Who's the better Joker: Ledger or Nicholson?

The next topic for The Great Debate is something that's a really good topic for discussion...but one which has really horrible timing. Who's the better Joker: Heath Ledger or Jack Nicholson?

This will be a question that fans will be debating for months and perhaps years to come. But ONLY after The Dark Knight is released! How can one possibly know for certain or have an opinion about Ledger's portrayal of The Joker...before the bloody movie is even IN cinemas!?

It's ridiculous. The only thing we know about Ledger's Joker is what we've heard so far...in terms of rumours...and what we've seen from the screenshots Warner Brothers have released. Beyond that, we have no idea whether he'll be as insanely maniacal as Nicholson, or even outperform Jack. It's stupid trying to compare Nicholson's virtuoso performance to someone who we haven't yet seen on the big screen.

I know people have already made up their minds about Ledger being a good choice for the role or not, but really...you've got this so so wrong Wizard. This is the WRONG time to be having a great debate about this. Wait until the movie is out first at least!

GREAT DEBATE: WHO’S THE BETTER JOKER: LEDGER OR NICHOLSON?
We pose the most important question being asked by Bat-fans these days... and we answer both sides of the debate!

Posted October 6, 2007 11:55 AM

HEATH LEDGER
In the vibrant, moody Bat-universe Tim Burton built for 1989’s “Batman,” the rubber-faced Jack Nicholson made sense as the Joker. Over-the-top, dancing, kidding around with goons and brandishing a 3-foot pistol from his ultra-purple pants, he was the best possible option at the time. But that version won’t fly in Chris Nolan’s brutal world.

The director has developed a realistic version of Gotham—a place where a fed-up socialite could actually take to the streets to clean up crime. In that case, you’d need a Joker eerily similar to today’s existentially lost counterculture—an anarchist with punk-rock sensibilities who sees life as a sick joke and carelessly fools around with the very laws someone like Batman would try and enforce because he finds their existence absurdly hilarious.

As for his appearance, some scoffed at the decision to scar Heath Ledger’s version with a permanent grin. But I see it as a terrifying twist on the bozo clowns who scared you as child and wore fake, red, caked-on makeup smiles. Ledger’s tragic, deranged Joker literally can’t stop grinning and his creepy, smeared cosmetic face mirrors the madness coursing through his body.

The bottom line is Ledger’s Joker could easily attack you on the street tonight or be hiding in your hometown, and it’s that firmly placed foot in reality that gives him an edge over Nicholson. Ledger isn’t someone you’d stop to laugh at. He’s someone you want to run the hell away from, and that’s what makes him so fun to watch.
-Rickey A. Purdin

JACK NICHOLSON
After stumbling out of a plastic surgeon’s back alley chop shop early in Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman,” Jack Nicholson became the Joker. And over the next hour as he defaced paintings, spit up chattering teeth and (admit it) chewed scenery, he cemented his place as the greatest performance of the supervillain role ever because he wasn’t just a murdering psychopath. He was funny, too.

Nicholson’s Joker took a character most remembered as a actor in his twilight years with grease paint smeared over his mustache and turned it into a genuinely scary mob enforcer the audience couldn’t help but laugh at. The actor’s menacing eyes combined with the picture-perfect grin and impeccable comic timing transformed sillier elements of the Joker mythos and the “Batman” screenplay into classic screen moments. Who else could make lines like “Where does he get those wonderful toys” and “This town needs an enema” work?

And in his creepier moments, from scarring his lover’s face as a work of art to cold-heartedly killing his second-in-command, Nicholson is equally effective in making the audience take him as a serious threat rather than a cartoonish annoyance. It was the combination of broad comedy and intense dramatic action that helped the Joker redefine the movie supervillain—a method that’s been utilized by everyone from Colin Farrell in “Daredevil” to Willem Dafoe in “Spider-Man,” but never to as strong an effect.
-Kiel Phegley

Which Thor costume is better?

Today's Great Debate: Which Thor costume is better?

THE GREAT DEBATE
Which Thor Costume Is Better?

Posted September 29, 2007 9:35 AM

CLASSIC
Before I harp on the majestic brilliance of Thor’s classic costume, let me simply say this about the new one: The guy needs chainmail?! He’s the son of Odin, a freakin’ god on Earth who commands storm clouds! Not only does it seems redundant for the Hulk’s most well-matched brawlin’ buddy to wear armor, but the conductivity of the metal alone seems counterproductive while wielding the mythical hammer that is the world’s best lightning rod. And what is the purpose of hiding the Asgardian arms that have beat back the likes of Loki and Hercules? If you’ve got god-given guns, you better flaunt ’em, because there is no better way to intimidate the monsters of Midgard than showing off a pair of perfectly sculpted hammer-hefters! That said, I don’t even need to mention the pure awesomeness of a tunic that turns into a pair of undies below the belt, but oh wait, I just did! -Jim Gibbons

CURRENT
It’s an ugly, dirty world out there full of fire demons, ice giants and government troops looking to draft you into the Superhuman Registration movement—so you can bet your sweet Asgardian ass you need an equipment upgrade now and again! First off, Marvel didn’t muck with the Thunder God’s must-haves: Thor still sports the regal red cape, the basic black chest tunic complete with armor-disc bling and the imposing knee-high sh--kickers. However, the Son of Odin has successfully ditched his tighty-whities on the outside, making way for an under-armor look that an NFL all-pro would kill to have; hey, you think Hulk or Loki don’t hit below the belt? And Thor’s tickets to the gun show are still valid, baby; now they’re just laminated for his protection. Throw in that streamlined helmet—the wings have been reduced and the headpiece lowered to guard Thor’s supermodel looks—and you’ve got a Thunder God generating 1.21 gigawatts of awesome! -Andy Serwin


Personally, I prefer the classic Thor costume. The current one certainly looks more regal, befitting a god, plus it looks more adequate for a warrior who's job is to smite others. But call me a stickler...I like the old costume better!

Should superheroes get married?

An interesting feature on Wizard Universe today: a debate about whether superheroes should get married!

THE GREAT DEBATE
Should superheroes get married?

Posted September 18, 2007 9:15 AM

YES!
by TJ Dietsch

Of course they should. I’m not saying everyone wearing a cape should settle down, but it would be completely ridiculous to assume that no superheroes should ever get married; it’s just unrealistic.

The only way to make a decades-long relationship interesting is to put it to the test through marriage. How many years of stories can you read of a secret-identity-protecting hero keeping his alter ego from the girl of his dreams? It gets boring! Some folks seem to think that wedding bells equal less thrills, but that’s only the case with writers who aren’t up to the task.

When it comes to Green Arrow and Black Canary, they’ve been together on and off for years, they’ve both grown as characters and now it’s time for playboy Ollie to settle down and make an honest woman out of Dinah. Whole new worlds of problems open up when characters get married, which just means more challenges for them, more drama for the reader and a natural evolution that just makes sense.

NO!
by Rickey Purdin

Aside from the argument that marrying superheroes ages the characters and makes younger fans less likely to identify with them, it’s just a bad idea for the sake of the characters themselves.

When heroes marry, it forces both to appear in any solo titles the pair may have at the time. And for characters like Ollie Queen, one of the few guys in comics you’d actually enjoy grabbing a beer with, it’s like a friend getting hitched and ending boys’ night out.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think heroes should date. Romance acts as a great lubricant for moving arcs along. But when you tie a hero down, guy or girl, it steals from their independent mojos and you run the risk of shipping the characters off to Boringville for a honeymoon.

And seriously, what’s with the metahuman bridal party rolling up in their costumes? Sure, it’d be funny if one of my boys slapped on a space helmet, but someone ask Adam Strange to cool it with the cosmic head gear…


Personally, I think that while it's alright for superheroes to date, it's a whole different thing altogether for them to get married. Take Spider-man, for instance. As soon as he got married to MJ, he just wasn't the same character anymore. It's kind of hard to emphatise with Spider-man, who suddenly went overnight from being a hard-luck struggling superhero, to a man married to a supermodel with nary a care in the world. I mean, we all rooted for Parker to get married with MJ...but the reality of the situation is that once they got married, it kind of took a spark out of the character.

Yes, getting married does bring up some uniquely interesting situations. Like when photos were taken of Superman kissing Lois Lane, headlines came out that Lois, who was married to a very human Clark Kent, was cheating on her husband. And who could forget Rick Jones' bachleor party before he got married to Marlo in Incredible Hulk #419? It was really funny seeing the Invisible Woman cheat and beat Captain America at pool...even funnier when Captain America had to look away and come up with the excuse "I've got something in my eyes" when he realised that the group had started watching a porno. Even FUNNIER when it was revealed that Marlo, Rick Jones' soon-to-be-wife, was the STAR of the porno.

But all in all, I think that superheroes should just stay away from the sanctity of marriage. Or if they do get married, then get a bunch of writers who won't dilute or lessen the character.