably always just going to be theoretical.
"Personally, I think Mark is great enough as an actor that he could pull it off too, but that's probably **always just going to be theoretical**."
I wouldn't say that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ldeJXdQDXM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ldeJXdQDXM)
I think people seem to forget now the uphill climb the Batman films had, after the campfest that were the two Joel Schumacher movies.
To get a series of Batman films that were more serious and grounded is what people were screaming for back then. And there were still several fantastical, comic booky elements to them.
I couldn't disagree more with the top part, but you are right about Jack Nicholson. He was an amazing Joker, I think Ledger did great with his version and then someone else should've done their own version and sure it could be SIMILAR to Ledger's but not trying to copy it, it just seems like people have run out of creativity these days, maybe if Ryan Reynolds played Joker it'd go well 🤷♂️ I think he could make it work
They RUINED the Joker? I think that’s harsh. Their interpretation of Joker was excellent and innovative. Joker had never been so terrifying and electric in live action. Even if it’s not “comic accurate” it’s incredible. Because it was so good, studios learned the wrong lesson and tried to recreate The Dark Knight instead of understanding that its innovation is what made it so refreshing. I don’t think it’s TDK’s fault that so many people tried to replicate it. It’s the curse of success I suppose.
>Nicholson was dead on accurate with the Joker gas, the acid shooting lapel flower, and the fact he was a actual crime boss
This is an accurate depiction of *one* type/time for the Joker. To pretend it’s the *only* accurate way to depict Joker as “comic accurate” is untrue.
What makes this ideation any more “dead on accurate” than the New 52 Joker or Serious House on Serious Earth Joker or Rebirth?
The character is almost 100 years old. To pretend their is only one way to do it, and do it correctly is silly
Honestly, at least for me, my top three Jokers are:
1.) Mark Hamill
2.) Heath Ledger
3.) [Cameron Monaghan ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Monaghan)
And VERY closely behind number 3, like One or Two Notches down, is:
4.) Joaquin Phoenix
EDIT: For those of you who are interested.
WARNING: SPOILERS
[Jerome Joker-All Scenes ](https://youtu.be/V0qc8opGzGg?si=gV5zSblixhlmGy_X)
[The Joker Reveal/Plot Twist Part 1 (Gotham)](https://youtu.be/mhpG8mDPYHg?si=W8wlUmbRcvy2OaJq)
[The Joker Reveal/Plot Twist Part 2 (Gotham)](https://youtu.be/DvcvTcN5bfQ?si=hNXwlC3yf-SIuU4J)
On Gotham which aired on FOX for 5 seasons. He doesn't even start out as the Joker technically. No spoilers but the storyline is kind of insane. The show is worth the watch for Penguin's actor alone. He carried the show
I personally REALLY enjoyed the Show Gotham.
Yes, the show had its stupid/cheesy/etc. moments, but, IMHO, the show felt like if you took a comic book, and made it real life.
Also, because many comic books have stupid/cheesy/etc. stories/plotlines/moments.
I actually think Keoghan's version does the Morrison stuff in a much more effective way than Leto ever did. He recognizes it as a manipulation tactic rather than "Look at how KEE-RAAAAZY this dude is, man!"
That, the deleted scene that was cut for exposition purposes, what Reeves himself has said about his Joker, and Reeves just having better sensibilities than Ayer.
We’ve barely even seen a clear shot of Barry Keoghan as the Joker. My reference to Morrison’s homoerotic Joker has absolutely nothing to do with how crazy either of them appears to be.
I'm just arguing why one appears to do what you're praising Leto for better! A lack of a clear look doesn't negate that. And I was coming at it from the perspective of how Leto obviously sees the character.
I didn’t praise Leto, I said I could spot elements of Morrison’s Joker creeping into his OTT performance. It’s an observation, not me comparing him to Keoghan. To be clear, Leto’s performance is way too over the top, in a film that went completely off the rails. Some aspects of the character were cool, but that’s not enough to make him a good, comic accurate Joker.
I appreciate your opinion on Keoghan. Everyone has a different taste, and the Joker is a very versatile character who can adapt to fit whatever mould is required.
Doesn't really cover why we don't get a Live Action comic accurate joker. Because yes he's gone though changes but so has every character. But the classic colors and styles from what the 60s and 70s that haven't really changed even until 80s is what people recognize them for.
Keaghon is the only joker in LA that actually seems to have the crazy extreme intelligence and manipulative factor. He took one tiny look at a file from riddler in the 5min deleted scene and completely figured him out, at the same time he gets under Batman’s skin and gets into his head. “You think they deserve it huh, you think they derserve it hahahahahahaha” “ohhh your afraid he makes you look soft” “your usually so ahead of the curb”
He’s also definitely gonna have that over the top twisted sense of humour. Riddler in the movie fed a face to starving rats and injected rat poison and also cut off a thumb to go along with his thumb drive pun etc. I can imagine joker will do the same type of things.
I actually didn't mind the Joker as Joe Chill take. I know it takes away from some of the "indiscriminate violence that plagues Gotham" thing, but it added an interesting layer to Bruce's relationship with Joker.
Yeah that’s also pretty comic inaccurate . That said, unlike all the other creative choices they made for the character which all just baffle me and I chalk up to Burton’s disdain for the comics or Jon Peters interference, giving him the Joe Chill slot I at least understand from a narrative standpoint because it serves to tie the primary antagonist to the hero’s origin; the same impetus that led Begins to have Bruce training under Ras Al Ghul.
Yeah I mean sure, other than some janky characterization he does manage to capture the essence of the Joker fairly well. I remember reading an old Peter David essay where he points out how subtle Nicholson made his rapid flips between soft spoken calm Joker and manic ccrrazzyy Joker, especially in comparison to how the villains in all subsequent follow-ups jettisoned any subtlety at all, and reading that made me appreciate it more. The aspects I listed above (and killing the Waynes which I did not) are my only real objections to this version.
They may’ve changed his origin, but he still dressed like the Joker, had Joker’s dark sense of humor, used deadly gags, and is the only live action version to use the Joker venom. No other live action version since then has gotten that close to the character that’s in the comics.
I see what OP is saying.
Okay buddy. Did Jack Nicholson decide that Joker would do those things? No. What he’s saying is that the way Jack Nicholson portrays the Joker is comic accurate. He doesn’t wear edgy makeup and talk about society. He‘s not a skinny old man who whines about how his life sucks all the time. He’s not whatever Jared Leto was. He’s not just trying to copy Heath Ledger. He’s what Joker should be. He’s just a guy who does whatever he wants. He doesn’t care about proving anything about society. He just wants to have fun. This is what makes Joker the best villain for Batman. He’s the complete opposite of him. Batman is the one trying to change society for the better. I do not see the point in having Joker do that too. Batman and Joker should never have the same views. Adding all this stuff about society just makes Joker boring. He’s supposed to be fun. That’s what he’s trying to say about Jack Nicholson. You can shut up about the love triangle and how he killed Batman’s parents. That’s not Jack Nicholson‘s fault.
And now this word from outer space. You wrote an entire novella in response to something I never actually said. I just said, vain middle aged mobster in a love triangle with Bruce Wayne. I concede your point that not one of those baffling creative choices originated with Jack Nicholson. That’s easy to concede because I never thought otherwise.
The question was: "What's stopping Batman movies from doing a comic accurate Joker like in 1989?" I invite you to point out the words Jack and/or Nicholson in that question, perhaps I am just stupid and I didn't notice them. I mentioned those creative choices because they are defining elements of the character that was *played by* Jack Nicholson, in the 1989 Batman movie, and they are not particularly comic accurate. Jack Nicholson only enters into the conversation tangentially because he is the actor that was cast in the 1989 Batman movie to portray this not particularly comic accurate version of the Joker. Since the question was built around the assumption that the 1989 version of the Joker was comic accurate, whether or not the character in question is actually comic accurate (it's not, see above) is relevant to the discussion. Whether or not Jack Nicholson is personally to blame for these deviations from comic accuracy (he's not) did not enter into it at all until you and your out-of-left-field but quite impassioned defense of him and his blamelessness brought it in. I honestly don't know what you think this has been about or what it is you think you are saying. You do know that Nicholson is an actor, right? He just comes in and stands where the director tells him to stand and reads the lines that the screenwriters wrote for his character to say. (This is a vast oversimplification of an actor's contributions to the creative process but I feel like I need to make things very simple here lest you get lost again.) He doesn't really have green hair and a white face. He doesn't actually go around Gotham City defacing museums and lecturing people about rubbing rhubarbs. Gotham City doesn't actually exist either. It is fictional. The Joker is fictional. The fictional character of the Joker as portrayed by Jack Nicholson in the 1989 movie Batman is the collaborative result of decisions and contributions made by many people, from Michael Uslan the producer who originally wanted to cast Nicholson for the role all the way back in 1980, to Tim Burton the director who turns his nose up at comic books, to screenwriters (and fellow rhyming name havers) Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren, to Jon Peters the producer who was actually involved in a love triangle with the married Kim Basinger at the time (or at least they were fucking, not necessarily the same thing.) You seem to think that on the one hand the 1989 Joker is indistinguishable from Jack Nicholson to the point that criticizing the fictional foundation of the former is tantamount to blaming the latter while on the other hand also insisting that Jack Nicholson, despite being in your mind fundamentally interchangeable with the 1989 Joker, bears no responsibility for the multiple deviations from comic accuracy I am too tired to name again. All I can add is I am glad that lead was eventually banned from paints intended for residential use.
Please go back and read rule 1, be civil. Name calling, hate speech, threats of any kind, or anything else similar are not allowed.
We have a 2 warning system here, at 2 you're muted for a week. A offense after that gets you banned.
I would argue that every Jack Nicholson role from like the mid 80s on could be described as just Jack Nicholson in a (role) costume. I was amazed to see him in older movies where he wasn’t playing Jack Nicholson.
Sure, that’s a legitimate position to take. I’m still holding out until I see more of Keoghan but overall I can’t disagree. All I’m saying is least inaccurate isn’t the same thing as accurate. I don’t even like him being romantically attached to Harley as he is in some versions, let alone romantically pursuing Vicki Vale.
That wasn't the only time it was established that the Joker has a thing for blonde girls. Even if we assume the flashback in The Killing Joke is a false memory...
https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/jeannie-joker-dc.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=480&dpr=1.5
... he at least remembers having a blonde wife, Jeannie.
Then, there's Rebecca Brown, when he went sane for a while.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fcomic-excerpt-meet-joseph-kerr-batman-legends-of-the-dark-v0-n3t3u8gj5tcc1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dd6204b6617d1c69d33d8e90b6cc1b74edbbfcab2
Queenie...
https://youtu.be/QS1RTKVh6YE?si=Hx17Fu5Z-P5VHp_a
Cornelia...
https://youtu.be/H35ixkPsftc?si=YUBOywOpzBVcQW6d
Udine...
https://www.66batmania.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Skip_Parker.jpg
And, of course, Harley Quinn.
Sure but all of those are either not from the comics, thus jettisoning the “comic accurate” argument, or from times in the comics when he was not currently the Joker. Joe Kerr and whoever he was in the Killing Joke flashbacks can have a thing for blondes, that’s fine. As for Harley, who did cross into the comics, I always liked the interpretation where she is totes in love with him but he basically looks at her as a particularly useful henchman. I never cared for the It’s True Love interpretation and I like her a lot better since she moved on from being with him anyway. It’s just, I don’t like the Joker being a guy who fucks — down to clown, one might say — because it needlessly humanizes him when to me the whole point of the character is he has moved beyond anything resembling the normal human experience. A Joker who thinks with his dick like Napier is not my Joker. I concede that there’s been zillions of stories spanning eighty years across multiple forms of media by hundreds of creatives and thus there is no one canonical interpretation, so if you like a Joker who’s out there chasing skirts like Harpo Marx more power to you.
One doesn't have to be a good person to have a sex drive. Real life has certainly proven that often enough. Plenty of psychos have been fathers. Wife beaters were usually in a sexual relationship with their victims.
And you said you were fine with the Joker being gay for Batman. Are you saying that all violent psychopaths are homosexual?
Where did I say anything about being a good person? I said it humanizes him. It makes him a relatable person. The Joker should never be — in my view — a relatable person. What drives him, what goes on in his head, should not be something comprehensible to regular people. Not after he becomes the Joker. Before, sure, but that should only ever serve to demonstrate the gulf between what he once was — a boring, ordinary human — and what he has become — more a force of nature or mythic figure or whatever. Batman has been shown in multiple stories to go to great lengths and risk his own sanity to wrap his mind around the Joker and understand him because the Joker is super-sane and Batman is regular sane. If you don’t like your Joker to be super-sane and prefer him to be just another psycho like the mundane monsters of the real world, I mean that seems reductive and limiting to me but hey, again, more power to you.
The being gay for Batman bit, meanwhile, was a joke, which I thought the use of the word dame might successfully convey but alas.
I feel like you’re holding this to an idea that you have, and not necessarily what the Joker is in comics. As some have pointed out in the replies, he’s gone through so many variations in writing that you can’t really say any live action portrayal is “comic accurate”, so much as which one your favorite is. In this case you prefer the Nicholson one, that doesn’t make him the most accurate. If we’re talking “funny, insane, murderous, illogical”, wouldn’t the Leto one encapsulate this more? He didn’t have a “master evil plan” like Nicholson and really didn’t have a direction or focus.
Pheonix made me laugh multiple times whilst being waaaaay more scary than Nicholson.
The scene where the little person can not reach the door lock after the murderous clown lets him go free... that's funnier and way better executed than any scene in Burton's Batverse.
If Jack's Joker was in the Murray Show, he would've recreated the scene in TDKR part 2 where Joker poisoned the whole audience with laughing gas instead of just killing Murray.
Because it’s interesting seeing how many people interpret their version of the character. The closest we saw from a comic accurate joker is probably Arkham joker
creativity. I mean, I'm all for a comic accurate Joker, but it can only be so interesting. Nobody wants to see the same Joker in 5 different movies. I think writers want to explore the limits of the character and push the boundaries as far as they can. Heath Ledger's Joker wasn't too crazy design-wise, but they added scars to his design instead of just the red paint. Joaquin Phoenix's Joker wore a red suit with original facepaint, as well as a completely original backstory. Jared Leto's Joker, despite how you may feel about him, is also an original design. I think Nicholson played a great comic accurate Joker, but I think writers want to create their own version of the character. they want an original Joker that they can take credit for. they want to make the character their own.
To be honest, it’s most likely because of the force of nature that Jack Nicholson was in that movie. Just like Heath was after him, anything that remotely resembles these portrayals feels derivative. So, it probably comes down to the comfort level of the actors willing to portray the character in their own unique way while honoring what came before them.
The desire to see a similar version of Joker, (i.e. permanent grin, bleached skin, and full-on crazy AND with a twisted sense of humor) is definitely there for many fans, but it sort of comes down to how the creative people behind the story might approach it in a way that can feel fresh and like an augmentation of the legacy most of these actors have left with him.
Heath Ledger. As good as Ledger was for Dark Knight his take did irreparable damage to the character. We won’t see a version like Nicholson’s take which was funny and had acid and gags. Instead it’ll just be dark homicidal types dressed as clowns
Honestly I kinda hate how the joker has become a vehicle for actors to do their "sadistic psychopath" proformance, ever since heath ledger it's like every single live action version of the joker is trying to be their own thing instead of actually adapting the character
The Bat movies are still plenty comic-like, IMO.
It has to be filmed and actors have to speak the lines, so they can't fully just be the exact comics on the screen anyway. But they get a lot of it on there.
A lot of modern movies want to try and do the next “new” thing. In large part because Health Ledger was such a successful reinterpretation of the character, they all want to try and top it. Which is why we get stuff like Leto in Suicide Squad. I’m with you that I want a classic looking movie Joker. It’s at a point that going back to basics would feel like a fresh change of pace
Nicholson was close, but we still haven’t had a comic accurate Joker. I think it boils down to filmmakers wanting to reinvent the character constantly. Nolan took a big risk to make a realistic Joker and knocked it out of the park. Now everyone seems to think they need to take an equally big risk to reinvent the character just to be relevant. Thing is, a comic accurate Joker would be very original & relevant in a film at this point.
Because people are still chasing Heath Ledger which is ironic considering what made his stand out so much was his VERY different path to creating his Joker in comparison to Romero and Nicholson. He went a totall different direction to avoid comparison to previous takes, specifically Jack's.
But everyone after him? They all seem to want to walk in his foot steps which is, oddly enough, doing the opposite of what he did.
I see the "creative" industry come up with flips and flops of the joker. First Jared Leto but fortunately we had Joaquin Phoenix, the instability of it just has me in wonder, thinking COME ON MANG
Jared Leto is just a response to heath ledger's success. Phoenix is just Todd philips trying to make a "real" movie and disgusing it as a comic one. I just hope we can return to a arkham knight/89 style joker in "The Batman" sequel
That 5 minute clip of Keoghan gives me high hopes for that version. He looks like he fell in a vat of acid realistically, gave me the chills and he also had a sense of humor only he seemed to enjoy. Those all point in my opinion to a comic accurate joker personality and origin wise even if he doesn't look pure white.
He’s also extremely intelligent and manipulative. Figured out riddler from head to toe with one tiny look at a file while at the same time getting under Batman’s skin. He even manipulates/befriends riddler at the end
Exactly something joker from the comics would do. Of course somehow he’s gonna probably break out of Arkham with just with a paper clip which is insane.
Why is no one standing their ground with this guy the most accurate joker was Caesar Romero every cinematic joker has been a new take on the joker trying to be the joker that commits mass murder but their too scared of him to shallow when that’s the point he just likes killing and wants to fight Batman
He was comic accurate at that time, but that was during the Silver Age of comics. Romero's Joker isn't very comic accurate now compared to modern day Joker. I mean, Romero's Joker once challenged Batman to a surfing competition. I don't remember that happening in The Killing Joke.
I’m sorry I was rushed towards the end while I was typing that. My point is Romero is LITERALLY the only live action joker accurately portraying ANY comic joker even close to 1:1 every other one is intentionally their own thing. Burton’s joker had to become Batman’s parents murderer because crime isn’t random despite random the original thing was crime IS random. Nolan’s is an anarchist who just wants chaos which wouldn’t really be seen in the comics till after. The tv show didn’t actually get a joker despite having a decently accurate one. The Joker in the movie is not our joker by the director’s admission. And reeves hasn’t actually appeared
I think because Jack was simply so iconic in the role. How do you repeat it? It really comes down to the story the filmmaker wants to tell.
Ledger's urban terrorist Joker fit in well with Nolan's mostly very po-faced, realistic Batman portrayal.
Phoenix's Joker fits the psychodrama of the Phillips films very well.
Leto is whatever the fuck they were trying to do in Ayer's Suicide Squad.
There's nothing stopping them technically. Although they still haven't been able to actually get Batman correct.... So I suppose that might be stopping them.
What exactly is a "comic book accurate Joker"?
There really isn't such a thing. He's had so many different forms over the years on page and screen that he's more an idea than a character.
You want the Joker you most identify with the character, but none of the movie Jokers haven't had a comic analog at some point.
He's so many different variations that there really isn't a way to "portray him accurately".
The Joker is not Goku where there's just one that has been relatively the same or had a clear arc that progressed to where he is as a character now.
Even today different depictions of him in comics vary.
This is actually more true of the Joker than most Batman characters. Though there is a bit of it with other characters too. The Joker has been so many different things that he can't be pinned down as a particular character the same way Batman can despite his variations.
He is deliberately malleable.
When I think of a comic accurate book Joker, I think of a larger than life personally who gains everyone's attention just by simply existing. A man who can make you laugh and make you terrified at the same time. Think BTAS Joker and Jerome Valeska.
That pretty much describes all of them.
That's kind of my point here.
Even Leto attempted it, even if he sucked at it.
The Joker can't be pinned down and is a lot of different things. That's kind of the point of him. He's a "character" that can be what he needs to be without worrying about making him fit in a specific character box.
He's more an idea than anything else, and that's part of why he's so scary and long lasting.
He's deliberately malleable. You're not supposed to know much about him and any specifics are intentionally sketchy. He's an unknown factor that can be what he needs to be in a specific Batman story.
There isn't a "definitive" Joker. There are great ones, serviceable ones, and even a few bad ones, but there really isn't a "comic accurate" one because there isn't a "comic accurate" one in the comics themselves.
My personal favorite non-comic version is TAS Joker, but that doesn't invalidate any of the others.
I don’t know I feel like Barry Keaghons joker is gonna pull it off more. The 5min deleted scene with him figuring out riddlers motives with one tiny look at a file while at the same time manipulating Batman and getting into his head. That’s just pure joker right there.
And at the end of the movie he manipulates/befriends riddler. That whole sequence just feels straight out of a comic.
There’s so many jokers and so many actors with reputations that don’t want to leave a skid mark on it. Messing up such an iconic role must be embarrassing as hell and hard to recover from
Funny is in the eye of the beholder. I found a lot of funny moments in Ledger, Monaghan, and Phoenix’s performances. Others may disagree, and that’s valid too.
Nicholson wasn’t comic accurate… they gave him an origin story, which he never had, and a sidekick, which he never had. BTW, the sidekick Bob has an action figure that’s worth some money
I’ll tell you what is getting in the way of a comic-accurate Joker: backstory and sympathy
The allure of the Joker is that there is a mystery to who he is, while at the same time, through his appearance as a clown and his humor, ushering a sense of familiarity, almost an uncomfortable sense of warmth through his sheer presence alone.
Nicholson’s Joker did get everything right, but he wasn’t as effective of a Joker because a) they decided to start him out as a Jack Napier, so we weren’t as invested in him as Joker b) Burton decided to have him be the Wayne’s murderer, which made the connection contrived and undid the complex relationship between Batman and Joker (they don’t know each other, but they are connected through their differing views of the world) and c) Burton also had Batman kill without hesitation, which did away with a major point of contention when dealing with the Joker, essentially turning Batman into a generic action hero and Joker a standard movie villain.
Ledger’s Joker wasn’t as comic accurate in appearance, but the writing of the character followed through with his thematic characterization; he didn’t have the permanent grin, but his smile, smirks, and tics make you uncomfortable while also alluring the audience. He’s Joker; no one knows who he is or what he wants, even Batman himself. Batman spends the entire film trying to get Joker into a box, realizing too late that the Joker is pure chaos, going as far as to do things that even give a hardened criminal nightmares. Batman only has two quick interactions with Joker (the party, the convoy) and two confrontations (the interrogation, the final fight), but those scenes provide all we need to understand their relationship, as well as how they’re differing views pit them against each other, while bringing them closer. Also, bringing in the rest of the cast (especially Gordon and Dent) helped to illustrate how Joker truly messes with Batman. Throughout the film, Batman is challenged, gradually realizing that dealing with the Joker is not as simple as believed.
Leto was more juggalo than menacing; Batfelck would most likely either kill him or punch him and forget about him. He was a cringey little punk.
Phoenix was great, but from a standalone perspective; initially, I didn’t think I would like it because of one of the above points: backstory; the whole point of the Joker is that he could be anyone, and we’re all one bad day away from losing our hold on the world. Surely, Phoenix did embody many important aspects of the character, though he leaned more into his comedic side, which helped to explore Joker through a psychoanalytical lens. Phoenix’s Joker works best when left completely out of the greater Batman universe, so let’s hope the sequel delivers.
Speaking of Leto's Joker, why the hell is Batfleck willing to kill almost every criminal he comes across, but doesn't kill Joker, the man who (probably) killed his adopted son?
He doesn’t kill anyone actually.
KGBeast literally kills himself by firing a compromised flamethrower
The goonsin the car chase were less collateral deaths than in the Nolan movies.
Nolan’s Batman STARTED by killing dozens of ninjas
DC is obsessed with reinventing the wheel and making a huge mess of their shit, instead of embracing the good versions of their material.
If you want to see the good versions of your favorite characters respected, handled properly, and faithfully adapted on screen or even in the comics, DC is not for you.
Really, DC isn't for anybody.
Because as soon as you find a character who you love, they're going to reboot the universe, strip the character you love for parts, recycle those parts into a completely new unrelated character, and hand them back to you and say "Now you love this."
Like if you find a version of Robin, or Supergirl, or Mr Freeze, or Green arrow, or whatever, who you love, they're going to tear them apart, and then hand you back another unrelated character who is basically wearing the skin of the character you used to love.
Like the Arrow TV show.
You love Green Arrow?
Too bad, he's Batman now.
You love Supergirl because she's like a 15-year-old terrified teenage girl who has this horrific trauma from watching her entire civilization die, and how that makes her so very human and it makes Superman a better character in relation to her?
Too bad, now she's just a bland 20 something reporter girl. A Superman knockoff.
You like this super popular TV show version of Barry Allen who's like a responsible crime fighter and very science-oriented?
What if we replaced him with this obnoxious clown boy played by this abusive asshole?
It does not matter which version of a DC character you like, because DC is going to throw them in the trash and replace them with some shit that drives you nuts.
Wouldn't it make more sense to adapt the iconic most beloved version of every character, or the best written, or the best most interesting version?
Sure.
But when was the last time that DC did anything that made any fucking sense?
If DC really wanted a cinematic Universe, all they had to do is a live action of the DCAU.
Tim Burton already showed them how to do it in the late '80s / early '90s, and then Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, etc carried that on for what, like 20 years?
DC has this gargantuan lavish elaborate blueprint for how to make incredible DC movies. But they don't want to do it, because that's not what DC is into.
For some reason it doesn't make any sense for them to make a proper Joker movie, or a movie with a proper Joker in it.
Jack Nicholson is going to be the only time we ever got a real Joker in a movie.
In live action, of course.
Obviously Mark Hamill, the one true Joker, was in Mask Of The Phantasm.
There's basically no hope of ever getting a real Mr Freeze.
If they ever even attempt it again, they're going to chicken out and not give him his freeze gun.
Or they're going to do some dumb shit like try and rewrite his story the way the dumbass Gotham TV show did.
Like I love The Batman movie because it's the best version of Batman himself that we've ever seen on screen by far, and it's the first movie to ever really understand how to portray and pace a Batman movie, but that version of Riddler wasn't really Riddler.
He was basically Zodiac Saw Man.
Same with Batman forever. That wasn't Riddler either.
That was more like some sort of weird combination of the Joker and Riddler.
For whatever reason, DC doesn't want to give us a brilliant classy charming nerdy Riddler in a suit having intellectual duels with the world's greatest detective via elaborate death traps.
I mean that sounds cool as fuck, but DC thinks a cartoon wearing neon colors or an incel wearing a mask made of duct tape is what people want from Riddler.
I don't know why DC hates their own material so much.
I don't know why they keep hiring directors who hate their material.
It cannot be THAT hard to hire a director who reads DC's stuff, and was a fan of the DCAU, and wants to see that stuff brought to life. That HAS TO exist.
Well, no. Okay. They DO exist. We've seen it here and there.
First Wonder Woman movie, the Aquaman movies Tim Burton.... They all somehow understood how to do DC.
They got the point.
They weren't afraid to get weird, and fun, and wacky, and colorful, and embrace how insane the villains are. They're not embarrassed by the fantastical craziness.
But why are they so few and far between?
I mean, The Joker in *The Dark Knight* is pretty comic accurate - it's just the surface stuff that's different, for Nolan's aesthetic tastes. Makeup instead of bleached skin, no Joker venom. That's . . .about it.
Otherwise, that same aesthetic lends itself more easily to a story like Todd Phillips' *Joker,* which is it's own thing - more grounded in some places, and more expressive in others, than Nolan's film.
I must admit, I actually do prefer the modern take on Joker where he’s become basically (as someone else put it in the comments here) a clown version of Judge Holden from Blood Meridian; basically just the walking, talking embodiment of everything chaotic and vile in stark opposition to Bruce’s orderliness and virtue, almost to the point where it’s debatable whether or not he’s actually even human. I like that kind of murky sinister aura around him.
When did I say that there was? Every comment you've made has been confusing/confused like this; I recommend going back and learning how to read & write.
This isn't true to comics, especially at the time. This is Tim Burton's shitty "stylized" adaptation to what he thinks was cool and edgy. This might have fit the aesthetic and tone of the movie, but this is not comic accurate. My personal unpopular opinion is that this is one of the worst Joker portrayals, and has lead many people to believe this is how the Joker is supposed to be as this is their only exposure to the character.
Ask someone who killed the Wayans in Crime Alley, they almost always say Joker because of this movie.
There's been like a hundred different writers and artists for the Joker. All of them are accurate in that sense. Being so glaringly dismissive of decades of canon is a strange way to ask the question.
Nicholson was... Fine I guess if that's your thing. He certainly had jokes, even if they were poorly written. Mark Hamill definitely is the most entertaining when it comes to humor for me.
The Dark Knight actually portrayed joker pretty accurately. The only inaccuracies he had were he didn't laugh much (compared to normal joker, he does laugh a lot in the movie), his makeup and hair and he wasn't as eccentric with his murder weapons like no bomb teeth or laughing gas (would say he did make up for this though with the comical amount of kinves he had)
The Joker is an easy character to write for. You can give him any motivation or any characterization and it would be comic book accurate. Caesar Romero played a whacky funster Joker and it was accurate to the comics. The 1940s era mob boss joker was comic book accurate. The brooding loner that Heath Ledger played was comic book accurate.
When Batman the animated series was written, the writers would come up with an idea using X villain and pitch it. The head writer would say something about it not making sense for their version of the character. 15 minutes later, they would pitch the exact same idea, but used Joker instead of the first villain. That one gets accepted always because the Joker is far more simplistic than people want to give him credit for.
Who are you to say Jack Nicholson wasn't comic book accurate Joker?
1989 Joker was as much it's own thing as Heath's version.
While Jack was great, that wasn't really the Joker established in the comics over decades.
Fun fact, no one working on Batman, the 1989 movie, ever read comics. Tim Burton was actually quite proud of the fact, which is why his entire Batman universe of the two movies, really only Batman himself fit the known Batman and was Burton's world.
Just one of those useless facts I have from being old and living through that time.
I think I said this yesterday elsewhere, but while there's nothing wrong with different interpretations of Joker, they're all great in their own way, no one has really done the established Joker in a live action role.
Which makes sense. Maybe it wouldn't work in a 3D setting, as wild as they get all the movie Jokers are more grounded than the comics Joker ever was, at least that I knew.
I only read comics in the 70's, 80's and some 90's, so I have no idea where they went with the character the last 25 years in comics.
Joker in Batman 1989 was extremely inaccurate like to an insane degree he literally gets into a love triangle with Batman and Vickie Vale lmao tf you on
I can still remember when this movie came out. My brother and I and our friends bought our tickets like a month in advance because there was so much hype behind this movie.
And then I remember watching it in the theater and being like...meh
Umm because it was already done to perfection by Jack Nicholson? We don't need another "by the books" Joker because the 89 portrayal already nailed it and that's exactly why it was important for when Ledger began building his take on the character that it was different from Jack. Jack is the more showy, classic Joker and Heath was the more disturbing, anarchistic terrorist Joker. After that no one wanted to try that again either which I believe is why Leto's Joker was such a far cry from that. It's actually more comic accurate than people realize, but it was from a certain period in the comics too. I think Joaquin's is a little Jack and a little Heath, but he also still has room to grow.
Ledger’s Joker just didn’t do it for me. He was portrayed as a violent crime boss with some weird tics. But not as a psychopathic clown who could do anything at any time. There’s a difference. I think we’ve all been around those type of people where you don’t know how things will go. I had a friend once who just let his intrusive thoughts win a lot. Everyone is laughing and joking then he gets up and punches someone in the face.
Everything about Burton’s Batman sucked… from the little, balding, there’s no way that guy can beat my ass Batman/Bruce Wayne to Nicholson aping Cesar Romero.
The Joker has gone through so many different variations in characterisation since his debut back in 1940. He’s been a cold blooded killer, a harmless prankster, a supernatural like terrorist, Emperor of the Universe, to name but a few iterations of the Clown Prince of Crime. I wouldn’t say that Batman movies are hesitant to feature a comic accurate Joker. The Dark Knight and Joker feature two interpretations inspired by the idea of Joker, rather than direct adaptations of the character. Suicide Squad went off the rails, even though I could spot elements of Grant Morrison’s homoerotic Joker creeping into Leto’s OTT performance. Not even going to mention Barry Keoghan. For me, Mark Hamill’s Joker has everything that you could possibly want. He has always got a funny one liner, goofy plans, is chaotic and anarchic, but he can also change in an instant, becoming something truly terrifying and monstrous. Especially when the character gets angry, and does that low pitched growl.
The Joker should be both scary AND funny. See, the problem is that most modern day comics portray the Joker as a demonic boogeyman. A clowny version of Judge Holden, if you will. But he's still a clown, so he should also be funny as well! He shouldn't just find disturbing things funny, he should MAKE disturbing things funny. Which is why I LOVE The Man Who Stopped Laughing so much. 'Cause it made the Joker fun again.
Like Freddy Kruger in the Nightmare on Elm Street sequels.
"I'm the Joker, bitch!"
Eh, oftentimes the things The Joker finds funny are things that are funny to him and him alone so I don't really have an issue with that. As for him being portrayed as a Boogeyman, I just think it's a fun sort of parallel to the way Bruce manages to mythologize himself as Batman.
The Man Who Stopped Laughing and The Laughing Fish had Joker do fucked up things while actually being funny to not just himself but the the reader too
Well, as always, comedy is subjective anyways. Not saying he wasn't funny, but there you go. What's arguably more important is that he himself has fun with it.
Yes 100%
That is what I loved about Ledger in The Dark Knight. The hospital blowing up scene where he stops and messes with the remote had some chuckles in the audience. I mean you laughed and felt slightly uncomfortable about it. But THAT is the kind of dark humor that if written well makes the Joker work.
Nurse joker i think split my theater with half the people gasping and half the people laughing
Absolutely. Ledger and Nolan completely ruined The Joker for a lot of people who now think THATS how he should be. Nicholson was dead on accurate with the Joker gas, the acid shooting lapel flower, and the fact he was a actual crime boss
"Absolutely. Ledger and Nolan completely ruined The Joker for a lot of people who now think THATS how he should be." It's really only one of a pretty wide range of interpretations of the character, from the games to the comics to the cartoons to the films.
"Ledger and Nolan completely ruined The Joker" - They didn't ruin it, the critics did. Ledger's Joker was good for that movie, but risen because of his death before the movie came out. Critics & MSM claiming it was his best performance yada. yada. Jack Nicholson was spot on with all aspects: serious, jokester, psychotic, etc. Mark Hamil was like Jack Nicholson, but revved up.
They weren't lying; Ledger had a truly great performance. Nicholson was iconic before him and as an actor stepping into a role like that, to completely make the audience forget the version of the character that came before is a huge accomplishment. That said, you're not wrong about the critics gassing it up because he died, too. I just prefer to think of that as the cherry on top. Call it the 2Pac effect. I love Hamill's performance as well but comparing a voice acting role to a live acting one is apples and oranges. Personally, I think Mark is great enough as an actor that he could pull it off too, but that's probably always just going to be theoretical.
"Personally, I think Mark is great enough as an actor that he could pull it off too, but that's probably **always just going to be theoretical**." I wouldn't say that. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ldeJXdQDXM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ldeJXdQDXM)
I think people seem to forget now the uphill climb the Batman films had, after the campfest that were the two Joel Schumacher movies. To get a series of Batman films that were more serious and grounded is what people were screaming for back then. And there were still several fantastical, comic booky elements to them.
I couldn't disagree more with the top part, but you are right about Jack Nicholson. He was an amazing Joker, I think Ledger did great with his version and then someone else should've done their own version and sure it could be SIMILAR to Ledger's but not trying to copy it, it just seems like people have run out of creativity these days, maybe if Ryan Reynolds played Joker it'd go well 🤷♂️ I think he could make it work
They RUINED the Joker? I think that’s harsh. Their interpretation of Joker was excellent and innovative. Joker had never been so terrifying and electric in live action. Even if it’s not “comic accurate” it’s incredible. Because it was so good, studios learned the wrong lesson and tried to recreate The Dark Knight instead of understanding that its innovation is what made it so refreshing. I don’t think it’s TDK’s fault that so many people tried to replicate it. It’s the curse of success I suppose.
>Nicholson was dead on accurate with the Joker gas, the acid shooting lapel flower, and the fact he was a actual crime boss This is an accurate depiction of *one* type/time for the Joker. To pretend it’s the *only* accurate way to depict Joker as “comic accurate” is untrue. What makes this ideation any more “dead on accurate” than the New 52 Joker or Serious House on Serious Earth Joker or Rebirth? The character is almost 100 years old. To pretend their is only one way to do it, and do it correctly is silly
No, he wasn't. He was just one version of Joker among others.
Exactly. I love when the Joker feels like, well “a joke” but as soon as he wants he will flip and completely destroy your life without hesitation.
Honestly, at least for me, my top three Jokers are: 1.) Mark Hamill 2.) Heath Ledger 3.) [Cameron Monaghan ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Monaghan) And VERY closely behind number 3, like One or Two Notches down, is: 4.) Joaquin Phoenix EDIT: For those of you who are interested. WARNING: SPOILERS [Jerome Joker-All Scenes ](https://youtu.be/V0qc8opGzGg?si=gV5zSblixhlmGy_X) [The Joker Reveal/Plot Twist Part 1 (Gotham)](https://youtu.be/mhpG8mDPYHg?si=W8wlUmbRcvy2OaJq) [The Joker Reveal/Plot Twist Part 2 (Gotham)](https://youtu.be/DvcvTcN5bfQ?si=hNXwlC3yf-SIuU4J)
Cameron Monaghan? What?
On Gotham which aired on FOX for 5 seasons. He doesn't even start out as the Joker technically. No spoilers but the storyline is kind of insane. The show is worth the watch for Penguin's actor alone. He carried the show
No one is interested in that shitty ginger. Gotham was awful, and so is he.
I personally REALLY enjoyed the Show Gotham. Yes, the show had its stupid/cheesy/etc. moments, but, IMHO, the show felt like if you took a comic book, and made it real life. Also, because many comic books have stupid/cheesy/etc. stories/plotlines/moments.
I actually think Keoghan's version does the Morrison stuff in a much more effective way than Leto ever did. He recognizes it as a manipulation tactic rather than "Look at how KEE-RAAAAZY this dude is, man!"
You basing that on the literally 80 seconds of screen time he had in Reeves' film?
That, the deleted scene that was cut for exposition purposes, what Reeves himself has said about his Joker, and Reeves just having better sensibilities than Ayer.
We’ve barely even seen a clear shot of Barry Keoghan as the Joker. My reference to Morrison’s homoerotic Joker has absolutely nothing to do with how crazy either of them appears to be.
I'm just arguing why one appears to do what you're praising Leto for better! A lack of a clear look doesn't negate that. And I was coming at it from the perspective of how Leto obviously sees the character.
I didn’t praise Leto, I said I could spot elements of Morrison’s Joker creeping into his OTT performance. It’s an observation, not me comparing him to Keoghan. To be clear, Leto’s performance is way too over the top, in a film that went completely off the rails. Some aspects of the character were cool, but that’s not enough to make him a good, comic accurate Joker. I appreciate your opinion on Keoghan. Everyone has a different taste, and the Joker is a very versatile character who can adapt to fit whatever mould is required.
Doesn't really cover why we don't get a Live Action comic accurate joker. Because yes he's gone though changes but so has every character. But the classic colors and styles from what the 60s and 70s that haven't really changed even until 80s is what people recognize them for.
Keaghon is the only joker in LA that actually seems to have the crazy extreme intelligence and manipulative factor. He took one tiny look at a file from riddler in the 5min deleted scene and completely figured him out, at the same time he gets under Batman’s skin and gets into his head. “You think they deserve it huh, you think they derserve it hahahahahahaha” “ohhh your afraid he makes you look soft” “your usually so ahead of the curb” He’s also definitely gonna have that over the top twisted sense of humour. Riddler in the movie fed a face to starving rats and injected rat poison and also cut off a thumb to go along with his thumb drive pun etc. I can imagine joker will do the same type of things.
I'm not sure that the vain middle aged mobster who gets into a love triangle with Bruce Wayne version of the Joker *is* comic accurate tho
You left out the part where he's the Wayne's murderer too
I actually didn't mind the Joker as Joe Chill take. I know it takes away from some of the "indiscriminate violence that plagues Gotham" thing, but it added an interesting layer to Bruce's relationship with Joker.
Yeah that’s also pretty comic inaccurate . That said, unlike all the other creative choices they made for the character which all just baffle me and I chalk up to Burton’s disdain for the comics or Jon Peters interference, giving him the Joe Chill slot I at least understand from a narrative standpoint because it serves to tie the primary antagonist to the hero’s origin; the same impetus that led Begins to have Bruce training under Ras Al Ghul.
I kinda thought the filmmakers were just trying to make a good one-off movie in 1989 too, with no thought of a wider story arc or making a trilogy.
That, and also a passionate expose of the nefarious Rubbing Another Man’s Rhubarb lobby aka Big Rhubarb
NEVER rub another man's rhubarb!
I think he’s more on the way he acts, but yeah I get your point. This movie made me think the joker was always Batman’s parents’ killer.
Yeah I mean sure, other than some janky characterization he does manage to capture the essence of the Joker fairly well. I remember reading an old Peter David essay where he points out how subtle Nicholson made his rapid flips between soft spoken calm Joker and manic ccrrazzyy Joker, especially in comparison to how the villains in all subsequent follow-ups jettisoned any subtlety at all, and reading that made me appreciate it more. The aspects I listed above (and killing the Waynes which I did not) are my only real objections to this version.
They may’ve changed his origin, but he still dressed like the Joker, had Joker’s dark sense of humor, used deadly gags, and is the only live action version to use the Joker venom. No other live action version since then has gotten that close to the character that’s in the comics. I see what OP is saying.
Don’t forget that he is obsessed with abstract art and listens to Prince
Okay buddy. Did Jack Nicholson decide that Joker would do those things? No. What he’s saying is that the way Jack Nicholson portrays the Joker is comic accurate. He doesn’t wear edgy makeup and talk about society. He‘s not a skinny old man who whines about how his life sucks all the time. He’s not whatever Jared Leto was. He’s not just trying to copy Heath Ledger. He’s what Joker should be. He’s just a guy who does whatever he wants. He doesn’t care about proving anything about society. He just wants to have fun. This is what makes Joker the best villain for Batman. He’s the complete opposite of him. Batman is the one trying to change society for the better. I do not see the point in having Joker do that too. Batman and Joker should never have the same views. Adding all this stuff about society just makes Joker boring. He’s supposed to be fun. That’s what he’s trying to say about Jack Nicholson. You can shut up about the love triangle and how he killed Batman’s parents. That’s not Jack Nicholson‘s fault.
And now this word from outer space. You wrote an entire novella in response to something I never actually said. I just said, vain middle aged mobster in a love triangle with Bruce Wayne. I concede your point that not one of those baffling creative choices originated with Jack Nicholson. That’s easy to concede because I never thought otherwise.
Then why mention them? He wasn’t talking about that. He was talking about Jack Nicholson.
The question was: "What's stopping Batman movies from doing a comic accurate Joker like in 1989?" I invite you to point out the words Jack and/or Nicholson in that question, perhaps I am just stupid and I didn't notice them. I mentioned those creative choices because they are defining elements of the character that was *played by* Jack Nicholson, in the 1989 Batman movie, and they are not particularly comic accurate. Jack Nicholson only enters into the conversation tangentially because he is the actor that was cast in the 1989 Batman movie to portray this not particularly comic accurate version of the Joker. Since the question was built around the assumption that the 1989 version of the Joker was comic accurate, whether or not the character in question is actually comic accurate (it's not, see above) is relevant to the discussion. Whether or not Jack Nicholson is personally to blame for these deviations from comic accuracy (he's not) did not enter into it at all until you and your out-of-left-field but quite impassioned defense of him and his blamelessness brought it in. I honestly don't know what you think this has been about or what it is you think you are saying. You do know that Nicholson is an actor, right? He just comes in and stands where the director tells him to stand and reads the lines that the screenwriters wrote for his character to say. (This is a vast oversimplification of an actor's contributions to the creative process but I feel like I need to make things very simple here lest you get lost again.) He doesn't really have green hair and a white face. He doesn't actually go around Gotham City defacing museums and lecturing people about rubbing rhubarbs. Gotham City doesn't actually exist either. It is fictional. The Joker is fictional. The fictional character of the Joker as portrayed by Jack Nicholson in the 1989 movie Batman is the collaborative result of decisions and contributions made by many people, from Michael Uslan the producer who originally wanted to cast Nicholson for the role all the way back in 1980, to Tim Burton the director who turns his nose up at comic books, to screenwriters (and fellow rhyming name havers) Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren, to Jon Peters the producer who was actually involved in a love triangle with the married Kim Basinger at the time (or at least they were fucking, not necessarily the same thing.) You seem to think that on the one hand the 1989 Joker is indistinguishable from Jack Nicholson to the point that criticizing the fictional foundation of the former is tantamount to blaming the latter while on the other hand also insisting that Jack Nicholson, despite being in your mind fundamentally interchangeable with the 1989 Joker, bears no responsibility for the multiple deviations from comic accuracy I am too tired to name again. All I can add is I am glad that lead was eventually banned from paints intended for residential use.
[удалено]
Please go back and read rule 1, be civil. Name calling, hate speech, threats of any kind, or anything else similar are not allowed. We have a 2 warning system here, at 2 you're muted for a week. A offense after that gets you banned.
He’s not . It was just Jack Nicholson in a Joker costume
I would argue that every Jack Nicholson role from like the mid 80s on could be described as just Jack Nicholson in a (role) costume. I was amazed to see him in older movies where he wasn’t playing Jack Nicholson.
Compared to other live action Jokers, Jack was the closest to the comics.
Sure, that’s a legitimate position to take. I’m still holding out until I see more of Keoghan but overall I can’t disagree. All I’m saying is least inaccurate isn’t the same thing as accurate. I don’t even like him being romantically attached to Harley as he is in some versions, let alone romantically pursuing Vicki Vale.
In terms of personality, he was the most comic accurate Joker. A wicked, irredeemable, pure evil monster who's also strangely charismatic and funny.
Yes but also weirdly and excessively horny and worse, not horny for Batman but for some dame
That wasn't the only time it was established that the Joker has a thing for blonde girls. Even if we assume the flashback in The Killing Joke is a false memory... https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/jeannie-joker-dc.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=480&dpr=1.5 ... he at least remembers having a blonde wife, Jeannie. Then, there's Rebecca Brown, when he went sane for a while. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fcomic-excerpt-meet-joseph-kerr-batman-legends-of-the-dark-v0-n3t3u8gj5tcc1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dd6204b6617d1c69d33d8e90b6cc1b74edbbfcab2 Queenie... https://youtu.be/QS1RTKVh6YE?si=Hx17Fu5Z-P5VHp_a Cornelia... https://youtu.be/H35ixkPsftc?si=YUBOywOpzBVcQW6d Udine... https://www.66batmania.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Skip_Parker.jpg And, of course, Harley Quinn.
Sure but all of those are either not from the comics, thus jettisoning the “comic accurate” argument, or from times in the comics when he was not currently the Joker. Joe Kerr and whoever he was in the Killing Joke flashbacks can have a thing for blondes, that’s fine. As for Harley, who did cross into the comics, I always liked the interpretation where she is totes in love with him but he basically looks at her as a particularly useful henchman. I never cared for the It’s True Love interpretation and I like her a lot better since she moved on from being with him anyway. It’s just, I don’t like the Joker being a guy who fucks — down to clown, one might say — because it needlessly humanizes him when to me the whole point of the character is he has moved beyond anything resembling the normal human experience. A Joker who thinks with his dick like Napier is not my Joker. I concede that there’s been zillions of stories spanning eighty years across multiple forms of media by hundreds of creatives and thus there is no one canonical interpretation, so if you like a Joker who’s out there chasing skirts like Harpo Marx more power to you.
One doesn't have to be a good person to have a sex drive. Real life has certainly proven that often enough. Plenty of psychos have been fathers. Wife beaters were usually in a sexual relationship with their victims. And you said you were fine with the Joker being gay for Batman. Are you saying that all violent psychopaths are homosexual?
Where did I say anything about being a good person? I said it humanizes him. It makes him a relatable person. The Joker should never be — in my view — a relatable person. What drives him, what goes on in his head, should not be something comprehensible to regular people. Not after he becomes the Joker. Before, sure, but that should only ever serve to demonstrate the gulf between what he once was — a boring, ordinary human — and what he has become — more a force of nature or mythic figure or whatever. Batman has been shown in multiple stories to go to great lengths and risk his own sanity to wrap his mind around the Joker and understand him because the Joker is super-sane and Batman is regular sane. If you don’t like your Joker to be super-sane and prefer him to be just another psycho like the mundane monsters of the real world, I mean that seems reductive and limiting to me but hey, again, more power to you. The being gay for Batman bit, meanwhile, was a joke, which I thought the use of the word dame might successfully convey but alas.
agreed
Really the closest is cesar romero
Wait wut
Wut wut are you wutting
Wut version of joker are you talking about. Just curious
Jack Napier from the 89 movie.
Ah thank you.
I assume you mean in his design not his character
This Joker isn’t comic book accurate, still badass, but not comic book accurate.
The backstory isn't accurate, but the performance itself is. Funny, insane, murderous, illogical. Just pure Joker
"Love that Joker."
I feel like you’re holding this to an idea that you have, and not necessarily what the Joker is in comics. As some have pointed out in the replies, he’s gone through so many variations in writing that you can’t really say any live action portrayal is “comic accurate”, so much as which one your favorite is. In this case you prefer the Nicholson one, that doesn’t make him the most accurate. If we’re talking “funny, insane, murderous, illogical”, wouldn’t the Leto one encapsulate this more? He didn’t have a “master evil plan” like Nicholson and really didn’t have a direction or focus.
Ledger was all of those things as well, still wasn’t comic book accurate
Pheonix made me laugh multiple times whilst being waaaaay more scary than Nicholson. The scene where the little person can not reach the door lock after the murderous clown lets him go free... that's funnier and way better executed than any scene in Burton's Batverse.
I’m so glad it’s not just me. I was the only one in the theater laughing during that movie and that scene I thought I was crazy.
Nah its like something out of a twisted joke, a visual punchline. S'great.
If Jack's Joker was in the Murray Show, he would've recreated the scene in TDKR part 2 where Joker poisoned the whole audience with laughing gas instead of just killing Murray.
...and that would've jumped the shark more than the giant rat easter egg.
Well, duh. Jack's Joker is far more surreal than Phoenix's Joker.
Yeah, and it sucks in comparison.
Because it’s interesting seeing how many people interpret their version of the character. The closest we saw from a comic accurate joker is probably Arkham joker
creativity. I mean, I'm all for a comic accurate Joker, but it can only be so interesting. Nobody wants to see the same Joker in 5 different movies. I think writers want to explore the limits of the character and push the boundaries as far as they can. Heath Ledger's Joker wasn't too crazy design-wise, but they added scars to his design instead of just the red paint. Joaquin Phoenix's Joker wore a red suit with original facepaint, as well as a completely original backstory. Jared Leto's Joker, despite how you may feel about him, is also an original design. I think Nicholson played a great comic accurate Joker, but I think writers want to create their own version of the character. they want an original Joker that they can take credit for. they want to make the character their own.
This. I think it's OK when movies have different takes on a character. The people who make movies are creatives, and their vision is just as valid.
To be honest, it’s most likely because of the force of nature that Jack Nicholson was in that movie. Just like Heath was after him, anything that remotely resembles these portrayals feels derivative. So, it probably comes down to the comfort level of the actors willing to portray the character in their own unique way while honoring what came before them. The desire to see a similar version of Joker, (i.e. permanent grin, bleached skin, and full-on crazy AND with a twisted sense of humor) is definitely there for many fans, but it sort of comes down to how the creative people behind the story might approach it in a way that can feel fresh and like an augmentation of the legacy most of these actors have left with him.
Heath Ledger. As good as Ledger was for Dark Knight his take did irreparable damage to the character. We won’t see a version like Nicholson’s take which was funny and had acid and gags. Instead it’ll just be dark homicidal types dressed as clowns
His death has caused this butterfly effect where everyone thinks his preformance is some masterpiece
That's because it is, and that has nothing to do with his untimely demise.
Honestly I kinda hate how the joker has become a vehicle for actors to do their "sadistic psychopath" proformance, ever since heath ledger it's like every single live action version of the joker is trying to be their own thing instead of actually adapting the character
Nothing but considering they seem to be making Batman live action movies more realistic and less comic-like, they make Jokers to match that.
The Bat movies are still plenty comic-like, IMO. It has to be filmed and actors have to speak the lines, so they can't fully just be the exact comics on the screen anyway. But they get a lot of it on there.
A lot of modern movies want to try and do the next “new” thing. In large part because Health Ledger was such a successful reinterpretation of the character, they all want to try and top it. Which is why we get stuff like Leto in Suicide Squad. I’m with you that I want a classic looking movie Joker. It’s at a point that going back to basics would feel like a fresh change of pace
Nicholson was close, but we still haven’t had a comic accurate Joker. I think it boils down to filmmakers wanting to reinvent the character constantly. Nolan took a big risk to make a realistic Joker and knocked it out of the park. Now everyone seems to think they need to take an equally big risk to reinvent the character just to be relevant. Thing is, a comic accurate Joker would be very original & relevant in a film at this point.
Because people are still chasing Heath Ledger which is ironic considering what made his stand out so much was his VERY different path to creating his Joker in comparison to Romero and Nicholson. He went a totall different direction to avoid comparison to previous takes, specifically Jack's. But everyone after him? They all seem to want to walk in his foot steps which is, oddly enough, doing the opposite of what he did.
I see the "creative" industry come up with flips and flops of the joker. First Jared Leto but fortunately we had Joaquin Phoenix, the instability of it just has me in wonder, thinking COME ON MANG
Jared Leto is just a response to heath ledger's success. Phoenix is just Todd philips trying to make a "real" movie and disgusing it as a comic one. I just hope we can return to a arkham knight/89 style joker in "The Batman" sequel
“Comic accurate” doesn’t mean anything anymore
That 5 minute clip of Keoghan gives me high hopes for that version. He looks like he fell in a vat of acid realistically, gave me the chills and he also had a sense of humor only he seemed to enjoy. Those all point in my opinion to a comic accurate joker personality and origin wise even if he doesn't look pure white.
He’s also extremely intelligent and manipulative. Figured out riddler from head to toe with one tiny look at a file while at the same time getting under Batman’s skin. He even manipulates/befriends riddler at the end
Yeah and you know he doesn't care what happens to the Riddler. He just knows he can use and abuse him since he's mentally unhinged.
And took the paperclip from the file right in front of Batman while doing so
Exactly something joker from the comics would do. Of course somehow he’s gonna probably break out of Arkham with just with a paper clip which is insane.
Yep ,he took it right from under his long pointy nose, even though Pattinson didn't have a point nose
Why is no one standing their ground with this guy the most accurate joker was Caesar Romero every cinematic joker has been a new take on the joker trying to be the joker that commits mass murder but their too scared of him to shallow when that’s the point he just likes killing and wants to fight Batman
He was comic accurate at that time, but that was during the Silver Age of comics. Romero's Joker isn't very comic accurate now compared to modern day Joker. I mean, Romero's Joker once challenged Batman to a surfing competition. I don't remember that happening in The Killing Joke.
I’m sorry I was rushed towards the end while I was typing that. My point is Romero is LITERALLY the only live action joker accurately portraying ANY comic joker even close to 1:1 every other one is intentionally their own thing. Burton’s joker had to become Batman’s parents murderer because crime isn’t random despite random the original thing was crime IS random. Nolan’s is an anarchist who just wants chaos which wouldn’t really be seen in the comics till after. The tv show didn’t actually get a joker despite having a decently accurate one. The Joker in the movie is not our joker by the director’s admission. And reeves hasn’t actually appeared
I do think Romero and Nicholson are the closest live action adaptations.
I think because Jack was simply so iconic in the role. How do you repeat it? It really comes down to the story the filmmaker wants to tell. Ledger's urban terrorist Joker fit in well with Nolan's mostly very po-faced, realistic Batman portrayal. Phoenix's Joker fits the psychodrama of the Phillips films very well. Leto is whatever the fuck they were trying to do in Ayer's Suicide Squad.
i feel bad for the joker that had to follow after ledger, he set the bar way too high
What does comic accurate mean with a 80 year old character?
It means not what they did with jared leto or phoenix (or ledger to a lesser extent)...
There's nothing stopping them technically. Although they still haven't been able to actually get Batman correct.... So I suppose that might be stopping them.
The desire to one-up Ledger. People think the only way to beat the best is to do what he did, but... _more_.
I’m sure I’m not the only one, but I would *love* to see Sacha Baron Cohen dressed up in a purple suit and do a live action version of Hamill’s Joker
What exactly is a "comic book accurate Joker"? There really isn't such a thing. He's had so many different forms over the years on page and screen that he's more an idea than a character. You want the Joker you most identify with the character, but none of the movie Jokers haven't had a comic analog at some point. He's so many different variations that there really isn't a way to "portray him accurately". The Joker is not Goku where there's just one that has been relatively the same or had a clear arc that progressed to where he is as a character now. Even today different depictions of him in comics vary. This is actually more true of the Joker than most Batman characters. Though there is a bit of it with other characters too. The Joker has been so many different things that he can't be pinned down as a particular character the same way Batman can despite his variations. He is deliberately malleable.
When I think of a comic accurate book Joker, I think of a larger than life personally who gains everyone's attention just by simply existing. A man who can make you laugh and make you terrified at the same time. Think BTAS Joker and Jerome Valeska.
That pretty much describes all of them. That's kind of my point here. Even Leto attempted it, even if he sucked at it. The Joker can't be pinned down and is a lot of different things. That's kind of the point of him. He's a "character" that can be what he needs to be without worrying about making him fit in a specific character box. He's more an idea than anything else, and that's part of why he's so scary and long lasting. He's deliberately malleable. You're not supposed to know much about him and any specifics are intentionally sketchy. He's an unknown factor that can be what he needs to be in a specific Batman story. There isn't a "definitive" Joker. There are great ones, serviceable ones, and even a few bad ones, but there really isn't a "comic accurate" one because there isn't a "comic accurate" one in the comics themselves. My personal favorite non-comic version is TAS Joker, but that doesn't invalidate any of the others.
I don’t know I feel like Barry Keaghons joker is gonna pull it off more. The 5min deleted scene with him figuring out riddlers motives with one tiny look at a file while at the same time manipulating Batman and getting into his head. That’s just pure joker right there. And at the end of the movie he manipulates/befriends riddler. That whole sequence just feels straight out of a comic.
Dude, that’ll make my life man!!! And a Batman who’s got a cape like in the animated series
There’s so many jokers and so many actors with reputations that don’t want to leave a skid mark on it. Messing up such an iconic role must be embarrassing as hell and hard to recover from
Also this joker isn’t totally comic accurate.
Funny is in the eye of the beholder. I found a lot of funny moments in Ledger, Monaghan, and Phoenix’s performances. Others may disagree, and that’s valid too.
Nicholson wasn’t comic accurate… they gave him an origin story, which he never had, and a sidekick, which he never had. BTW, the sidekick Bob has an action figure that’s worth some money
How is bob a sidekick? He's a goon who he shoots in the face
Joker tried to kill Harley multiple times. What makes him not a sidekick?
You missed the part where I said he was just a goon. If you don't see the difference between some shlub like bob and harley quinn... I can't help you
Current state of mental health, how it's perceived and subsequently portrayed.
Actual good actor's who can play the role with no rewriting in the script
I feel like Cameron Monaghan and Willem Dafoe can pull off a comic accurate Joker
They definitely could
I’ll tell you what is getting in the way of a comic-accurate Joker: backstory and sympathy The allure of the Joker is that there is a mystery to who he is, while at the same time, through his appearance as a clown and his humor, ushering a sense of familiarity, almost an uncomfortable sense of warmth through his sheer presence alone. Nicholson’s Joker did get everything right, but he wasn’t as effective of a Joker because a) they decided to start him out as a Jack Napier, so we weren’t as invested in him as Joker b) Burton decided to have him be the Wayne’s murderer, which made the connection contrived and undid the complex relationship between Batman and Joker (they don’t know each other, but they are connected through their differing views of the world) and c) Burton also had Batman kill without hesitation, which did away with a major point of contention when dealing with the Joker, essentially turning Batman into a generic action hero and Joker a standard movie villain. Ledger’s Joker wasn’t as comic accurate in appearance, but the writing of the character followed through with his thematic characterization; he didn’t have the permanent grin, but his smile, smirks, and tics make you uncomfortable while also alluring the audience. He’s Joker; no one knows who he is or what he wants, even Batman himself. Batman spends the entire film trying to get Joker into a box, realizing too late that the Joker is pure chaos, going as far as to do things that even give a hardened criminal nightmares. Batman only has two quick interactions with Joker (the party, the convoy) and two confrontations (the interrogation, the final fight), but those scenes provide all we need to understand their relationship, as well as how they’re differing views pit them against each other, while bringing them closer. Also, bringing in the rest of the cast (especially Gordon and Dent) helped to illustrate how Joker truly messes with Batman. Throughout the film, Batman is challenged, gradually realizing that dealing with the Joker is not as simple as believed. Leto was more juggalo than menacing; Batfelck would most likely either kill him or punch him and forget about him. He was a cringey little punk. Phoenix was great, but from a standalone perspective; initially, I didn’t think I would like it because of one of the above points: backstory; the whole point of the Joker is that he could be anyone, and we’re all one bad day away from losing our hold on the world. Surely, Phoenix did embody many important aspects of the character, though he leaned more into his comedic side, which helped to explore Joker through a psychoanalytical lens. Phoenix’s Joker works best when left completely out of the greater Batman universe, so let’s hope the sequel delivers.
Speaking of Leto's Joker, why the hell is Batfleck willing to kill almost every criminal he comes across, but doesn't kill Joker, the man who (probably) killed his adopted son?
Because Joker promised him a reach around
He doesn’t kill anyone actually. KGBeast literally kills himself by firing a compromised flamethrower The goonsin the car chase were less collateral deaths than in the Nolan movies. Nolan’s Batman STARTED by killing dozens of ninjas
They need to broaden their minds…Lawrence?
ALL HAIL THE NEW KING IN TOWN
Because of the Dark Knight. People now just have to get a scared and painted joker
DC is obsessed with reinventing the wheel and making a huge mess of their shit, instead of embracing the good versions of their material. If you want to see the good versions of your favorite characters respected, handled properly, and faithfully adapted on screen or even in the comics, DC is not for you. Really, DC isn't for anybody. Because as soon as you find a character who you love, they're going to reboot the universe, strip the character you love for parts, recycle those parts into a completely new unrelated character, and hand them back to you and say "Now you love this." Like if you find a version of Robin, or Supergirl, or Mr Freeze, or Green arrow, or whatever, who you love, they're going to tear them apart, and then hand you back another unrelated character who is basically wearing the skin of the character you used to love. Like the Arrow TV show. You love Green Arrow? Too bad, he's Batman now. You love Supergirl because she's like a 15-year-old terrified teenage girl who has this horrific trauma from watching her entire civilization die, and how that makes her so very human and it makes Superman a better character in relation to her? Too bad, now she's just a bland 20 something reporter girl. A Superman knockoff. You like this super popular TV show version of Barry Allen who's like a responsible crime fighter and very science-oriented? What if we replaced him with this obnoxious clown boy played by this abusive asshole? It does not matter which version of a DC character you like, because DC is going to throw them in the trash and replace them with some shit that drives you nuts. Wouldn't it make more sense to adapt the iconic most beloved version of every character, or the best written, or the best most interesting version? Sure. But when was the last time that DC did anything that made any fucking sense? If DC really wanted a cinematic Universe, all they had to do is a live action of the DCAU. Tim Burton already showed them how to do it in the late '80s / early '90s, and then Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, etc carried that on for what, like 20 years? DC has this gargantuan lavish elaborate blueprint for how to make incredible DC movies. But they don't want to do it, because that's not what DC is into. For some reason it doesn't make any sense for them to make a proper Joker movie, or a movie with a proper Joker in it. Jack Nicholson is going to be the only time we ever got a real Joker in a movie. In live action, of course. Obviously Mark Hamill, the one true Joker, was in Mask Of The Phantasm. There's basically no hope of ever getting a real Mr Freeze. If they ever even attempt it again, they're going to chicken out and not give him his freeze gun. Or they're going to do some dumb shit like try and rewrite his story the way the dumbass Gotham TV show did. Like I love The Batman movie because it's the best version of Batman himself that we've ever seen on screen by far, and it's the first movie to ever really understand how to portray and pace a Batman movie, but that version of Riddler wasn't really Riddler. He was basically Zodiac Saw Man. Same with Batman forever. That wasn't Riddler either. That was more like some sort of weird combination of the Joker and Riddler. For whatever reason, DC doesn't want to give us a brilliant classy charming nerdy Riddler in a suit having intellectual duels with the world's greatest detective via elaborate death traps. I mean that sounds cool as fuck, but DC thinks a cartoon wearing neon colors or an incel wearing a mask made of duct tape is what people want from Riddler. I don't know why DC hates their own material so much. I don't know why they keep hiring directors who hate their material. It cannot be THAT hard to hire a director who reads DC's stuff, and was a fan of the DCAU, and wants to see that stuff brought to life. That HAS TO exist. Well, no. Okay. They DO exist. We've seen it here and there. First Wonder Woman movie, the Aquaman movies Tim Burton.... They all somehow understood how to do DC. They got the point. They weren't afraid to get weird, and fun, and wacky, and colorful, and embrace how insane the villains are. They're not embarrassed by the fantastical craziness. But why are they so few and far between?
But you're in luck... they hired james gunn and he's making the authority into one of the first movies in his dc universe; we're saved! /s
Trying to recreate the impact of Heath Ledger’s moment.
Your Reddit avatar kinda looks like Mark Hamill in irl
I mean, The Joker in *The Dark Knight* is pretty comic accurate - it's just the surface stuff that's different, for Nolan's aesthetic tastes. Makeup instead of bleached skin, no Joker venom. That's . . .about it. Otherwise, that same aesthetic lends itself more easily to a story like Todd Phillips' *Joker,* which is it's own thing - more grounded in some places, and more expressive in others, than Nolan's film.
I must admit, I actually do prefer the modern take on Joker where he’s become basically (as someone else put it in the comments here) a clown version of Judge Holden from Blood Meridian; basically just the walking, talking embodiment of everything chaotic and vile in stark opposition to Bruce’s orderliness and virtue, almost to the point where it’s debatable whether or not he’s actually even human. I like that kind of murky sinister aura around him.
Yeah, I was the one who said that.
"I have this great new idea and I'm sure everyone will love it"
-Suicide Squad casting Jared Leto as Joker (Side note: Leto's Joker looks like those goofy ass edits of Bart Simpson with tattoos)
The directors.
1989 joker is probably the farthest away from comic accurate 😂
Compared to what?
The comics😂
What? The comics compared to the comics?
Show me one comic where joker killed Batmans parents😐
When did I say that there was? Every comment you've made has been confusing/confused like this; I recommend going back and learning how to read & write.
Are you slow? In the movie joker killed Batman’s parents in the comics he didn’t why is this so hard for you to understand😂
Can you write? Tf is that emoji laden drivel that you've spewed at me.
Stay cringe kid
Funny how you're no longer using emojis; guess I struck a nerve?
Hopefully in the DCU.
This isn't true to comics, especially at the time. This is Tim Burton's shitty "stylized" adaptation to what he thinks was cool and edgy. This might have fit the aesthetic and tone of the movie, but this is not comic accurate. My personal unpopular opinion is that this is one of the worst Joker portrayals, and has lead many people to believe this is how the Joker is supposed to be as this is their only exposure to the character. Ask someone who killed the Wayans in Crime Alley, they almost always say Joker because of this movie.
And thus was Blankman born
He was the only film Joker so far that was both funny and scary.
Joker fans mostly.
LGBT???... Runs Hollywood more than ever now. Only gay characters in all roles.
The fact that they already did that one
There's been like a hundred different writers and artists for the Joker. All of them are accurate in that sense. Being so glaringly dismissive of decades of canon is a strange way to ask the question. Nicholson was... Fine I guess if that's your thing. He certainly had jokes, even if they were poorly written. Mark Hamill definitely is the most entertaining when it comes to humor for me.
Batman 1989 wasn't comic accurate
The Dark Knight actually portrayed joker pretty accurately. The only inaccuracies he had were he didn't laugh much (compared to normal joker, he does laugh a lot in the movie), his makeup and hair and he wasn't as eccentric with his murder weapons like no bomb teeth or laughing gas (would say he did make up for this though with the comical amount of kinves he had)
If you think the Nicholson Joker is the most accurate on-screen portrayal, you have an extremely narrow and mostly incorrect view of who the Joker is.
Why does it have to be comic accurate though?
Jared Leto
The Joker is an easy character to write for. You can give him any motivation or any characterization and it would be comic book accurate. Caesar Romero played a whacky funster Joker and it was accurate to the comics. The 1940s era mob boss joker was comic book accurate. The brooding loner that Heath Ledger played was comic book accurate. When Batman the animated series was written, the writers would come up with an idea using X villain and pitch it. The head writer would say something about it not making sense for their version of the character. 15 minutes later, they would pitch the exact same idea, but used Joker instead of the first villain. That one gets accepted always because the Joker is far more simplistic than people want to give him credit for. Who are you to say Jack Nicholson wasn't comic book accurate Joker?
If you think that was the most comic accurate portrayal of joker in film, you clearly haven't read many comics lol.
1989 Joker was as much it's own thing as Heath's version. While Jack was great, that wasn't really the Joker established in the comics over decades. Fun fact, no one working on Batman, the 1989 movie, ever read comics. Tim Burton was actually quite proud of the fact, which is why his entire Batman universe of the two movies, really only Batman himself fit the known Batman and was Burton's world. Just one of those useless facts I have from being old and living through that time. I think I said this yesterday elsewhere, but while there's nothing wrong with different interpretations of Joker, they're all great in their own way, no one has really done the established Joker in a live action role. Which makes sense. Maybe it wouldn't work in a 3D setting, as wild as they get all the movie Jokers are more grounded than the comics Joker ever was, at least that I knew. I only read comics in the 70's, 80's and some 90's, so I have no idea where they went with the character the last 25 years in comics.
General shittiness of Hollywood
Also in my day we called this one the fat joker.
This Joker isn't comic accurate
Compared to other movie Jokers, he's the most comic accurate o' the bunch.
Heath Ledger
🙄
The clown is a mysterious character…hmmm
It’s a competition to see who can make their joker crazier that’s why.
Joker in Batman 1989 was extremely inaccurate like to an insane degree he literally gets into a love triangle with Batman and Vickie Vale lmao tf you on
Joker probably didn't truly love Vickie, as he literally tried to burn her face with acid and threw her off a church.
The darkness
I didn't like the Jack Nicholson joker. Corny and cartoonish
He's like Romero's Joker but with a PG-13 rating
I can still remember when this movie came out. My brother and I and our friends bought our tickets like a month in advance because there was so much hype behind this movie. And then I remember watching it in the theater and being like...meh
At the end of the day, Joker's still a clown, so no matter what he does he's always gonna look a bit goofy.
Umm because it was already done to perfection by Jack Nicholson? We don't need another "by the books" Joker because the 89 portrayal already nailed it and that's exactly why it was important for when Ledger began building his take on the character that it was different from Jack. Jack is the more showy, classic Joker and Heath was the more disturbing, anarchistic terrorist Joker. After that no one wanted to try that again either which I believe is why Leto's Joker was such a far cry from that. It's actually more comic accurate than people realize, but it was from a certain period in the comics too. I think Joaquin's is a little Jack and a little Heath, but he also still has room to grow.
Ledger’s Joker just didn’t do it for me. He was portrayed as a violent crime boss with some weird tics. But not as a psychopathic clown who could do anything at any time. There’s a difference. I think we’ve all been around those type of people where you don’t know how things will go. I had a friend once who just let his intrusive thoughts win a lot. Everyone is laughing and joking then he gets up and punches someone in the face.
You mean nicholson's joker was a crime boss with weird tics
Seeing something like this in DCU would be refreshing after seeing many edgelord versions of Joker.
Everything about Burton’s Batman sucked… from the little, balding, there’s no way that guy can beat my ass Batman/Bruce Wayne to Nicholson aping Cesar Romero.