Jack has Joker is perfect in theory...but in reality it doesn't work. Jack was too old and too chubby and he dances to Prince songs for 5 minutes. ugh! If Jack had played Joker 10-15 years earlier, it would have been perfect, but it was too late in 89.

I highly recommend you actually read some Batman comics.

Ah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah! God, that was the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you for bringing some laughter into my life.

Oh, wait. You were serious.

In that case - are you out of your F'ing MIND? Nicholson wasnt playing the Joker, he was playing Nicholson being Nicholson being insane. Joker should be totaly off the way apeshit fucking NUTS - and yet still scare the crap out of you with his homicidal nature. When trying to attack the Batman, given his choice of weapons - a foot long salami or a knife, Joker would probably go for the salami for the laugh. Meanwhile, Nicholson was way too much in control to be the Joker.

If you want a good Joker, there is only one choice hands down: Mark Hamill.

I haven't seen anybody mention that back in '97 (whoa -- flashbacks man!) DVD was just coming out. In addition to the technology (which was mentioned) was the fact that studios were still reticent about a new format and weren't about to start throwing all their might into an unproven technology.

So I guess that brings up the question: What was the first DVD that did have a load of extras and cleaned up picture and sound?

In 1938. For all of about five minutes. And that was about it. It's been pretty well established that Batman (a) doesn't use guns, and (b) doesn't kill.

Yes I am a great big Nerd.

Anyway, I was never the biggest fan of the 1989 Batman film: weak plot, limp sense of storytelling, not enough Batman and too much Joker.

That having been said, I love its look, feel, soundtrack (Elfman, not prince), and some of its dark humor.

However I will say that Nicholson's performance as the Joker -- while, IMHO, extremely enjoyable -- set the standard for over-the-top scenery-chewing one-liner spouting villains for over a decade. And not in a good way. TURNIPS!

That was his interpretation of the character. I didn't say he was the best literal translation. His interpretation worked for the film, and I think it was the best I've ever seen.

Hamill is excellent as the Joker on the Animated Series. However, you seem to have a great disregard for context. If you were to have exploding presents, baby dolls with Joker faces emitting poisonous gas, and the Joker escaping from Batman on a pogo stick on live action film, you would get a Schumacher picture.

To get this thread back on track, another reason the 'Batman' DVD is bad, from what I understand, is that a shot or a line or something got cut out of the widescreen side (though not the fullscreen side).

I never owned it, so I don't remember the details.

Wasn't Batman's first appearance on Detective Comics #27 in 1939?

That would be correct.

Superman in Action Comics was in 38, Batman was 39.

Nicholson should have gotten an Oscar nom for this and as I recall talk was heavy that he might at the time.

I stand corrected. As someone else has noted, I was thinking of Supes's premiere year. Yet everything about the gun usage remains spot-on. Don't believe me? Then I must break you...

Then that interpertation is WRONG. Thats like saying, you know in my remake of Star Wars, I think that Vader should get in touch with his feelings, making him a more sympathetic character. He should hand a flower to Obi-wan instead of killing him.

That doesnt mean that a character should be locked in stone forever - look at any number of Bonds, and all of the actors have stayed true to what the core of the character is. Jack and Tim could have done this - but no. They opt for the wrong outlook on Joker, and the film suffers for it.

I totaly disagree. I think that in the hands of a skilled director, that the fine line between camp and getting the character wrong could be straddled. Pity the movie wound up in the hands of a hack like Burton.

Camp... getting the character wrong... straddling...

Well, you should be happy Schumacher got all that in...

So funny, so true. Brilliant post!

Mark Hamill IS the Joker! There are no others! I don't care if its just his voice, he captures the Joker completely. And I think he could even pull it off in a live action film if given the chance.

I remember a very early cover of a Batman comic where Batman is clearly armed. He had an automatic strapped to his leg.

Also I'll back you up about the "no killing" rule...in all the Batman comics I've ever read this has been canon. It's why the Joker is still running around after killing dozens of people in the comic. If Batman were a killer Joker wouldn't have gotten past his second appearance.

Also to make this post not completely irrelevant to the main topic, the Batman dvd isn't bad for the time. At least it wasn't a flipper like some other early Warners titles(damn you I want a Man Who Would Be King SE!). And if you guys weren't around for *those* POS's you're very very lucky.

Besides the Batman dvd currently out costs like $5 at wal mart, not exactly a big investment.

Another Joker for the future/Batman TV serieson DVD??
 

I look forward to another great actor other than Nicholson having a crack at the Joker , who is my all time favourite Batman villain in a future Batman movie.

Nicholson was excellent I know, but I'd love to see another similar talent try to, if not top the Nicholson version, equal it!!

And when, if ever, (!!), will remastered versions of the classic 1960's TV series of Batman appear on the DVD format??

Re: Another Joker for the future/Batman TV serieson DVD??
 

That's a hairy issue between Fox and Warner. Doubtful we'll see anything soon.