Ledger > *.Jokers

theyre completely different jokers.
ledger played an purely evil psychotic terrorist.

nicholson played a comedic, flamboyant villian out for revenge against the wolrd that caused his facial disfugurement.

both great, but not linear.
 
I loved Nicholson's Joker, and it was perfect for the movie it was in.

Ledger's Joker was phenomenal though, equally perfect for the movie it was in. And Dark Knight was better than Batman '89 (high praise because Batman 89 was THE SHIT)
 
burton used the comic book chemical waste origin, he also used the trickster antics that were employed in other batman comics. in the end he made a joker that blended a variety of the jokers that we seen in the comics.

nolan just stuck with the initial appearance of joker, kept him as a complete mystery and made him darker. it worked.
 
it's a progression from the campy sitcom to the somewhat somber 89 version to the dark masterpiece we have now.

Maybe in 20 years, we'll have an R rated Batman.


(Joel Schumaker Batman's never happened)
 
I think Nolan's Joker is more in tune with modern day incarnations of the character, taking stuff the killing joke, etc. Tim Burtons joker was a lot like early joker concepts and the joker from the adam west batman.
 
i think this was basically the R rated Batman. If the camera showed joker cutting the black dudes face, or showed harvey shooting people or the chinaman burning in the fire on top of the cash, it would have been R. If this movie wasnt about batman it prolly would have been R anyways because it was so dark.
 
No it wasnt. Nicholson's Joker is more true to the comics than Ledgers.

But I much prefer Ledger's dark more gritty Joker than Nicoholson's.
 
The killing joke blends both Nicolsons Joker and Ledgers Joker. There never been a Joker in the comic that is like Ledger's Joker. Ledger took the charecter and reinvented it; for this is why he is/was so amazing.
 
Back
Top