Why was the Joker so popular and acclaimed?

[Andrew]

Ledger was good though IMO not great. Why do you think the portrayal become a phenomenon?

Did the political and economic events of the time make anarchism and anarchic terrorism seem more relevant, interesting, profound?
Did the portrayal seem really unique and fresh for comic book movies, different than and better than a lot of people expected?
Did the movie, with Dent being corrupted and Batman sacrificing his reputation, make it seem like in some sense the Joker was right and won and that made him seem cooler and more significant?

[thecolorsblend]

Ledger's Joker was the result of a perfect storm that probably can't be repeated.

Obviously Ledger turned in a great performance. So it's not like popularity is unjustified. But of all the factors at play, this is probably the easiest to reproduce.

As to the other factors, one obvious one is the hype and anticipation behind TDK. A lot of people, even normies, were up for the game leading up to TDK's premiere. There was a lot of interest to see what was coming. A film either builds that kind of buzz or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, the performances ultimately won't matter because nobody cares. This is not necessarily a repeatable phenomenon.

There's also the quality of the movie itself. Nolan clearly poured a lot of creative energy into it. I do think the movie was pretty overrated for a while there. But that itself speaks to how acclaimed it was. It wasn't just the Nolan fans crapping their shorts about TDK; normies were too. TDK apparently gave a lot of people exactly what they wanted. It was a satisfying movie for them. Again, this isn't necessarily a repeatable phenomenon.

There are other factors going on too (few or none of which are repeatable) but I'll let others speak to those.

[The Laughing Fish]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people get confused between appreciating Ledger's performance than the Joker as a character. I can understand people may admire the way he immersed into the role so unrecognisably, to an extent. But in my opinion, I've never seen the appeal in this version of the character. I found him too predictable and repetitive.

Did the political and economic events of the time make anarchism and anarchic terrorism seem more relevant, interesting, profound?

A lot of people love to draw the comparisons between the Joker's violence and how it mirrored real life terrorism. A fair bit of terrorism references included his television transmissions, one of which looked similar to an Al-Qaeda video. I've got to say I've never been a huge fan of these comparisons, because I find them to be rather superficial. While I am by no means an expert in criminal psychology, terrorists like Al-Qaeda commit atrocities in the name of religious and political extremism. Trying to tie that together with the Joker, who is presented in this movie as a man whose evil can't ever be understood is, not really good way to gain insight in how these criminals' minds work in the real world. Never mind the fact that politics and religion are concepts the Joker wouldn't care about at all.

And correct me if I'm wrong, if anarchism is supposed to be the rejection of organised government, social classes in favour of self-governance, than what do those 9/11 references have got to do with anything? Actually, isn't anarchism totally different to chaos, which was what TDK's Joker wanted? I realise I might be showing my political naivete here, but I find it confusing.

Did the movie, with Dent being corrupted and Batman sacrificing his reputation, make it seem like in some sense the Joker was right and won and that made him seem cooler and more significant?

This one really drives me crazy, because you have fans insisting that the ending was "uplifting" and "heroic", but then argue that the Joker won the moral argument at the same time. To me, trying to argue for both things is totally incompatible. If Joker's point was proven because Batman and Gordon lied - which would later backfire badly once the truth was exposed in Rises - then TDK's ending is undeniably downbeat and dark. Much darker than anything we saw in the DCEU. But for some reason, darkness was lauded when Nolan dabbled into it, but it has suddenly become an issue in the latest DC movies. How convenient.

[Azrael]

Also, on a superficial level, he resonated with teens. Played by a young actor, had a bit of a rock element. He was a bit like the Marilyn Manson version of the Joker. They wore Joker T-shirts like band T-shirts.

It's funny when one remembers that the casting announcement was met with a backlash.

[Andrew]

While I am by no means an expert in criminal psychology, terrorists like Al-Qaeda commit atrocities in the name of religious and political extremism. Trying to tie that together with the Joker, who is presented in this movie as a man whose evil can't ever be understood is, not really good way to gain insight in how these criminals' minds work in the real world. Never mind the fact that politics and religion are concepts the Joker wouldn't care about at all.

The comparison can be taken too far but I think the movie Joker was more understandable and with political views, albeit mostly just anti- than for anything. He was very anti-authority and seemed to really feel that "the plan" in place often really was horrifying.

Actually, isn't anarchism totally different to chaos, which was what TDK's Joker wanted? I realise I might be showing my political naivete here, but I find it confusing.

True, the Joker is for anarchism more in the popular cliched idea of the term rather than the actual political philosophy. But, even without talking about classes, he did argue that chaos was more fair than the establishment/government/any government.

Did the movie, with Dent being corrupted and Batman sacrificing his reputation, make it seem like in some sense the Joker was right and won and that made him seem cooler and more significant?

This one really drives me crazy, because you have fans insisting that the ending was "uplifting" and "heroic", but then argue that the Joker won the moral argument at the same time. To me, trying to argue for both things is totally incompatible. If Joker's point was proven because Batman and Gordon lied - which would later backfire badly once the truth was exposed in Rises - then TDK's ending is undeniably downbeat and dark.

At least it's interesting and unique. One of the Joker's main goals was to get Batman to kill and to get him to claim he killed sure comes close.

[The Laughing Fish]

At least it's interesting and unique. One of the Joker's main goals was to get Batman to kill and to get him to claim he killed sure comes close.

Too bad then that whole idea was already undermined when we already know that Batman had killed before and more so in the last five minutes to save Gordon's son. It was rather pointless.

[The Dark Knight]

Also, on a superficial level, he resonated with teens. Played by a young actor, had a bit of a rock element. He was a bit like the Marilyn Manson version of the Joker. They wore Joker T-shirts like band T-shirts.

People fell in love with the concept of the character. Someone who appears and disappears at will, someone who strikes fear into his enemies and someone who is completely anonymous. The Joker already had these qualities, but the passing of Ledger made his performance and these elements a myth. The character and the actor merged into something supernatural. Also in the way Nolan spoke in glowing terms about the performance we were going to see. The way Zimmer described the music he had written. Footage of deceased people becomes more special, and therefore it's treasured. I think the performance itself was fine, but there's no doubt in my mind it was elevated by our own perceptions.