Originally Posted by AngelEyes
Ledger was the best Joker and in my opinion the way the character should be portrayed. Jack did a good job but the character was too cartoonish and didn't have the semi realistic qualities of a real life villain when portrayed by Ledger. I prefer Ledger's performance and I prefer the newer movies.
Agreed, good post.
Originally Posted by Dragonyeuw
I really don't like comparing Jack and Heath's performances to be honest. I think they did about as good a job as you can do in the films they appeared in and how their character was written. If you want to say that Heath literally 'inhabited' the character and that gives him the nod, ok. I just think because the roles were played differently, in two different interpretations of Batman, makes their performances very hard to measure.
Bottom line is Jack was the right choice for the B89 movie. His name gave the character and movie credibility. Which is why they picked him. Was he too perfect for the role? Maybe. That's why people always say it was just Jack being Jack with makeup ... which makes sense, sometimes that works for actors just heightening their own sense of self.
But when you watch the movie, you're seeing the Hollywood superstar Jack Nicholson, and not THE JOKER. Thus, it's distracting. That's why the Nolan movies took the more appropriate route, and casted great actors who weren't star studded in order to create more immersion from the audience where they just see Batman and the Joker, and not big name actors.
As for performance comparison between Ledger and Nicholson? It isn't even close. Jack had a great time, and treated it semi-seriously and was clearly having a good time and making a MINT w/ his contract from the movie in the process, but Ledger INHABITED the character on a very real and frightening level. He gave the damn guy posture, a style of movement, and even facial and tongue twitches. He put the Joker smack dab in the real world. Who would this psycho be in real life ?!
It isn't even close in terms of caliber of performance. Now, if you want to argue you like the INTERPRETATION of the Joker better in B89, that's another story. I liked it, it was entertaining. He was a slightly nastier version of the goofy and harmless Caesar Romero take on the character.
Nolan's take on the Joker is what I prefer, however. It was terrifying, yet you couldn't take your eyes off.
Ledger's Joker is the character from the comics, with a grittier feel. I think the idea of him not being vein in terms of his look makes more sense with a youthful, grungy rebel who thinks society and their norms are a joke. He's Alex from Clockwork Orange demented son. I like the fact that Nolan's Joker is a hitman and gets his own hands dirty in his operations. The ying and yang of his relationship with the Batman is more accurate as well. There is more of a psychological war going on here between the two. Joker just being a guy who wants to test people's boundaries as motivation makes absolute sense, and creates for a super interesting villain.
Not a fan of the contrived Joker being the killer of the Wayne's plot point, and certainly not a fan of Joker's character motivations in B89 being about trying to win over a girl.
Hammil shouldn't be on this list. He's just a voice actor. Ledger's Joker and performance is one for the ages. Nicholson was entertaining, and fit that vision. But Ledger will go down as being the character. His performance and Nolan's take on the character gets the nod. Hands down.