Joker variations

[Traab]

Im curious to hear what people think about this stuff. From comics to tv shows to cartoons to movies, the joker has had probably dozens of variations on how he is portrayed, but even despite all that there are still room for more. Im curious to hear what people think of as their favorite joker and why. But im also interested in hearing about how else they think a joker character could be portrayed for an interesting variation. I will go first since i started this.

I honestly think that nicholson did an excellent joker. He had humor mixed with very bad taste jokes and his violence which I think captured an excellent less gritty version of the character while keeping him dangerous. I found heath ledgers joker to be terrifying, just truly terrifying. You never knew what he would do next, you couldnt predict him, but I honestly felt he was less "joker" and more chaotic psycho mass murderer. With some clown makeup.

As for a different variant, I was thinking about this. A joker who literally cant display emotions, it always devolves into hideous laughter with a massive manic grin, almost like he is sucking on his own joker gas. You can see the joy, rage, or jealousy, or whatever in his eyes, but all his face shows is a rictus like grin cackling mad laughter. Picture a scene where one of his flunkies comes in and admits something big got screwed up. You can see the rage in his eyes, even as his smile widens and he loses control in a violent response, then proceeds to give out orders through the stuttering chuckles and slowly shrinking smile as he regains control of himself. He is called the joker because he looks and sounds like a laughing clown no matter what emotion it is that broke through his self control. There would be frequent scenes where you can see him struggling to maintain control as his lips keep curling up and chuckles escape over whatever is happening in front of him.

[Lurkmoar]

I like most of them to be honest. My absolute favorite would be the Joker from the live action TV show, followed by Batman the Animated Series by Bruce Timm and his cohorts.

I will admit that I do have a huge nostalgia bias to both of those because I watched them growing up. A few moments from the Animated Series still creep me out about that Joker. Especially the whole "YOU KILLED CAPTAIN CLOWN!" bit.

[Winter_Wolf]

I favor the Hearh Ledger Joker myself. Something about him is just easy to empathize with. Yes, empathize. Yes, that word does mean what I think it means.

Yes, if I suddenly go from raging to calm or smiling, run. Or shoot, as you like. If we're being honest with each other.

[Ceiling_Squid]

I like most of them to be honest. My absolute favorite would be the Joker from the live action TV show, followed by Batman the Animated Series by Bruce Timm and his cohorts.

I will admit that I do have a huge nostalgia bias to both of those because I watched them growing up. A few moments from the Animated Series still creep me out about that Joker. Especially the whole "YOU KILLED CAPTAIN CLOWN!" bit.

The great thing is, Hamill's had the excellent opportunity to try a few variations of his B:TAS Joker. He does manage to go a fair bit darker in the Arkham videogames, and in the recent Timm-directed The Killing Joke film. Got to see it premier at Comic Con, and his performance gave me chills.

He's had a great tenure as the character, and his many years of perfecting it really show.

Ledger is undoubtedly the most popular Joker with the public, but I really can't see why, aside from him simply being in recent memory. He does a good performance, but he seems too much like an anarchistic skeevy serial killer than the "Clown Prince of Crime". Just too dark. The Joker wasn't a generic agent of "chaos", at least not in his best depictions. Maybe in his original appearence he was just a regular killer, but you'd have to ignore the decades of image refinement that gave him his famous streak of whimsy.

The Joker's at his best when he's making a twisted joke or doing something for the hell of it, instead of making overcomplicated, implausibly-organized schemes like in TDK. Seriously, those goons must have been handed thick binders with timetables and flowcharts just to make every unlikely contrivance in that film go off without a hitch. The Joker hosting an orientation meeting would be bizarre to see.

As for variations, I kinda like the idea Traab has. A Joker visibly grappling with his own illness and homicidal outbursts would be an unusual track to take. It would be different at least. And it also might make his continual re-incarceration more plausible.

[Avilan the Grey]

I know this isn't really my thread, since I never have been a fan of Bats outside two things:
Batman -Year One (which I LOVE and I think is FAR more important, and superior, to Dark Knight)
The 1960's series / movie.

Now, speaking of which, my favorite version of the Joker is Cesar Romero. Second best is Animated Joker.
I also openly LOATHE the portrayal of Heath Ledger.

I basically find the Joker one of the most overrated badguys in comic history. I have never really found him interesting because he's well... nuts. All the way through. And not in a fun way like Deadpool or Harley. I basically see him in most versions of him as simply a rabid animal that needs to be put down.

[Zigwat]

Well this is totally my thread, especially since I have made it clear that Batman is one of my very favorites.

To me, the animated Joker with Mark Hamill represents Joker in his purest form, because no rendition of him will truly capture that sense of horror and joking in the same being.

Heath Ledger is my favorite from the movies but only at a very close margin with Jack Nicholson. To me, both of them presented him in completely different ways, and with amazing accuracy. Heath Ledger was simply better with his overall performance, especially since Jack had a whole bunch of the Joker in him in the first place, so when we see him, we see Jack and the Joker both. With Heath, we only saw the Joker.

Makes sense, right?

[Ramza00]

I basically see him in most versions of him as simply a rabid animal that needs to be put down.

That is the point

That is the black humor, he is an animal that needs to be put down. But the humor is that while we can rationalize it in our mind, it is still an emotional thing where we just have to say, he needs to die because I said so (just like I can't define porn vs obscene without seeing it.)

Put another way

Pity? It was Pity that stayed [Bilbo's] hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.

'Frodo said: "Now he [is] evil like Orc, and like Enemy! It-is-necessary to him to-die!"
And Gandalf answered: "It-is-necessary to him this! True [is] that he should die. Many [are] who live and should die. And many [are] who die and should live. Have-you giving them life (Can you give them life)? Not? Don't-be swift for giving them death in judgement your. For even (to-full) the wise-man don't-have the sight [of] ends all.'

Part of human nature is that we confuse all the time the difference between mercy and justice and vengeance. They are different things but they are related, like three sides of a triangle, never touching, yet always connected.

[Ramza00]

Don't Explain the Joke



http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ExplainTheJoke

Note the episode is based off a one of batman comic which is the image used in this trope in the link above.

[Traab]

Another version that I think might work is a 4th wall breaker. Im not talking full scale deadpool talking to the audience, im talking a joker that in universe is utterly insane. He does things for reasons that make little to no in universe sense. But the joke is, the entire time he has been acting that way because he knows THATS HOW THE AUDIENCE WANTS HIM TO ACT. He knows it is his JOB to draw in the audience, to make them enjoy "the show" and thats the only way to make sure he, and the rest of the gotham universe, can never "die". Because he knows so long as there is a good show, they will never be cancelled. As long as he is "popular" batman can never have a final victory over him because "they" wont let him remain locked up for long.

Im just not sure how to pull it off right. Ideally it would be subtle enough that it has to be interpreted that way, not have him flat out say, "I CANT do it that way! The audience would hate it!" Unless he has setup a big public spectacle of course, which would let him slip all sorts of double meanings into his dialogue. In fact, that would be the best. Make it so everything could be interpreted that way, or as just a part of a regular script. Leave it ambiguous to give the audience something to debate and argue over. "Is he aware of the movie going public? Is it just a coincidence? Is he just crazy and thats why he does things the way he is? Or is his character actually aware of us all and his actions make perfect sense under that lens?"

As another example, its the end of the big fight scene, joker is lying on the ground all bloody and beaten and batman is looming over him. Suddenly the camera view changes so its looking joker directly in the face as he makes eye contact and says something like, "I hope that made you happy." and passes out. Was he talking to batman? Was he talking to us? Does it make the movie even more tragic when you consider the only reason the joker is acting like he does is to make sure WE are entertained? I think if it was done right, it could make for a film that gets argued about for YEARS as the fans and super fans tear it apart frame by frame looking for evidence to prove their stance. Meanwhile the studio just shrugs and smiles when asked.

[Dienekes]

Ah not only my favorite villain, but my favorite character in all comics. One that can make you laugh and then silence yourself as you realize what horrible thing you just laughed at. A character that defies attempts to make him pitiable, or humanize him. He is the Joker, the villain other villains tell stories of to frighten each other.

If I have to pick a favorite concept for him, terrifying and funny, wild and smart. He should be able to laugh while doing a funny dance for no reason and also blow up a hospital so the debris lands in the shape of a smilie face as a distraction so he can do something as mundane as killing one normal banker for not letting him cash a check.

Favorite acting version? Hell, I'll do all of them, in order of best to worst.

Spoiler

Show

Mark Hamill is the Joker to me. When I read a Joker comic, 90% of the time it's his voice I hear in my head. Hamill made his voice and his laugh a bloody instrument to fit any situation, he was the best part of every episode he was in, the Arkham games, and the few movies. And as he was written in that show? Amazing, being able to switch from trying to put a fine on all fish to laughing as he tortures Tim Drake into a twisted version of himself. They got it, they understood the wild and terrible things the Joker could do. Hamill nailed it, right up to The Killing Joke which I just watched Monday.

John DiMaggio gets number 2. Only one performance, but I felt it was what Heath Ledger was trying to do. A darker, more sadistic take who is even more psychotic and violent than Hamill's version. He tests and he pushes and he's completely self-destructive (one of the things the 90s cartoon sort of changed from the comics is when they have the Joker beg Batman to save him or for mercy. I won't say that has never happened in the comics, but far more often he's willing to die just to get the laugh, and they really played that up in Under the Red Hood). So yeah, Bender is Joker #2 for me. I hope that he does more now that Hamill is officially stepping down from the role (for the 4th time now, I think).

Heath Ledger gets 3. An interesting take on the character, harking back to his original interpretation, Killing Joke, and The Man Who Laughed. He was a fun dichotomy, colorful but at the same time dark. He had some surprisingly funny moments, but is probably the least amusing of the good Jokers. But he makes up for it in how he plays the monster aspects. Where the two above did the mix of funny to terrifying far better, Heath had the monster down could have done a bit more on the clown.

Jack Nicholson at 4. Where Ledger's Joker was more monster than clown, I felt Nicholson's was more clown than monster. He did some things better than Ledger, like taking time off from his evil plan to go destroy some art because he thought it would be funny. And don't get me wrong, Nicholson carried that movie on his back. But all told, the silly cliche of his love triangle with Vicki Vale, the random injection of Prince music, it just had a lot of things from it's time that hold Nicholson's performance back, in my opinion.

Troy Baker for 5. He did the voice in Arkham Origins, the weakest of the Arkham games all told. Honestly, he's pretty clearly doing a Hamill impression, a good one. But I'd place him below the others who have their own versions. He is a really good Hamill impression, if they don't give a permanent Joker position to DiMaggio I'd give it to Troy. He's good, and I think with time he'll find his own tweaks to give to the voice.

Jeff Bennet as 6. His Joker was what Cesar Romero's should have been, in my opinion. He is far off on the kooky, campy side of the scale and he pulls it off great. Batman the Brave and the Bold is a fun insane ramp and their version of the Joker is just as fun and insane, and his antics are fun. But at the same time, he has just the touch of insanity below it all that was especially true in the episode they did of the Emperor Joker storyline where we see inside his head and what a Joker run world would be. It's weird and stupid and as fun as it should be.

Cesar Romero is placed at 7. As I said above, in terms of the camp nearly harmless versions of the character I prefer Bennett's interpretation. Romero's Joker wasn't as amusing, and his campy ridiculous schemes weren't as fun as the cartoon could get away with. Which isn't his fault, you can do more wackiness in a cartoon. Nor do I dislike his version. He had a great energy with his movements though, probably of the live action Jokers the one who was the most energetic and I like that. He also got into a surfing contest with Batman, what's not to love?

That's it with the good Jokers, unfortunately not all Jokers can be great.

Michael Emerson sitting at 8. So, they decided to make a bored Joker. Ok, I can get behind that as a version of the Joker, one that sees the rest of the world as just toys for his vendetta with Batman. Hell in more than 1 version of the character in comics we see him comatose or in a stupor when he's not off actually being the Joker. They can totally make him bored with everyone else, the sad clown putting up the act when he has to go onstage to do his kills or facing his nemesis. But, he never really got there. Even in his death scene, where he is literally killing himself while framing Batman and laughing the whole time he just sounds so bored. So uninterested. That said I don't think his actual voice acting was bad, it just wasn't an interesting Joker. it'd have been a great Riddler though, really play up the cold emotionless, but it didn't work here. He never went wild when he needed to.

Kevin Michael Richardson at also 8. Man, I didn't like this version. First they did a weird monkey style thing with him, which, fine, it's your own new interpretation of the character. You want to make your mark, I get it. But half the time I just felt Richardson's voice did not fit coming out of that character. Sometimes it was ok, but sometimes it just felt wrong. Though I will say he had the exact opposite problem with Emerson. Where Emerson never felt interested, Richardson never felt like he wasn't trying to wave his hands in front of you scream for attention and acting like a fool. Which, ok, yeah Joker is a drama queen who needs attention. But for some reason this version did not click for me. The Joker at his best is this fantastic mix of wild and dapper, cunning but crazy, random but goal driven. Richardson never hit that mark. I heard he got better later seasons, but I didn't watch them.

Brent Spiner is last. Dead last. did you see the Young Justice Joker? It was horrible. It wasn't scary, it wasn't funny. It was boring. If I'm finding the Joker boring something is wrong. Bah, luckily he was only in 1 episode or something, a disgrace to the Joker's wonderfully terrible name.

And then there's Steve Blum in Lego Batman. I have never played Lego Batman, but I generally like Blum's work. But, since I can't say whether his performance was good or bad he has to sit out of the list.

As to your version of Joker Traab, it's been done by Frank Miller, but it was never truly played up. If they get it right that could be a very creepy interpretation and I'd be more than willing to watch/read it.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Yeah, and Frank Miller really can't nail it down anymore. His last outing with the Joker (ASBaR) left the character frowning and dull.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, and Frank Miller really can't nail it down anymore. His last outing with the Joker (ASBaR) left the character frowning and dull.

It's Frank Miller I don't think he's done anything good in over a decade. But yeah the man has the occasional cool interpretation or original idea, but rarely writes them to the best of its potential.

[Grey Watcher]

I wouldn't say I'm super attached to any one incarnation of the Joker. If I had to rank the Three Major Live Action Jokers (Romero, Nicholson, Ledger), I'd probably put Nicholson on top, Ledger next, and Romero last (though not by as a wide a margin as you might think).

• Nicholson's Joker works so well because he so gleefully embraces being a parody of a gentleman. To hold, as it were, the funhouse mirror up to society.
• Ledger's Joker's shtick is less to show the world how hollow their pretenses are and more to goad them into abandoning them altogether. Less subtle, to be sure, and arguably less effective.
• Romero's doesn't have quite so well-thought out and ethos, but he doesn't need one: he comes as close to the "wrecking-ball Joker" as the live action versions get. Heck, if anything, he suffers mostly from his context: in a world as goofy and trippy as the 1960's Batman series is, the Joker just doesn't stand out as much as he should.

(Unfortunately, I only dabble in Bat-lore, so I'm not as familiar with all the varied nuances of his comic book appearances or his animated incarnations, though I do enjoy what I've seen/heard of Mark Hamill's work with him.)

As much as I think The Killing Joke is overrated, I think the "Why aren't you laughing?" monologue was good at giving a clearer idea of what the Joker is and why he does what he does beyond "clown-themed murder and/or mayhem".

EDIT: As an aside, I do appreciate the visual/conceptual contrast between the Dark Knight's Batman using sleek, well-manufactured high-tech gadgets and the Joker's shoe-string budget approach.

[Aotrs Commander]

Cesar Romeo.

Mark Hamill.

Is there anyone else worth mentioning...?



Imma just put my full armour on now, then, and start with the defensive buffs...

[Blackhawk748]

Mark Hamil

Jack Nicholson

Kevin Richardson (The Batman)

Yes i actually liked the Joker from The Batman. In fact i liked that show in general, its still got nothing of Batman TAS, but very few things do.

[BlueHerring]

The Joker's at his best when he's making a twisted joke or doing something for the hell of it, instead of making overcomplicated, implausibly-organized schemes like in TDK. Seriously, those goons must have been handed thick binders with timetables and flowcharts just to make every unlikely contrivance in that film go off without a hitch. The Joker hosting an orientation meeting would be bizarre to see.

This is the reason why I don't like Ledger's Joker, but it's not due to his acting chops. The character acts like he's an advocate of chaos, yet clearly uses well-timed and well-executed plans to get what he wants. Ledger's acting was certainly good, but the way Joker was written makes it come off as weird after looking at the film more analytically. For a one-time watch, it's fine and all, but that's where it ends.

I still feel that Hamill has the best version of the character, by quite a long shot.

[Chives]

I always loved the Joker from Brave and the Bold. there's an insane juxtaposition of audience participation: laughing at his antics while being shocked because he's murdering people. Why aren't I laughing indeed.

[Ramza00]

This is the reason why I don't like Ledger's Joker, but it's not due to his acting chops. The character acts like he's an advocate of chaos, yet clearly uses well-timed and well-executed plans to get what he wants. Ledger's acting was certainly good, but the way Joker was written makes it come off as weird after looking at the film more analytically. For a one-time watch, it's fine and all, but that's where it ends.

I still feel that Hamill has the best version of the character, by quite a long shot.

I find this type of complaint silly and that you missed the point that the Joker was trying to express.

The joker point was not that chaos was internally consistent, that order was not truely order and that order was not consistent and was built upon a web of lies.

Think of the Joker as a 2nd person narrative where you are in a play, and suddenly the play pauses and the character gives a soliloquy where he expresses his internal thoughts to the world, speaking outloud, instead of keeping the thoughts in his head he says them out loud to the audience. (The US and UK version of House of Cards do this alot, as does shakespeare)

Certain characters the Joker opens up to and he talks about himself as an agent of chaos. Now him being an agent of chaos, he is not talking about his internal world view or how he works internally, he is talking about how he is an agent of chaos that disrupts the internal order of a city, a nation, the whole idea of society. Pretty much Heath Ledger's joker is having a philosophical dialogue with batman what is mankind's true state of nature. If we remove the normal predictibility of society, what will happen.

------

Heath Ledger's Joker is not a normal man anymore. You can make the arguement that he really wants to do succide by cop, or be a martyr, but if he becomes a martyr he wants to do so where he gets a form of immortality by being an idea that changes people's thought patterns. There are messed up people like him all over the place, but mankind forgets them by not telling stories of these people to our kids and such. But once you experienced a joker, an unhinged man who does not care, who is not bound by self interest anymore (see Alfred's speech about the man with his gemstones), it changes your ideas of what men are capable of.

------

Heath Ledger's Joker is not like other "agent of chaos" in literature, tv, and film. For example Ledger's Joker is nothing at all alike Legend of Korra's Zaheer's idea of anarchy being the ideal state of mankind.

[Avilan the Grey]

That is the point

That is the black humor, he is an animal that needs to be put down. But the humor is that while we can rationalize it in our mind, it is still an emotional thing where we just have to say, he needs to die because I said so (just like I can't define porn vs obscene without seeing it.)

Put another way

Part of human nature is that we confuse all the time the difference between mercy and justice and vengeance. They are different things but they are related, like three sides of a triangle, never touching, yet always connected.

See, I don't have that conflict. And I don't really see the similarities between Gollum and the Joker. To me Gollum is a tragic figure while the Joker again is a one-dimensional monster. I just don't see anything complex in him, at all. Again, he's basically Cuijo. He is incurable, and everyone knows he is.

But then I'm weird. Going off on a tangent here but someone I follow on Twitter said she doesn't like most modern Sci-Fi because true Sci-fi is used to explore the human nature. Apart from the fact that I find that one of the most elitist things I know, it is also something that I find completely irrelevant because quite frankly Human Nature (tm) was fully explored some 3000 years ago, if not earlier.

I wouldn't say I'm super attached to any one incarnation of the Joker. If I had to rank the Three Major Live Action Jokers (Romero, Nicholson, Ledger), I'd probably put Nicholson on top, Ledger next, and Romero last (though not by as a wide a margin as you might think).

• Nicholson's Joker works so well because he so gleefully embraces being a parody of a gentleman. To hold, as it were, the funhouse mirror up to society.
• Ledger's Joker's shtick is less to show the world how hollow their pretenses are and more to goad them into abandoning them altogether. Less subtle, to be sure, and arguably less effective.
• Romero's doesn't have quite so well-thought out and ethos, but he doesn't need one: he comes as close to the "wrecking-ball Joker" as the live action versions get. Heck, if anything, he suffers mostly from his context: in a world as goofy and trippy as the 1960's Batman series is, the Joker just doesn't stand out as much as he should.

(Unfortunately, I only dabble in Bat-lore, so I'm not as familiar with all the varied nuances of his comic book appearances or his animated incarnations, though I do enjoy what I've seen/heard of Mark Hamill's work with him.)

As much as I think The Killing Joke is overrated, I think the "Why aren't you laughing?" monologue was good at giving a clearer idea of what the Joker is and why he does what he does beyond "clown-themed murder and/or mayhem".

EDIT: As an aside, I do appreciate the visual/conceptual contrast between the Dark Knight's Batman using sleek, well-manufactured high-tech gadgets and the Joker's shoe-string budget approach.

I think my biggest problem with Ledger's Joker is that he isn't funny. On any level. He's (to me) more someone who is constantly crashing after a bad trip that never ends. He walks and talks more like a drug-addicted bum. Also his sense of style is horrible, unlike the other Jokers.

As for Romero... Yeah to a point you are right; Frank Gorshin's Riddler especially is often played as basically the Joker with a green suit; he appears just as nuts and often with the same mannerisms.

[Ramza00]

See, I don't have that conflict. And I don't really see the similarities between Gollum and the Joker. To me Gollum is a tragic figure while the Joker again is a one-dimensional monster. I just don't see anything complex in him, at all. Again, he's basically Cuijo. He is incurable, and everyone knows he is.

But then I'm weird. Going off on a tangent here but someone I follow on Twitter said she doesn't like most modern Sci-Fi because true Sci-fi is used to explore the human nature. Apart from the fact that I find that one of the most elitist things I know, it is also something that I find completely irrelevant because quite frankly Human Nature (tm) was fully explored some 3000 years ago, if not earlier.

But that is the point, the difference between the Joker and Gollum is in the eyes of the beholder. Until Frodo learned Gollum's history he had no empathy for that beast. That former human corrupted.

I personally believe the Joker is irredeemable, for the joker in almost all forms of batman does not want to be saved. That said the whole point of the character is that he is inflammatory, yes he needs to die, but if its not by the book with a system of laws, done by a non emotional person than it starts the path of darkness where people become corrupted on their path towards purifying the evil doers.

That was the Ledger's joker's point in the Dark Knight, he was not a true villain, he was just a walking natural disaster, but there was no real depth to his beliefs. There was nothing that you could build on, this is why I made the analogy of him wanting to be a martyr or suicide by cop. The Joker no longer wanted to live on this earth, and if he was going to live he was going to live playing a game that had no core to it. It was exciting but it was russian roulette.

The more insidious thing, the more villainous thing, is when people cross the line (such as Aaron Eckhart Two Face) and they become "strong men" who justify their decisions due to their emotionality, or they justify their decisions after the fact.

Two Face did not even attempt to kill people or not kill people due to morality. The random chance, the coin flip, is the complete antithesis of the idea of law and order.

----

But also antithesis to law and order is the two face behavior of mankind, the people we believe are normal humans but when our backs are turn do things to advance their own interests, or tell little lies and are no longer for the public good but instead personal advancement. This is one of the reasons why Joker made it personal when he went after Harvey Dent, for they were at a big wig society fundraiser, a man who says he is going to stop corruption, yet he is asking for money from the corrupt (they were just less corrupt than the mob). He was a man who did not understand how deep the corruption went yet he claims he can stamp it out (for example he did not know who was the good guys or the bad guys on the police force, even though he used to be cop who went after dirty cops for he worked for internal affairs).

I think my biggest problem with Ledger's Joker is that he isn't funny. On any level. He's (to me) more someone who is constantly crashing after a bad trip that never ends. He walks and talks more like a drug-addicted bum. Also his sense of style is horrible, unlike the other Jokers.

Oh I can completely agree with that.

The Joker of Heath Ledger was not supposed to be a stand up comic, or a comedian. No he was supposed to be a dark version of a Commedia dell'arte. Improv comics who dressed up in masks, and showed the height of human excess and the folly of man. It is is common for Commedia deli'arte to wear masks, or to put on white face. Heath Ledger's joker was a person who was really wearing makeup even though somehow he was scared or he caused his scars. Heath Ledger joker was also a man always putting on a show, and he was supposed to be empty. This was not about him, but instead the audience, this is why he always changed his story of his origins. Just like Commedia deli'arte his origins in each story could be different.

(You are probably more familiar with another term related ot Commedia deli arte which is Harlequin the sidekick)

The Joker is not supposed to be funny, the funny thing is how sad and messed up the world is, that the joke. But even in this black humor, human kind also have our unsung heroes who hold society together, but also inspire hope during the dark times.

Okay I think I am done. I am not saying you have to like Heath Ledger's Joker but you have to see it as its own unique thing that is separate from other types of joker portrayal. It is one that deals with the absurdity of life, but the same absurdity of life that we get our dark humor from is also where we get our greatest joy and our greatest hope, despite the absurdity of life

(the white paint in many cultures, represents death, where when we die the blood no longer flows and our skin is more pale.)

[Quild]

Mark Hamill clearly is my favorite joker.

I like Nicholson's one a lot. Besides the already mentionned love triangle and the fact that he has a name (Jack Napier) and is Bruce's parents killer, he's fantastic in the role.

I'm among Ledger's Joker haters. He's more carrying a plan than having fun, he wears make-up, he's not random... He mostlys kills bad guys (the only good guys he kills are some cops off-panel with the bomb in a bad guy and Bruce's friend... also with a bomb). The only scenes I like is the magic trick (killing a bad guy) and the non-working remote for explosives (you know, for the EMPTY hospital). It's a nice character, but it's not the Joker.

Haven't much to say for the other ones I know. I loved the Joker in the Arkham's game series, but it still was Hamill. I've never seen Cesar Romero as the Joker.

[DeadpanSal]

One of my favorite Jokers was the one from the animated series, but he never shone as brightly, to me, as when he reappeared in the Batman Beyond movie. You have the same Joker, on the same kicks, out to make Batman's life miserable... but Bruce Wayne isn't wearing the cowl anymore. Now it's some punk kid who doesn't take him seriously. Watching that scene play out is amazing. To hear McGinnis mock the Joker and get a rise out of him is something you don't often get to see. The best Joker moments are built on his symbiotic relation to Batman. Watch it get thrown back at him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LikMS5gDDI

[Manga Shoggoth]

I grew up with the Romero Joker, and have a great deal of fondness for him. I quite liked the Nicholson Joker as well.

The Ledger version? Well, I was put off by the visuals, sufficiently so that I have never watched the film. The impression I got was of a child's scribbling, which is not what I want to spend a film watching.

I do sometimes wonder if the success of Ledger's Joker was inflated by his death before the film was released. Obviously, not having seen the film (and being unfamilliar with the rest of his work), I can't really comment - what do you guys think?

[Legato Endless]

But then I'm weird. Going off on a tangent here but someone I follow on Twitter said she doesn't like most modern Sci-Fi because true Sci-fi is used to explore the human nature. Apart from the fact that I find that one of the most elitist things I know, it is also something that I find completely irrelevant because quite frankly Human Nature (tm) was fully explored some 3000 years ago, if not earlier.

The ongoing development of the social sciences would seem to suggest otherwise?

[Grey Watcher]

...

I think my biggest problem with Ledger's Joker is that he isn't funny. On any level. He's (to me) more someone who is constantly crashing after a bad trip that never ends. He walks and talks more like a drug-addicted bum. Also his sense of style is horrible, unlike the other Jokers.

True. The Joker works best when he can make even the reader/viewer laugh in spite of themselves, which is difficult in general and almost never universally successful.

As for Romero... Yeah to a point you are right; Frank Gorshin's Riddler especially is often played as basically the Joker with a green suit; he appears just as nuts and often with the same mannerisms.

The oft-lost distinction, I think, is that the Joker wants you to fail, while the Riddler wants you to SUCCEED (what's the point of a puzzle no one can solve?)

[Ramza00]

The ongoing development of the social sciences would seem to suggest otherwise?

Are you familiar with the concept of the axial age? Sometimes known as the pivotal age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age

During 800 BC to 200 BC we had a massive increase of trade, spread of ideas, and exchange of words due to most cultures moving towards a money system based off currency, and languages and writting switching to a system of alphabet letters (where there are 20 to 40 letters per each language, and words are then composed out of these letters instead of using symbols like hieroglyphs, cuneiform, etc. These letters in turn were based off sounds the human mouth can easily make)

All the major religions of today for the most part can be traced back to the axial age of 800 bc to 200bc, and if they are not from that time period, such as christianity or islam they can be traced back to be heavily inspired / derivative of other religions such as mixing judaism with lots of greek and also indian subcontinent thought.

Oh 1200 to 800 BC was the start of the Iron Age depending on the location.

-----

Now it was not just religion that can be traced back to there, but many philosophical ideas, such as "ghost in the machine" and so on having proto versions from this time frame. Put simply people arguing that we are just living in a more advanced and more enumerated type of ideas that really existed since that time.

-----

Now this is not to say these debates are completely and utterly settled. Lots of stuff have advanced within the last 100 years where we took the ideas of early psychology theories such as Freud and Jung and we started to use basic empiricism to shift through the really weird and crazy theories to stuff that have more empirical / scientific basis. That said Freud and Jung may have been seen as the founders of modern psychological thought but if you trace back through history you can see similar thought being discussed for thousands of years.

Science and Culture are kinda like "falling forward". They make mistakes all the time, but often these mistakes are self corrected and improved upon over time.

[thompur]

Mark Hamill.
The scene I recall so vividly that really, to me, brings into focus, the essence of the Joker is from the Batman/Superman team up "Worlds Finest".

Spoiler: Spoiler

Show

One of the weapons the Joker had been using in the story was little bombs the size of marbles. He, Harley, and Lex are flying in an aircraft and it goes out of control, and all these tiny bombs are let loose and start exploding. Batman and Supes arrive and save Harley and Lex respectively, and as the plane goes down, the Joker is trying to put on a parachute. The plane lurches, Joker falls on his face, and all the bombs start rolling towards him. He looks momentarily shocked, then realizes the situation and starts laughing hysterically, recognizing the joke.

It was that moment that I truly began to understand and appreciate the Joker.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Mark Hamill.
The scene I recall so vividly that really, to me, brings into focus, the essence of the Joker is from the Batman/Superman team up "Worlds Finest".

Spoiler: Spoiler

Show

One of the weapons the Joker had been using in the story was little bombs the size of marbles. He, Harley, and Lex are flying in an aircraft and it goes out of control, and all these tiny bombs are let loose and start exploding. Batman and Supes arrive and save Harley and Lex respectively, and as the plane goes down, the Joker is trying to put on a parachute. The plane lurches, Joker falls on his face, and all the bombs start rolling towards him. He looks momentarily shocked, then realizes the situation and starts laughing hysterically, recognizing the joke.

It was that moment that I truly began to understand and appreciate the Joker.

I love that scene. Even when the joke's on him, he'll laugh it up

See, this sort of situation would never happen with Ledger's Joker, which is why I still prefer the animated one.

They pushed the nigh-infallible mastermind angle way too hard in TDK. The character always has his incredibly-complex plans go off just right. To me, it verges on Villain Sue territory at times. Plans that insane have multiple points of failure, and too many variables.

That said, I think I'd be much better-disposed towards Ledger's Joker if he didn't become an icon for immature, edgy teenagers. So many bad impression videos, so many pseudo-"deep" image macros about being a misunderstood badass who "makes more sense than Batman". The idolization was laid on a bit thick.

[Winter_Wolf]

I really want to see what they do with Joker in the upcoming Suicide Squad film. Looks promising, but trailers aren't exactly known for accurately reflecting how the actual movie will go.

[Zigwat]

I love that scene. Even when the joke's on him, he'll laugh it up

See, this sort of situation would never happen with Ledger's Joker, which is why I still prefer the animated one.

They pushed the nigh-infallible mastermind angle way too hard in TDK. The character always has his incredibly-complex plans go off just right. To me, it verges on Villain Sue territory at times. Plans that insane have multiple points of failure, and too many variables.

That said, I think I'd be much better-disposed towards Ledger's Joker if he didn't become an icon for immature, edgy teenagers. So many bad impression videos, so many pseudo-"deep" image macros about being a misunderstood badass...

I am inclined to agree on both points (Using Aizan from Bleach as a basis of Villain Sue) they did kind of make his plans a little too miss-proof. And the people who idolize Ledger's Joker did become especially annoying after a while. It was a great performance, that doesn't make him the Messiah.