Movie, TV, Web Series, and Music Hot Take(s).

[Thaluikhain]

Lousy in that he wasn't a point-for-point recreation of the comic book caricature of a super villain? Fine; he was not that. I'd argue THAT Joker is less interesting by orders of magnitude than what Ledger gave us. Remove Batman's strict no-kill policy, and you've got a clown prince that is literally a joke and more an inconvenience than a threat. That character has never been interesting. Ledger's Joker was interesting because he was always the only one laughing, a true psychopath who didn't bother with a tossed-on British accent, fancy clothes and desires for power and control; Ledger was simply insane and desired nothing save for chaos, and it was a lot more intriguing to watch. If you want comic book Joker, Ledger wasn't that, but if you want true, incomprehensibly disturbed villain in a film, Ledger WAS that and fit perfectly in the noire take the Nolan films were going for.

Take away the no-killing-the-Joker thing and Ledger's Joker is still more an inconvenience rather than a threat, and, I'd argue, a caricature of a super villain. He's just in a serious film where that's thrown into sharp relief.

Cesar Romero Joker works because he can have all sorts of zany schemes that don't have to make sense. Heath Ledger Joker is still doing zany schemes, and not making sense becomes more of a problem.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Take away the no-killing-the-Joker thing and Ledger's Joker is still more an inconvenience rather than a threat, and, I'd argue, a caricature of a super villain. He's just in a serious film where that's thrown into sharp relief.

Cesar Romero Joker works because he can have all sorts of zany schemes that don't have to make sense. Heath Ledger Joker is still doing zany schemes, and not making sense becomes more of a problem.

I won't pretend to be a "Joker aficionado," but when compared to the Jokers I am familiar with, Ledger's is the most intriguing, i.e.: in 1989, the Joker wanted to poison a bunch of people leaving ludicrous smiles on their faces, straight from a comic book, fun, whatever, okay.. Ledger blew up a hospital and put a portion of Gotham's populace in a position to come to terms with the value of general human life over their own instincts for self-preservation... I know which film captures my attention more than the other.

Again, no one has to like the movie, but denying Ledger's Joker as an exceptional, screen-stealing antagonist is just absurd. My point being, yes, the Joker exists in comics and myriad other media, and in my personal opinion, The Dark Knight's Joker is the only version interesting beyond being a cursory, fiendish, mustache-twirling bad guy up to mischief and shenanigans.

 

[BrawlMan]

laughing, a true psychopath who didn't bother with a tossed-on British accent, fancy clothes and desires for power and control; Ledger was simply insane and desired nothing save for chaos, and it was a lot more intriguing to watch.

Which Joker put on a posh British accent? Other than for a quick gag or to make fun of Penguin or some other rich jerk off.

Ledger was simply insane and desired nothing save for chaos, and it was a lot more intriguing to watch. If you want comic book Joker, Ledger wasn't that, but if you want true, incomprehensibly disturbed villain in a film, Ledger WAS that and fit perfectly in the noire take the Nolan films were going for.

That is not entirely true. Heath Joker was a combination comics (his first apperance in the 40s and The Killing Joke), The Animated Series, Jack Nicholson, and some Caesar Romero (some of the laughs). Though, still with his own unique spin.

But in a vacuum removed from "what Batman is supposed to be," The Dark Knight was an excellent film, and Ledger's Joker one of the more notable antagonists in the last couple of decades

Agreed...

We can agree that Batman was probably the most out-of-place character in his own movie, but as the antithesis to The Joker, he kinda had to be there.

I disagree big time. He felt out of place, for you, but for most others, he fit in just perfectly.

TL;DR? The Dark Knight may not have been a great Batman film, but it was an exceptional Joker film.

Disagree, it's an awesome Batman movie and Joker movie. TDK has the balance distillation of what the franchise is all about.

, the Joker wanted to poison a bunch of people leaving ludicrous smiles on their faces, straight from a comic book, fun, whatever, okay.. Ledger blew up a hospital and put a portion of Gotham's populace in a position to come to terms with the value of general human life over their own instincts for self-preservation... I know which film captures my attention more than the other.

They're not that different from each other, even with the different reactions and out comes. At the end of the day, it's about the Joker having the last laugh, making people smile (his way), or be as evil or as chaotic as he is. That is what most versions share, even the Caesar Romero version to a minor extent. They all work for they were trying to achieve. Joker, no matter the version, is a psychopathic man child that can be very petty, sees everything as a joke, and is know for delivering disproportionate retribution.

If you want to see something further than Heath's Joker, I recommend you Johan Liebert from Monster. He's been doing what that version of the Joker has been doing since he was 7. Funny enough, Johan would get along fine with almost any version of the Joker, but especially the TDK version.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Jesus, the amount of effort being put into refuting my opinion is flattering (in my Joker voice.)

Which Joker put on a posh British accent? Other than for a quick gag or to make fun of Penguin or some other rich jerk off.

"British accent" is inaccurate; my mistake. More acutely, the air of eloquence, refinement and foppishness as characterized in many of the Jokers iterations. See Mark Hamill's animated version which so many other seem to prefer. My favorite line from the movie is when he refutes the gangster claims that he's crazy by responding with a straight-faced "No. I'm NOT." That embodies Ledger's Joker completely. It's so unsettling and disturbing, it just draws you in.

That is not entirely true. Heath Joker was a combination comics (his first apperance in the 40s and The Killing Joke), The Animated Series, Jack Nicholson, and some Caesar Romero (some of the laughs). Though, still with his own unique spin.

POINT BEING... Heath ledger's Joker had nothing of humor about him. He was just deranged. Most other Jokers have had an air of comedy about them befitting their name which was fine for their take on a fiendish, comic book villain. Ledger's was befitting a gritty noire drama, a sick man hell bent on chaos, death and destruction.

I disagree big time. He felt out of place, for you, but for most others, he fit in just perfectly.

Never made that an objective statement; I was agreeing with someone who felt the same as I did. The Dark Knight works perfectly as a standalone noire film with Batman shoehorned in. Remove him, and it would have worked perfectly as a crime drama without a billionaire in a bat suit.

Disagree, it's an awesome Batman movie and Joker movie. TDK has the balance distillation of what the franchise is all about.

That's you opinion and you're welcome to it. Personally, I was more interested in the Joker and what he was doing than Bruce Wayne/Batman and his inevitable "save the day because I conveniently have every gadget under the sun for every potential situation" trope.

They're not that different from each other, even with the different reactions and out comes. At the end of the day, it's about the Joker having the last laugh, making people smile (his way), or be as evil or as chaotic as he is. That is what most versions share, even the Caesar Romero version to a minor extent. They all work for they were trying to achieve. Joker, no matter the version, is a psychopathic man child that can be very petty, sees everything as a joke, and is know for delivering disproportionate retribution.

If you want to see something further than Heath's Joker, I recommend you Johan Liebert from Monster. He's been doing what that version of the Joker has been doing since he was 7. Funny enough, Johan would get along fine with almost any version of the Joker, but especially the TDK version.

Both are evil plots, sure, but one is more distinctly ruthless than the other, and I prefer a villain whose goal is death and destruction than one who leaves silly, cartoonish calling cards.

At the end of the day, some prefer the cartoonish villain, and others prefer a villain who presents himself as an volatile threat. For my buck, I'm of the latter camp.

TL;DR again? I prefer Ledger's Joker over every other iteration I've seen since forever regardless of how accurately he compares to those myriad permutations. A funny villain isn't one I worry about; a dangerous one has my attention.

 

[BrawlMan]

My favorite line from the movie is when he refutes the gangster claims that he's crazy by responding with a straight-faced "No. I'm NOT." That embodies Ledger's Joker completely. It's so unsettling and disturbing, it just draws you in.

True there. Any other version would have made a joke or take it as a compliment.

POINT BEING... Heath ledger's Joker had nothing of humor about him.

Tell that to the audience, my big bro, and my mom. While TDK Joker does not have much as humor nor as grandiose as the others, it still there. Just slightly darker and subdued. Don't forget about this scene where he interrupts the mob meeting and makes a pun with hand grenades lined in his coat pocket. Or the part with him walking out in the hospital in a nurses outfit. He still has plenty despite not having as much.

Spoiler: TDK Joker scenes

 

[BrawlMan]

Would not let me post the whole thing; here's the rest:

The Dark Knight works perfectly as a standalone noire film with Batman shoehorned in.

Kinda hard to shoehorn in main character when it's their sequel.

Remove him, and it would have worked perfectly as a crime drama without a billionaire in a bat suit.

I somewhat agree, but in a different timeline.

That's you opinion and you're welcome to it. Personally, I was more interested in the Joker and what he was doing than Bruce Wayne/Batman and his inevitable "save the day because I conveniently have every gadget under the sun for every potential situation" trope.

More power to you.

Both are evil plots, sure, but one is more distinctly ruthless than the other, and I prefer a villain whose goal is death and destruction than one who leaves silly, cartoonish calling cards.

The TDK version left plenty of calling cards. At the ending of Batman Begins, to the Mafia meeting early in the movie, and to his targets in the middle of movie. He left calling cards not different from the more "cartoonish" Jokers just like him. So who's the cartoon or comic again?

At the end of the day, some prefer the cartoonish villain, and others prefer a villain who presents himself as an volatile threat. For my buck, I'm of the latter camp.

Nearly all of them are threat and I would not want to be in a room with any of them. Jack Nicholson Joker may be more "cartoonish" by comparison to Heath Ledger, but he is no less threatening. Dude gassed the entire city with killer laughing gas with the promise of (counterfeit) money. Sure, Heathy boy is more sensister, but at the end of day, it's about some one else being the butt of a big fat joke. Once again, they're not so different from each other.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Tell that to the audience, my big bro, and my mom. While TDK Joker does not have much as humor nor as grandiose as the others, it still there. Just slightly darker and subdued. Don't forget about this scene where he interrupts the mob meeting and makes a pun with hand grenades lined in his coat pocket. Or the part with him walking out in the hospital in a nurses outfit. He still has plenty despite not having as much.

My point was there a big difference between a guy pulling out an absurdly long-nosed revolver with a "BANG!" flag instead of a bullet and a guy who's wired himself to kill everyone in the entire room, including himself. Ledger's "funny" was there simply for the namesake, but his character was not humorous. The scene where he's waddling about in a nurse costume is absurd, but the fact that he was blowing up a hospital is patently unfunny and goes to show just how seriously deranged he was.

Kinda hard to shoehorn in main character when it's their sequel.

Shoehorned insofar as the story could have worked perfectly without him; the Joker was that good of a villain that had it just been the Gotham PD untangling his web of intrigue, the movie would have been just as good if not better. In this case the antagonist was more interesting than the protagonist whose name just so happened to cover the promotional signage and film title.

The TDK version left plenty of calling cards. At the ending of Batman Begins, to the Mafia meeting early in the movie, and to his targets in the middle of movie. He left calling cards not different from the more "cartoonish" Jokers just like him. So who's the cartoon or comic again?

C'mon, you have to appreciate the difference between a guy leaving smiles on everyone's faces and a guy killing people simply for the moral dilemma of a protagonist whose defining characteristic is "thou shalt not kill." Ledger was the Joker in TDK, but he wasn't a comic book villain with larger schemes and a plan; he was a morally and ethically devoid, psychopathic person. The calling cards in TDK weren't trademarks; they were call backs to the fact that he's an iteration of a classic comic book villain. You seem to take a lot of my issues as literally as possible to make your points, but that doesn't give them anymore weight.

Nearly all of them are threat and I would not want to be in a room with any of them. Jack Nicholson Joker may be more "cartoonish" by comparison to Heath Ledger, but he is no less threatening. Dude gassed the entire city with killer laughing gas with the promise of (counterfeit) money. Sure, Heathy boy is more sensister, but at the end of day, it's about some one else being the but of a big fat joke. Once again, they're not so different from each other.

Yes, they're all villains. No one is disputing that. But in terms of a cinematic world, I personally feel Ledger's version presented the biggest, unreasonable threat which makes him the more interesting version, the Joker Unleashed, if you will.

 

[BrawlMan]

My point was there a big difference between a guy pulling out an absurdly long-nosed revolver with a "BANG!" flag instead of a bullet and a guy who's wired himself to kill everyone in the entire room, including himself. Ledger's "funny" was there simply for the namesake, but his character was not humorous. The scene where he's waddling about in a nurse costume is absurd, but the fact that he was blowing up a hospital is patently unfunny and goes to show just how seriously deranged he was.

Both are pretty absurd. While him blowing up the hospital showed dangerous the Joker is, it still did not stop the scene for being played for the dark humor it is. Sooo...mission accomplished. It's what the Joker is known to do. Not the hospital part, but to let you know he is deadly and dangerous while being darkly humorous and serious within the same film or TV show.

C'mon, you have to appreciate the difference between a guy leaving smiles on everyone's faces and a guy killing people simply for the moral dilemma of a protagonist whose defining characteristic is "thou shalt not kill."

True, but once again that comes from the comics and various adaptions. Also, he gave plenty of people "Joker smiles" in TDK, just no laughing gas or Smilex this time.

Ledger was the Joker in TDK, but he wasn't a comic book villain with larger schemes and a plan; he was a morally and ethically devoid, psychopathic person.

Sooooo...OG, baseline, Joker from the 1940s. He made "plans" with no plans, and only did things that made sense to him. Causing all types of chaos, because it's "fun". I see the point you're trying to make, but I could make the same arguments for Top Dollar or Johan.

​

Yes, they're all villains. No one is disputing that. But in terms of a cinematic world, I personally feel Ledger's version presented the biggest, unreasonable threat which makes him the more interesting version, the Joker Unleashed, if you will.

Understandable and debatable.

 

[Xprimentyl]

*A lot of "nuh-uh, because..."*

Ok, home skillet. Let's agree to feel differently. I don't want to protract this thread any longer reiterating my points.

 

[BrawlMan]

Ok, home skillet. Let's agree to feel differently. I don't want to protract this thread any longer reiterating my points.

HAHAHA, you know I did not say that. I get your point. This is a hot take thread. So you gotta get it while it's hot! For that "quote" you get a like. You made me laugh.

 

[Chimpzy]

Aside from some of the creepier stuff involving Roshi, original Dragonball is the best Dragonball. Better than Z, better than Super, better than GT, infinitely better than Heroes. It has the more fun storylines and characters, and above all, it has better and more creative fights.

 

[BrawlMan]

Aside from some of the creepier stuff involving Roshi, original Dragonball is the best Dragonball. Better than Z, better than Super, better than GT, infinitely better than Heroes. It has the more fun storylines and characters, and above all, it has better and more creative fights.

Also, has way less filler. It's why I like the JoJo's bizarre adventure series. They're fighting the least rely on strategy and not always powering up no useless upgrades they don't mean anything either by next season, or within the same Arc. I know over the years ever since my mid and late teens, I've enjoyed Dragon Ball less as a whole. The same applies the most shounen in. I just know after Dragon Ball everybody started copying the worst aspects of it in some regard. You had either variations of Goku, or the whole power structure falling flat on its face. It's why I didn't even bother with Naruto. What became strategy just became another case a superpowered beings and god's going at each other. A majority of the genre is not good and they all tend to blend together. Even Shaman King suffered from this; more so the original Manga version.

Another hot take: Vampire Hunter D Bloodlust has the best romance of any vampire fiction, and puts a majority of Hollywood stories and anime manga stories to shame. It really shows how screwed up and a lot of these writers and artists don't know one thing about romance nor how relationships work. Or what consequences can come from them, good or bad. Keep in mind, that this movie is mainly an action movie.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Jarrito3002]

​

You know what I will say I liked that interpretation of the Joker. While Heath Ledger is still my favorite this is an intrepretatation of the Joker this Joker deserves some love and I hope some writer can expand on this version and it doesn't get abandoned wholesale.

Like Jared Leto Joker is a throwback to the original Joker when he was just a straight homicidal gangster with a clown theme. Taking that and turning it into a tatted up millenial fuck boi is a natural evolution I can agree too.

 

[Gordon_4]

Aside from some of the creepier stuff involving Roshi, original Dragonball is the best Dragonball. Better than Z, better than Super, better than GT, infinitely better than Heroes. It has the more fun storylines and characters, and above all, it has better and more creative fights.

You know, I am such a mutant in that I really don't like DragonBall that much at all. I respect it a lot for its achievements and stuff like that, and the english song for it was really catchy. Just if I wanna watch Journey to the West, I'll watch Monkey.

That and my two favourite characters are Vegeta and Gohan, soooooo there's that.

 

[BrawlMan]

The Defenders Netflix series is decent overall. It is weak in the story department, but the character interactions are tight and on point. The show ranges between decent and good, but it's not as good as some of the previous Netflix shows. Still better than Iron Fist and The Punisher.

 

[BrawlMan]

I like the final battle in Shang-Chi. The action scenes and choreography are well done. Still could have used more color though. More so with the flying creatures.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

This might not be so much of a hot take, but every suit of Iron Man armor post The Avengers looks like shit in comparison. It looks so damn amazing in the first two Iron Man movies, then just gets worse and worse. But I'd still say that the Infinity War suit is the only one that crosses the line into genuinely looking bad.

Now for a actual hot take: Iron Man 2 is perfectly fine. I've always enjoyed watching it, terrible villain/plot and all. I'd rank it higher than quite a few MCU movies.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

This might not be so much of a hot take, but every suit of Iron Man armor post The Avengers looks like shit in comparison. It looks so damn amazing in the first two Iron Man movies, then just gets worse and worse. But I'd still say that the Infinity War suit is the only one that crosses the line into genuinely looking bad.

I completely agree.

The more the movies go on the more visually cluttered they make ironman. The mark 3/ mark 4 suits are the most iconic ones for a reason, and it's because all of the other ones just get progressively worse looking.

Though I will say, I think the suit in Spider-Man Homecoming is especially bad and much worse than the one in Infinity War (though I hate the idea of the nano-tech suit).

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I completely agree.

The more the movies go on the more visually cluttered they make ironman. The mark 3/ mark 4 suits are the most iconic ones for a reason, and it's because all of the other ones just get progressively worse looking.

Though I will say, I think the suit in Spider-Man Homecoming is especially bad and much worse than the one in Infinity War (though I hate the idea of the nano-tech suit).

Been a while since I saw Homecoming, the suit didn't particularly stand out to me. What's wrong with it?

Also I thought the nanotech was the natural evolution for Tony, but the execution really sucked in Infinity War. Why they went with the anime scifi glowing blades and plasma guns that all seem less effective than repulsor blasts is beyond me. The way nanotech was used in Endgame really feels like everyone should just be rocking around in Iron Man suits.

Damn, I miss how cool Iron Man was just walking. Hearing all the machinery whirr and the thuds of his footsteps really sold the weight and power of the suit. I wonder what direction they'll go with Ironheart.