Wow.

Maybe you actually believe everything you just wrote, but it almost seems more probable that you're simply anti-mainstream.

Doing a bad Edward G Robinson impression while wearing crap make-up is on another level? OOOOOOK. The only good thing about Heath Ledger's Joker was at least he wasn't an emo Joker which I was worried he was going to be after seeing the first pics of him. I bet whoever does the Joker's voice in this game will be better than Heath Ledger. By the way, what was wrong with Jack Nicholson's Joker? Not only was his performance far more Jokerish than Heath's but he was given a better Joker to work with since he actually used JOKES (like the electrocuting hand buzzer and the acid in the squirty flower on his jacket) and had white skin rather than just make-up. You're right about one thing, Jack's Joker was entertaining, it's a shame Heath's wasn't as much. If Heath Ledger gets an Oscar it's just more proof of what a pathetic farce the Oscars are.

I'm not anti-mainstream but I'm not a sheep either and don't praise average performances just because the actor died. I liked The Dark Knight but it had loads of flaws and I'd say it wasn't as good as Batman Begins. If the Joker was better it would have made the film better. Also the Two-Face stuff was a bit disappointing although not because of Aaron Eckhart's performance, he was great.

I agree that The Dark Knight did have flaws, but the Joker not using ridiculous, cartoony gags wasn't one of them.

To me, there's a difference between having wanted the character to be taken in a different direction and not acknowledging an awesome performance. Just because it wasn't what you wanted doesn't mean it was bad, and it's unfortunate if you can't separate the two.Right...

looks damn good...and the atmosphere's shocking, too for the first sight.

If the Joker can't use "ridiculous, cartoony gags" (unlike the completely believable sonar device Batman uses in The Dark Knight) then why even have the Joker in the movie? Why not use a less "ridiculous" character? What's funny is that I just found out that Heath Ledger based his Joker on Alex from A Clockwork Orange. It's a shame he didn't do that well enough since that character would make a great "realistic" Joker as he's a funny psycho. (I didn't think A Clockwork Orange itself was that great though.) You know there's a problem with a movie's Joker when one of the Scarecrow's only lines in the movie is at least as funny as any of the Joker's, lol! (Well, a combination of Batman's and the Scarecrow's lines in the scene.) I hope for the 3rd movie Chris Nolan says "To preserve Heath Ledger's wonderful performance as the Joker I'm going to completely change what the Joker looks and acts like so that his performance stands unique." then goes back to how the Joker is supposed to be.

There are so many things wrong with what you've said. Crappy make up? Are you that ignorant? That's how it's supposed to look. It adds to the realism of the character, which makes the performance all the more convincing. The fact is that the best Joker is you, unless you were actually being serious about all of this?

We get it, you like to be in the minority. It's pretty evident to me that Nicholson's "ridiculous, cartoony" Joker looks distinctly average when compared to Ledger's Joker. Whether you agree with that or not is a matter of opinion, but the majority seem to agree.

If you didn't find Ledger's Joker performance in the least bit funny at times, then you set out with the intention to hate it from the start. The pencil trick, not funny? Some of the witty lines (the writers did an immense job), not funny? Well if you didn't find any of that funny, then you clearly prefer the dumb, traditional humour.

I actually found the sonar device to be a bit much.Because the Joker is an awesome villain without all of the bullshit gags; Nolan obviously knew this, and Ledger portrayed it superbly.Agreed. Both times I saw it, the theater unanimously erupted in laughter numerous times at what Ledger's Joker said/did(while actually not even really acknowledging anything the Scarecrow said). I guess everyone, critics included, are all just a bunch of sheep though..../sarcasm

Maybe the REAL Joker let off some laughing gas. :D Besides, I didn't say that Heath's Joker was never funny but Alfred and Lucious were funny too despite it not being in their job description. By the way, isn't painting your face and calling yourself the Joker a bullshit gag? Especially if you don't have much to back it up with. And how do you know I'm in the minority? Just because you and a couple of others on here disagree with me? I've seen plenty of comments at various places elsewhere that agree with me that Heath's Joker is very overrated. You can't use box office figures to say I'm in the minority either because they don't just count the tickets of people who liked The Dark Knight's Joker, lol! As for the critics, I seriously don't give a crap about them since they're so often wrong and up their own asses. If my views on Heath's Joker really are in the minority then I think it's just a case of mass collective guilt as people didn't want to "speak ill of the dead" combined with the sheeple who just followed the herd. (Which is why they got it wrong since they should have followed the flock, lol!) I wonder if Batman 3 is going to be called "The Joker's New Clothes"?

So this isn't implying that Heath's Joker wasn't funny? What did you honestly expect in terms of him being funny?Way to downplay it..."a couple of others on here"... Everyone I know liked Heath's Joker.

And you're completely dismissing all of the critics who liked the movie/the Joker as wrong why?... because you're being stubborn maybe? It's far FAR more probable that you're being an ass than it is that thousands of people are wrong or are simply feeling guilty.

This is a new brand of ridiculousness, and it sure is potent.

so how bout that game! lol

The Scarecrow's line (in context and with the delivery) was funny. Not side-splittingly hilarious but then neither was the Joker. There have only been a couple of others on here disagreeing with me, most of the posts have been from you. If I can be bothered I'm sure I could find some professional critics' reviews that didn't like the Joker and didn't think that The Dark Knight was the best movie ever made. So by not being impressed by Heath Ledger's Joker I'm just being an ass? Oh I'm sooooo sorry, I'll just fly over to Australia and apologise to his family and spend the rest of my life worshippig his performance then. Maybe I should ask you that ridiculously-overused-in-the-marketing question, why so serious?

Sure you could find people who agree with you, but that still means you're in the minority. The majority of people who have seen the Dark Knight loved it and thought Ledger was superb. Your theory of "mass collective guilt" is a way of you trying to hide the fact that your claims are false and ridiculous.

You say the Joker was funny but not "side-splittingly hilarious". Tell me, how would that have fitted in with the movie's dark and gritty atmosphere? Perhaps it would fit in one of the cheesy, mediocre Batman films we've had to suffer through before but not in the Dark Knight. Joker's funny moments were to show his character and background, which made his psychotic and crazy moments all the more chilling.

If you were looking for a mildly entertaining and funny Joker, you were always going to be disappointed. It seems to me like you just aren't happy with the movie's dark, gritty feel Nolan has gone for in the Dark Knight. If you want cheesy mediocrity, there are plenty of previous Batman movies to choose from.

You can not be impressed by his performance all you want(although saying Cesar Romero's Joker was better seems pretty dumb). Unfortunately, you went so far as to imply that the critics are wrong and that guilt is why people enjoyed the performance. This doesn't sound like you weren't impressed and just voicing your opinion, but rather, it makes it seem like you went into the movie with your mind already made up. As a result, what you say comes off as incorrect, blind hatred as opposed to a valid opinion.Hyperbole FTL!!1!

There are still more critics that agree with me I'm sure, and maybe the ones that didn't like it are actually wrong, as you seem to think critics so often are.There you go being an ass again.

I'll admit I'm no comic expert but I'm curious to know if there are any Batman comics with a Joker like Heath Ledger's. If there isn't then that means 70 years of Batman comics are wrong and Chris Nolan and Heath Ledger are right. That's a pretty small minority! (And, yes, I know that from when the comic code was introduced until the 70s the comics were "wrong" as they changed the Joker into a crazy but fairly harmless comical thief. Also that's why Cesar Romero's Joker could be seen as better than Heath Ledger's as he actually got the character spot on for that time period.) I'm sorry but if you're going to have the Joker in a movie you can't use "being realistic" as an excuse to make him lame. He's the f*cking JOKER! He's one of the most famous villains of all time and he has a specific personality and a specific way of doing things. You can tone down joke gadgets and evil tricks so that they're less "ridiculous" without pretty much removing them altogether. There was actually a pretty good joke gadget at the beginning of the movie, the smoke grenade. (Although I'm not sure what the joke was exactly because I don't know if the guy died or not. If the gas was poison then it was ironic joke, the guy thought he was going to die from an explosion but died of poisoning instead. If it was just knock out gas then it was just a bit of a cruel joke and the Joker was being surprisingly merciful.) By the way, can you tell me some of the Joker's funny lines? As I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head. (Although I'm sure there were some.) And to blmbox, yes I certainly was expecting an entertaining and funny Joker and the film being dark shouldn't matter. Alfred was entertaining and funny, Lucius was entertaining and funny, Harvey Dent was entertaining and funny and even Bruce Wayne / Batman was entertaining and sometimes funny despite it being a dark film so I don't think that it's too much to expect the JOKER to be entertaining and funny. I'll leave you with a few descriptions of the Joker, that aren't from my opinion of the character, to give you an idea of what he's supposed to be like:

"The Joker has been referred to as the Clown Prince of Crime, the Harlequin of Hate, and the Ace of Knaves. The original and currently dominant image is of a fiendishly intelligent lunatic with a warped, sadistic sense of humor."

"The Joker is renowned as Batman's greatest enemy. While other villains rely on tried-and-true methods to commit crimes (such as Mr. Freeze's freeze gun or Poison Ivy's toxic plants), Joker has a variety of weapons at his disposal. For example, the flower he wears in his lapel sprays (at any given time) acid, poisonous laughing gas, or nothing at all. The Joker has a gun which at first shoots a flag saying "BANG!", but then, with another pull of the trigger, the flag fires and impales its target."

"The Joker commits crimes with countless "comedic" weapons (such as razor-sharp playing cards, acid-spewing flowers, cyanide pies, and lethally electric joy buzzers) and Joker venom, sometimes referred to as "Joker Juice", a deadly poison that infects his victims with a ghoulish rictus grin as they die while laughing uncontrollably. This venom comes in many forms, from gas to darts to liquid poison, and has been his primary calling card from his first appearance."