The man who laughs: The Joker thread

[LiveWire777]

This has been discussed ad nauseum. The general opinion is that an origin story would create a degree of sympathy and detract from the mysteriousness of the character . Mythologically, the Joker works best as a Lucifer\Loki metaphor.

Pure evil, chaos, without reason. Just like Nickelback.

I KID! good i wanna see the joker as evil and demonic as they come. If Heath could pull off being an a sodimizing cowboy he can definitely pull off the joker. toche Mr. Ledger touche

[breyfogle_rules]

good i wanna see the joker as evil and demonic as they come. If Heath could pull off being an a sodimizing cowboy he can definitely pull off the joker. toche Mr. Ledger touche
I agree. Although being a gay cowboy has little to do with being an evil murderer\villain. In fact, it probably makes one very nice. Yippee Kayay

[uchiha_itachi]

'cause im anxious :woot:



me too, i personaly think he will kick ass at this role... it something different for him, and different for us fans so i think he'll do a damn good job... also i don't think nolan would let hisfranchise get f'd in the a.

lol yeh i just cant wait to see what he looks like

[uchiha_itachi]

Ok, now just keep an open mind. But I was thinking Matt Damon as Joker. I did this manip. What do you think?

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/8315/damonjokerjq0.jpg

that owns

[breyfogle_rules]

So has anyone here actually had a dream with Ledgers joker in it yet?
I had my first one last night. It shows I think about this wayyy too much. In my dream he had a long Venom tongue. And he just had green hair but a regular face until some kindegardeners in the forest by the house I grew up in grabbed him and covered him white-face Joker make-up.
And it was all extremely scary.

[jsf]

lol yeh i just cant wait to see what he looks like

srsly, all i want is to see what he looks like... after that i can relax

So has anyone here actually had a dream with Ledgers joker in it yet?
I had my first one last night. It shows I think about this wayyy too much. In my dream he had a long Venom tongue. And he just had green hair but a regular face until some kindegardeners in the forest by the house I grew up in grabbed him and covered him white-face Joker make-up.
And it was all extremely scary.

...cocaine is a hell of a drug

[Nepenthes]

This has been discussed ad nauseum. The general opinion is that an origin story would create a degree of sympathy and detract from the mysteriousness of the character . Mythologically, the Joker works best as a Lucifer\Loki metaphor.

Pure evil, chaos, without reason.


Is that the general opinion? Cos I don't really see an origin discussed here much at all, apart from the usual 'No he should just be mysterious' comment. Not many people seem ready to consider the options (judging from posts at least, i dunno what people are thinking to themselves)


On your comment:
First, an origin needn't make a sympathetic character. If he's originally a ruthless gangster there's not going to be much to begin with, and once you start murdering innocent people you're kinda beyond empathy. Freddy Krueger and Jason both have origins and, well, yeah. On the other hand invoking sympathy for the Jokers *former self* is what makes the Killing Joke so great....by revealing how tragedy defines both Batman and Joker, order and chaos, hope and despair etc. Also if TDK is going to explore Batman's 'duality' then a Joker origin is perfect because Batman himself is in danger of losing it, going dark and crazy. E.g there'd be a scene with Alfred, "You can't let your monster control you, Master Bruce. You'll end up like him". An origin could ultimately make Bruce a more sympathetic and developed character, not the other way around.


Second, an origin can still be mysterious. TKJ handled it fine and Nolan himself is good at narrative tricks and intrigue. The clues to his origin can form a nice detective framework for the story with stuff from police, doctors and crooks providing most of the background. This way any flashbacks can be kept to a strict minimum, or they can even be glimpses occurring from the perspective of other characters, maybe contradicting each other or just theories or gangland folklore.


Third, I think the main reason for an origin is for providing context and motion to the story - not necessarily for revealing 'who the Joker really is' in a personal sense. I agree it should be *uncertain*, but not without a few crumbs to go by. It will reveal more about Batman, temptation, perseverance, cruelty and sanity if done correctly.

To me the 'mysterious is more scary' angle is a complete rip-off, the audience will definitely be feeling WTF. It works for something like The Alien (a non-human) or Hannibal Lector (whose not the central antagonist) but definitely not for a homicidal terrorist with a friggin clown face and theatrical antics. This requires explanation or he'll just be another villain with a gimmick. Just because you give it grounding it doesn't make him any less wacky, frightening or primal as a human force of carnage.



Breyfogle Rules, you think Lucifer is a good example of ...'chaos, without reason'? Yeah well me too! Except Lucifer *does* have an origin and it's very similar to the Jokers depending on how you read it. Think about it, it probably is the prime example.

[SpinyNorman]

...cocaine is a hell of a drug

I usually don't laugh at Chapelle Show jokes, but that's hilarious.

[Steek]

So has anyone here actually had a dream with Ledgers joker in it yet?
I had my first one last night. It shows I think about this wayyy too much. In my dream he had a long Venom tongue. And he just had green hair but a regular face until some kindegardeners in the forest by the house I grew up in grabbed him and covered him white-face Joker make-up.
And it was all extremely scary.

I had one where I was an extra and he sat down next to me and he was really drunk and he started talking about politics it was really weird cause i dont even like politics. next day I woke up and I saw they were looking for extras that was kinda weird to.

[sasquatchs]

If there is an origin (prefer there wasn't), I hope they innovate and don't use Killing Joke, which was awful IMO. I like your sympathy/duality ideas Nepenthes, but think that's better suited to Two Face seeing as we have an entire film to show Dent as a decent guy with a tragic fate. The obsession thing I definetely want to see expanded upon though

I like Joker to be an aberration, someone with no comforting reason you can point to to explain his outlook. That doesn't mean we can't find out some details of his past through Batman's detective work

[Muziko]

So has anyone here actually had a dream with Ledgers joker in it yet?
I had my first one last night. It shows I think about this wayyy too much. In my dream he had a long Venom tongue. And he just had green hair but a regular face until some kindegardeners in the forest by the house I grew up in grabbed him and covered him white-face Joker make-up.
And it was all extremely scary.

"Did you eat paint chips as a child?"

[Hartter]

I posted this on BOF a ways back
http://fc01.deviantart.com/files/f/2007/120/5/2/Heath_Ledger_Joker_by_Hartter.jpg

[Miranda Fox]

I posted this on BOF a ways back
http://fc01.deviantart.com/files/f/2007/120/5/2/Heath_Ledger_Joker_by_Hartter.jpg

You did that one? [ Borat ] is nice! [/ Borat ]

[hannya]

Third, I think the main reason for an origin is for providing context and motion to the story

Usually yes, but does TDK need an origin for the Joker? The context was set up beautifully by that terrific little scene at the end of BB between Batman and Gordon on the balcony. The motion will be provided by the dynamic, and that, too, has already been set up: Gotham in chaos, The Narrows lost, Crane and the Arkham inmates still loose.
My point is: I want to see, and I'm hoping for, a sequel that grabs the audience by the short and curlies for two hours and doesn't let go. A back story/origin for the Joker might slow the film down, and to be honest, I don't even really want to know who the Joker was before. I just want to see him screw with Batman's head!

[Hartter]

Thanks Miranda...I did it back when they were talking about a darker, no purple jacket Joker...who knows what look they're going for now? Everything I've seen so far reminds me of "Heat" or some 70's crime flick.

[Miranda Fox]

Thanks Miranda...I did it back when they were talking about a darker, no purple jacket Joker...who knows what look they're going for now? Everything I've seen so far reminds me of "Heat" or some 70's crime flick.

He was wearing a very nice blue outfit in the spy shots...a homage to the Arkham Asylum Joker, perhaps. Either way, I think the Joker will have quite a few different outfits as the film progresses, so there is a good chance of seeing him in classic purple at some point. :)

[breyfogle_rules]

Nepenthes - My summation of the Joker\origin topic was sort of a loose wristed throwback to Regwecs point some pages ago.

You're right though, I was thinking how Satan does have an origin while I was writing before but I was too lazy to footnote. I figured everyone would get the jist.

Yes, I know. As I said before, you seem to think that the opposite of origin x "self inflicted" is origin y "externally inflicted". My preference is for no concrete origin, as I believe that this allows the best representation in a compact film format of the pure evil that The Joker signifies in the DCU. Effectively, I want J to transcend preconceptions of the murderer or sociopath in film. I want him to conform to a paradigm staked out by Satan, Loki and Iblis rather than a previously wrought movie character.
But the time seems ripe for a recount...Any other opinions on whether or not Joker needs an origin?
:hyper:

[hannya]

Origin: No. Clear Motivation: YES YES YES

[jsf]

Is that the general opinion? Cos I don't really see an origin discussed here much at all, apart from the usual 'No he should just be mysterious' comment. Not many people seem ready to consider the options (judging from posts at least, i dunno what people are thinking to themselves)


On your comment:
First, an origin needn't make a sympathetic character. If he's originally a ruthless gangster there's not going to be much to begin with, and once you start murdering innocent people you're kinda beyond empathy. Freddy Krueger and Jason both have origins and, well, yeah. On the other hand invoking sympathy for the Jokers *former self* is what makes the Killing Joke so great....by revealing how tragedy defines both Batman and Joker, order and chaos, hope and despair etc. Also if TDK is going to explore Batman's 'duality' then a Joker origin is perfect because Batman himself is in danger of losing it, going dark and crazy. E.g there'd be a scene with Alfred, "You can't let your monster control you, Master Bruce. You'll end up like him". An origin could ultimately make Bruce a more sympathetic and developed character, not the other way around.


Second, an origin can still be mysterious. TKJ handled it fine and Nolan himself is good at narrative tricks and intrigue. The clues to his origin can form a nice detective framework for the story with stuff from police, doctors and crooks providing most of the background. This way any flashbacks can be kept to a strict minimum, or they can even be glimpses occurring from the perspective of other characters, maybe contradicting each other or just theories or gangland folklore.


Third, I think the main reason for an origin is for providing context and motion to the story - not necessarily for revealing 'who the Joker really is' in a personal sense. I agree it should be *uncertain*, but not without a few crumbs to go by. It will reveal more about Batman, temptation, perseverance, cruelty and sanity if done correctly.

To me the 'mysterious is more scary' angle is a complete rip-off, the audience will definitely be feeling WTF. It works for something like The Alien (a non-human) or Hannibal Lector (whose not the central antagonist) but definitely not for a homicidal terrorist with a friggin clown face and theatrical antics. This requires explanation or he'll just be another villain with a gimmick. Just because you give it grounding it doesn't make him any less wacky, frightening or primal as a human force of carnage.



Breyfogle Rules, you think Lucifer is a good example of ...'chaos, without reason'? Yeah well me too! Except Lucifer *does* have an origin and it's very similar to the Jokers depending on how you read it. Think about it, it probably is the prime example.

Good points... almost didn't read any of that


I usually don't laugh at Chapelle Show jokes, but that's hilarious.

Lol... how do you not laugh at his jokes?
I give them tities two thumbs down, the milks gone sour! LMAO!

I had one where I was an extra and he sat down next to me and he was really drunk and he started talking about politics it was really weird cause i dont even like politics. next day I woke up and I saw they were looking for extras that was kinda weird to.

...you should go try out to be an extra... that way you can take pics of the joker in full makeup etc, and SHH have them first!

If there is an origin (prefer there wasn't), I hope they innovate and don't use Killing Joke, which was awful IMO. I like your sympathy/duality ideas Nepenthes, but think that's better suited to Two Face seeing as we have an entire film to show Dent as a decent guy with a tragic fate. The obsession thing I definetely want to see expanded upon though

I like Joker to be an aberration, someone with no comforting reason you can point to to explain his outlook. That doesn't mean we can't find out some details of his past through Batman's detective work

How did you not like the Killing Joke?
This is why this is going to be a real hit or miss movie for batman fans, cause every batman fan loves joker, hands down no second thoughts they love him... but if he is portrayed differently than a majority will be pissed or a majority will be exstatic.
Wether there is an origin or not (i personally think there may be one, or atleast have a flash back or two since nolan was all about the flash backs in BB) I believe that 35-40% of batman fans aren't going to be to happy with the movie, but at the same time i think that the movie it's self is going to kickass and get alot of new batman fans or regain some old ones... i personally think that i'll be happy with this one cause i want to see a dark, sinister, really evil and realistic joker as opposed to the useual comic book purple clothes, bright white skin, gigantic smile, etc, I just happen to like realisim, for example in BB, it tells you step by step how he got all of his gadgets, who he had for a inside hook-up, how he got his training, etc, the first half of the movie was basically one big flash back which is somethign i think will happen in this one

[SpinyNorman]

Lol... how do you not laugh at his jokes?
I give them tities two thumbs down, the milks gone sour! LMAO!


They get overused a hell of a lot... But that was perfect because everyone was like, what the sweet Christ is this man talking about

[breyfogle_rules]

Origin: No. Clear Motivation: YES YES YES

But isn't the Jokers thing all about having no motivation? Thats why he's so hard to catch. He doesnt have a reason. He's just crazy. Right?

I dunno...

[breyfogle_rules]

If there is an origin (prefer there wasn't), I hope they innovate and don't use Killing Joke, which was awful IMO. I like your sympathy/duality ideas Nepenthes, but think that's better suited to Two Face seeing as we have an entire film to show Dent as a decent guy with a tragic fate. The obsession thing I definetely want to see expanded upon though

I like Joker to be an aberration, someone with no comforting reason you can point to to explain his outlook. That doesn't mean we can't find out some details of his past through Batman's detective work

Agreed

:ninja: and just between you and me, I wasn't wild about TKJ either. Moore spilled the beans too much...he has a tendency to be overwrought at times. Like "Promethea" :ninja:

[AndrewGilkison]

But isn't the Jokers thing all about having no motivation? Thats why he's so hard to catch. He doesnt have a reason. He's just crazy. Right?

I dunno...

Joker's best stories are when he has motivation and logic behind his actions, but it's all sick and twisted and only makes sense to him and him alone.

[breyfogle_rules]

Well, yeah. Like what was that one about the talking fish or something?

[AndrewGilkison]

The Laughing Fish. It's where he used toxin to mutate Gotham's fish stock to look like The Joker and he tried to get them copyrighted so he could get royalities off them.

[breyfogle_rules]

Genius.
Well that about cements your point right there.
Touche' pussycat!

[jsf]

They get overused a hell of a lot... But that was perfect because everyone was like, what the sweet Christ is this man talking about

oh true, lol. yeah when he said that that was the first thing that popped into my head.

The Laughing Fish. It's where he used toxin to mutate Gotham's fish stock to look like The Joker and he tried to get them copyrighted so he could get royalities off them.

hope they don't do somethign like that in the movie... i forgot about that

[Dirt Like Me]

How did you not like the Killing Joke?

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks the Killing Joke is overrated. I like the art, but there's a lot of things about the story that bother me.

Quick list:
1) The ending. Batman should've put a beating on the Joker after what he did, not laugh with him.
2) I think the way Joker finds out his wife died--some dude just telling him so--is pretty bad storytelling.
3) It's a pretty cynical view of the world to think that one bad day can take an average family man and make him into a homicidal maniac.

And also, the parallels between Bats and Joker are overstated: Batman isn't a force for good in Gotham because his parents were killed--he likely would've been a good person anyway because Thomas and Martha were philanthropists and would've raised him that way. Their murder affected how he chose to fight evil, not his decision to do so. Likewise, I think that the accident the Joker had wouldn't make a basically good man go extremely bad. The idea I like better is that the accident made a bad person into a worse one. So I much prefer the idea that pre-Joker was a hardened criminal.

As for an origin in TDK: I'd rather use the screentime some other way. I'd be satisfied with some kind rooftop discussion between Batman, Gordon and Dent where Gordon and Dent hypothesize about who the Joker might be, and Bats could cut them off and say that it doesn't matter who he was anymore, only that they stop him. (There was a discussion along these lines between Dick, Tim and Bruce in Detective 826).

[breyfogle_rules]

SUPPOSEDLY, HEATH LEDGER IS HANDSOME.

LADIES. GENTLEMEN. IS THIS TRUE?

As I stated previously, to much mockery, I think his eyes are too close together. I think he looks like Chaka from Land of the Lost.

http://homepage.mac.com/nigelstewart/iblog/B1761793398/C600263800/E1475991199/Media/chaka.jpg

[SpinyNorman]

SUPPOSEDLY, HEATH LEDGER IS HANDSOME.

LADIES. GENTLEMEN. IS THIS TRUE?

As I stated previously, to much mockery, I think his eyes are too close together. I think he looks like Chaka from Land of the Lost.

http://homepage.mac.com/nigelstewart/iblog/B1761793398/C600263800/E1475991199/Media/chaka.jpg

You're right, the resemblance is unmistakeable, like they were separated at birth

[breyfogle_rules]

Chaka not like you tone.

Chaka think you make fun of Chaka.

[Noir]

Are you trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball!?

[jsf]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks the Killing Joke is overrated. I like the art, but there's a lot of things about the story that bother me.

Quick list:
1) The ending. Batman should've put a beating on the Joker after what he did, not laugh with him.
2) I think the way Joker finds out his wife died--some dude just telling him so--is pretty bad storytelling.
3) It's a pretty cynical view of the world to think that one bad day can take an average family man and make him into a homicidal maniac.

And also, the parallels between Bats and Joker are overstated: Batman isn't a force for good in Gotham because his parents were killed--he likely would've been a good person anyway because Thomas and Martha were philanthropists and would've raised him that way. Their murder affected how he chose to fight evil, not his decision to do so. Likewise, I think that the accident the Joker had wouldn't make a basically good man go extremely bad. The idea I like better is that the accident made a bad person into a worse one. So I much prefer the idea that pre-Joker was a hardened criminal.

As for an origin in TDK: I'd rather use the screentime some other way. I'd be satisfied with some kind rooftop discussion between Batman, Gordon and Dent where Gordon and Dent hypothesize about who the Joker might be, and Bats could cut them off and say that it doesn't matter who he was anymore, only that they stop him. (There was a discussion along these lines between Dick, Tim and Bruce in Detective 826).

point taken and i do have to say that i didn't like that joker was a normal everyday good guy and then all of a sudden he is insane, didn't buy it...


what about the graphic novel Arkham Asylum, how do you feel about that one?

[sasquatchs]

Likewise, I think that the accident the Joker had wouldn't make a basically good man go extremely bad. The idea I like better is that the accident made a bad person into a worse one. So I much prefer the idea that pre-Joker was a hardened criminal.



Exactly, I think Joker has become too "big" for one event that can satisfyingly explain him. Maybe we're all wrong and Joker has the right outlook on life. Besides, one man going insane by disfigurement is enough for one film.

[Dirt Like Me]

Exactly, I think Joker has become too "big" for one event that can satisfyingly explain him.

:up:
There's a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of whathaveyous.

That being said, it's just my opinion and I certainly don't begrudge anybody who thinks The Killing Joke is the be all and end all of Joker stories. It's interesting, the artwork is great, and if nothing else it makes you think about what you see as the foundations of the Joker as a character.

As for Arkham Asylum: It's solid. Not my favorite (and I'm glad DC put their foot down at Morrison's Joker/Madonna idea), but it's so unlike most other things in both artwork and psychological depth that I have a tough time comparing it other books.

[hannya]

Arkham Asylum: Miller did a more subtle twist on the Joker's sexuality in the Dark Knight Returns. The Joker is camp in a very heterosexual way; his appearance is borderline drag after all. He's like an evil Eddie Izzard in other words! I'm interested to see how Nolan approaches this, ahem, delicate area. Burton made Nicholson's Joker (or did Nicholson?) aggressively straight. But a Joker who has some strange erotic fixation with Batman's power is a dark and intersting alley to explore (vicar). See the Dark Knight Returns: "Batman.... DARLING."
I like the possibility of a Joker who will taunt Batman for dressing up in black rubber and a cape!

[X.M.D.]

Well...Of course I cant judge Ledger's Joker yet...but...wouldnt director Quentin Tarantino (lol) do a terrific crime clown (visually speaking only)??????!!!

I made this manip...not so good, but I had lotsa fun workin on it:
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1199/sjokerpa7.jpg
Enjoy the meal! :woot: :woot: :woot:

[Nepenthes]

Fu*kin lol!

I actually once ate a fruit bat. In red wine sauce. Tough but delicious.

And no Tarantino is one of the most cringe-worthy actors ever but damn that's funny ^. Good manip too.

[X.M.D.]

Thanx! :woot:

[itsthebatman]

God, no. Tarantino is an awful actor. When he played the thief in a Broadway adaptation of Wait Until Dark, he got some of the worst reviews ever and the show closed way early.

[X.M.D.]

Hey...dont take it seriously...it was just for fun...lol!

[itsthebatman]

Yikes. That was a quick response. Don't worry, mate, I'm not taking it seriously. Just... no.

[Muziko]

Did you see Tarantino in Pulp Ficiton? It was almost embarrassing watching him look as if he were reading lines off of a card in the presence of excellent actors (Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Harvey Keitel) I wonder what Tarantino's take on Batman would be....

Nah, he'd just make it a dark Kung Fu flick.

[Nepenthes]

I'd love to see a Tarantino Batman film though. It would be pretty out there. Mind you I wasn't too impressed with Kill Bill story wise so he'd have to get some assist with the script, or at least go back to making real movies again.

[The Guard]

First, an origin needn't make a sympathetic character. If he's originally a ruthless gangster there's not going to be much to begin with, and once you start murdering innocent people you're kinda beyond empathy.

Here's the thing. We've seen the ruthless gangster angle already. In a little movie called BATMAN. We don't need an origin to develop Bruce/Batman as a character. The duality between them can be explored via The Joker's actions, Batman's reactions to them, and his methods. An origin would only serve to lessen the Joker's "mystique".
1) The ending. Batman should've put a beating on the Joker after what he did, not laugh with him.
I thought he did. Didn't he? Or does he just give the speech to him? That speech is more powerful anyway.
2) I think the way Joker finds out his wife died--some dude just telling him so--is pretty bad storytelling.
Yeah.
3) It's a pretty cynical view of the world to think that one bad day can take an average family man and make him into a homicidal maniac.
Sort of, but you're kind of missing the point of Moore's writing. Moore doesn't think that's what made The Joker turn. It was something inside him, and the choices he made. It's not so much cynical as it is an apologetic point of view from The Joker to excuse his actions. The Joker is saying "I'm not responsible for who I am", when the story shows otherwise. This is the point THE KILLING JOKE revolves around. Bad things happening to you do not give you the license to become a chaotic force. That's the division in thinking between Batman and The Joker. "One bad day" made The Joker turn on everyone around him, via his choices. One bad day made Batman seek to help people, via his choices. Alan Moore clearly doesn't buy into the Joker's philosophy (where he can explain away his actions via sheer insanity), which is why he has Batman say in the end "Maybe everyone doesn't go insane. Maybe it was just you all along."
And also, the parallels between Bats and Joker are overstated: Batman isn't a force for good in Gotham because his parents were killed--he likely would've been a good person anyway because Thomas and Martha were philanthropists and would've raised him that way. Their murder affected how he chose to fight evil, not his decision to do so.
Perhaps, but its arguable that their deaths certainly made him much more of a force for good than he would have been. And it doesn't change that Bruce still had a different reaction to personal injury, which was the point of the story. The Joker's reaction to being hurt himself was to hurt others. Bruce's was to help others. That's the point of the dynamic between them.
Likewise, I think that the accident the Joker had wouldn't make a basically good man go extremely bad. The idea I like better is that the accident made a bad person into a worse one. So I much prefer the idea that pre-Joker was a hardened criminal.
Again, that's the point. It was The Joker, and his character, all along, who used the incidents to justify hurting other people.
I still think that The Joker's origin should not be shown. Not because it will ruin the character, but it will take valuable time out of the film that could be used to further flesh out Bruce, Alfred, Gordon, Harvey Dent, and the story itself. Explore who The Joker is and why he is, certainly. But we don't neccessarily need to see his origins.

[ghost_x]

I thought Tarantino was bearable in Dusk Till Dawn, than again I thought Clooney was really really good in it as well

[The Guard]

Tarantino may not be a good actor, but neither does he pretend to be. All he ever does is provide an interesting/annoying screen presence. It's not like his scenes are boring or uninteresting. The Bonnie Situation sequences from PULP FICTION are some of the more unique scenes I've seen in film.

[X.M.D.]

Tarantino may not be a good actor, but neither does he pretend to be. All he ever does is provide an interesting/annoying screen presence. It's not like his scenes are boring or uninteresting. The Bonnie Situation sequences from PULP FICTION are some of the more unique scenes I've seen in film.

True to the bones.

[Muziko]

Tarantino may not be a good actor, but neither does he pretend to be. All he ever does is provide an interesting/annoying screen presence. It's not like his scenes are boring or uninteresting. The Bonnie Situation sequences from PULP FICTION are some of the more unique scenes I've seen in film.

I agree...that scene was unique. In fact, I like that entire movie. It's my favorite out of all films Tarantino has done.

What if Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Miller team up to do a Batman? Kind of like the situation with Sin City. I'm not saying make it in the same style of Sin City (Although that would be interesting...except for if they did that now it would just be copying...) It'd have to be rated R though... bring some of that violence and imagery into Batman... would be interesting.

[breyfogle_rules]

Arkham Asylum: Miller did a more subtle twist on the Joker's sexuality in the Dark Knight Returns. The Joker is camp in a very heterosexual way; his appearance is borderline drag after all. He's like an evil Eddie Izzard in other words! I'm interested to see how Nolan approaches this, ahem, delicate area. Burton made Nicholson's Joker (or did Nicholson?) aggressively straight. But a Joker who has some strange erotic fixation with Batman's power is a dark and intersting alley to explore (vicar). See the Dark Knight Returns: "Batman.... DARLING."
I like the possibility of a Joker who will taunt Batman for dressing up in black rubber and a cape!

Very well said :word:

[itsthebatman]

Tarantino may not be a good actor, but neither does he pretend to be. All he ever does is provide an interesting/annoying screen presence. It's not like his scenes are boring or uninteresting. The Bonnie Situation sequences from PULP FICTION are some of the more unique scenes I've seen in film.
Then he shouldn't act.
I don't even find him that interesting. I just found him plain awful in From Dusk Till Dawn - the movie increased exponentially in quality once he left the scene. I mean, it was embarrassing watching him try to act alongside George and Harvey. Which is surely not the point.

[DieSmiling]

How did you not like the Killing Joke?

I think he was just referring to TKJ as a Joker origin. I love TKJ, but I hate the whole "Joker is a failing comedian" storyline.

[Nepenthes]

Here's the thing. We've seen the ruthless gangster angle already. In a little movie called BATMAN.
Well my point here was that an origin needn't make him sympathetic and the gangster was an example. But anyway.....

I don't think it really matters that we've seen a gangster origin before. No one's gonna say "been there done that" if it's pulled off well, and of course, any Joker origin should be inconclusive and hypothetical in the vein of the comics. B89 didn't do THAT.


An origin would only serve to lessen the Joker's "mystique".I made it clear in the same post that an origin can still retain and even CREATE plenty of mystique. It's a Nolan film; he's a natural at these kind of tricks. Use contradicting viewpoints, vague flashbacks, puzzling clues etc and a twist at the end that leaves us guessing.

And again the 'total mystery is more scary' thing is a complete rip off, it won't work for the Joker. Imagine you're a casual movie goer and this guy shows up...you'll wanna know his story, it takes him beyond just another 'nasty villain'. Also he's very different from the Alien or Lector or any other mysterious examples you can cite, and grounding his character does not make the Joker any less wacky or frightening.

In fact looking at TKJ, some grounding actually makes him MORE horrifying. When we attempt to understand him we recoil in dismay. It's liking reading literature from terrorists and fundamentalists; you feel sick to the stomach because you know they're warped beyond reason or constraint. They'll do anything to hurt you.


We don't need an origin to develop Bruce/Batman as a character. The duality between them can be explored via The Joker's actions, Batman's reactions to them, and his methods.This is true, but then you continued with this.....about his past.....

It's not so much cynical as it is an apologetic point of view from The Joker to excuse his actions. The Joker is saying "I'm not responsible for who I am", when the story shows otherwise. This is the point THE KILLING JOKE revolves around. Bad things happening to you do not give you the license to become a chaotic force. ^
See this is great, don't you wanna see aspect on film? If so you can't do it without referencing a tragedy in the Jokers past and I don't think a passing mention will suffice. If they're gonna do it should be illustrated it properly in flashbacks, exposition or at least in a trail of clues.

Of course people can people say the Joker/Batman dynamic works fine without the 'tragic origins' angle, and that's true, but IMO it's too good to leave off screen. It's at the core of Joker/Batman and hope/despair and the only reason it's left out of many comics is because we readers are already aware of it in some way or another. But for a casual audience it could be invaluable in tying the movie together.



I still think that The Joker's origin should not be shown. Not because it will ruin the character, but it will take valuable time out of the film that could be used to further flesh out Bruce, Alfred, Gordon, Harvey Dent, and the story itself. Explore who The Joker is and why he is, certainly. But we don't necessarily need to see his origins.Rather than detract from screen time the main reason I want an origin is to provide some framework for the movie. What detective work do you think Batman should be doing here? It's a natural outcome of the plot; as he tracks down the Joker and navigates the gang war he's started Batman uncovers a trail into his past, revealing a little about the Joker, sure....but much more about Batmans abilities and motivation, his struggle with duality (giving in to the monster...leading into TwoTace) and providing a tour of Gotham city. All exposition on the Joker would be driving the plot and actual flashbacks could feasibly comprise only a couple of minutes of screen time.

[jsf]

What if Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Miller team up to do a Batman? Kind of like the situation with Sin City. I'm not saying make it in the same style of Sin City (Although that would be interesting...except for if they did that now it would just be copying...) It'd have to be rated R though... bring some of that violence and imagery into Batman... would be interesting.

:wow: :wow: Don't know why I didn't think of that, specially since a few of the batman graphic novels are drawn very similar... maybe a Tarantino, Miller and Lobe! :wow: Filmed with a cross between 300, Sin City, SKy Captain and B89... dark, gothic, artsy... that'd be sweet

[X.M.D.]

What if Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Miller team up to do a Batman? Kind of like the situation with Sin City. I'm not saying make it in the same style of Sin City (Although that would be interesting...except for if they did that now it would just be copying...) It'd have to be rated R though... bring some of that violence and imagery into Batman... would be interesting.

It would be PERFECT. Zack Snyder could be in the mix too, in some way.

[Nepenthes]

^ Awesome...just keep Rodriguez and Miller the hell away from it. :cwink:

[Schlosser85]

I agree with the person who said "Motivation- Yes, Origin- No". I think The Joker should at most drop vague, contradictory hints about his background, just tantalizing little clues of where he comes from and what happened to him while remaining mysterious. But I do think he should have some kind of scene where he goes into his "philosophy", kind of like in The Killing Joke when he is talking to Batman about how the world is insane, etc. If he really comes on the air on the radio show in TDK like the one casting side has us suspecting, I think that might be a good scene for him to go into a little of his worldview.

[ryan dube]

oh great, then Robin would be cast cause Batman would have to tell him what they call a royal with cheese in Gotham

[itsthebatman]

oh great, then Robin would be cast cause Batman would have to tell him what they call a royal with cheese in Gotham
And then they could have a discussion about Batman giving Catwoman a foot job.
'It's not in the same ball park! It ain't even the same sport!'

Or the Commish rings Batman.
'How long will it take you to get there?'
'Thirty minutes. I'll see you in ten.'
(Nine minutes and thirty seven seconds later)

[Agentsands77]

And again the 'total mystery is more scary' thing is a complete rip off, it won't work for the Joker.
Uh... well, beyond establishing some details, some theories as to why his skin is scarred white, his hair is green (ala the detective work Batman does in THE MAN WHO LAUGHS), we don't need anything beyond that.

In fact looking at TKJ, some grounding actually makes him MORE horrifying. When we attempt to understand him we recoil in dismay.
It never had that effect on me. Instead of being genuinely, truly chaotic and sadistic for its sake, he has a deeper motivation for it. He's really just another poor soul where tragedy leads to madness (a cliche for all psychotic villains... even HANNIBAL RISING felt the need to beat that dead horse, and the upcoming Rob Zombie HALLOWEEN will do the same). It's more unique to have him be something other, something beyond our understanding.

And, frankly, I just don't buy the whole tragedy angle. I don't buy that some adult tragedy, would turn anyone into that, unless it was really, truly vicious repeated torture and mental scarring. Which isn't what we're talking about here.

Of course people can people say the Joker/Batman dynamic works fine without the 'tragic origins' angle, and that's true, but IMO it's too good to leave off screen. It's at the core of Joker/Batman and hope/despair and the only reason it's left out of many comics is because we readers are already aware of it in some way or another.
If it works fine without it, and has and often does, then it's not the core of Joker/Batman. It's the core of a more tragic Joker than often gets portrayed, really.

And no, the only reason it's left out of many comics is not just because we're aware of it - it's because many of the comic book authors disagree with the origin, and rightfully so, if you ask me. Unless a story makes a reference to it in some form, it cannot be assumed as having anything to do with that origin.

Rather than detract from screen time the main reason I want an origin is to provide some framework for the movie. What detective work do you think Batman should be doing here? It's a natural outcome of the plot; as he tracks down the Joker and navigates the gang war he's started Batman uncovers a trail into his past, revealing a little about the Joker, sure....
Sure, but that doesn't mean he actually finds out anything about him, really, aside from a few details of his origin, ala THE MAN WHO LAUGHS.

[jsf]

And then they could have a discussion about Batman giving Catwoman a foot job.
'It's not in the same ball park! It ain't even the same sport!'

Or the Commish rings Batman.
'How long will it take you to get there?'
'Thirty minutes. I'll see you in ten.'
(Nine minutes and thirty seven seconds later)


Batman: we shoulda brougth shotguns for this.

Gordon: how many up there?

Batman: 5-10, includeing our guy.

...

Gordon: we shoulda brought shotguns for this.... damn escalation

[batmaluco]

^ Awesome...just keep Rodriguez and Miller the hell away from it. :cwink:
^ Exactly. :up:

[jsf]

OR... they could go this route.


Gordon: Oh, im sorry... did i break your concentration?
please continue, i believe you were saying something about best intentions and jsut being a joke.

Gordon: Oh, you were through... well then allow me to retort.
What does batman look like?

Joker: What?

Gordon: What country you from!?

Joker: What!?

Gordon: "What" ain't no country i ever heard of... they speak english in what?

Joker: Wwhatt?

Gordon: ENGLISH MUTHER FVKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT!?

Joker: Yyess...

Gordon: Then you understand what i'm saying?!

Joker: Yyyess.

Gordon: Now describe for me what Batman looks like?

Joker: wwHat? ...

Gordon: Say "What" again! C'mon, say "What" again! I dare ya, I doubledare ya motherfvker, say "What"one more goddamn time!!!

Joker: Well.. He's black... big...

Gordon: Go on...

Joker: He's tall, wears a mask...

Gordon: Does he look like a *****?

Joker: wWhat?

BLAM!

Gordon: does-he-look-like-a-*****?

Joker: NO!

Gordon: Then why'd you try to screw him like one?

Joker: I didn't

Gordon: Yes you did J, yes you did... you ever read the bible Joker?

Joker: yyes.

Gordon: There's this passage I got memerized...
seems appropriate for this situation: Gotham 25:17. "The path of the righteous is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of supervilains. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the darkness of Gotham, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my City. And you will know my name is the Gordon when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

BLAM BLAM BOOM BLAM BOOM!

/sceene... that'd sell for sure!

[Pythenis]

Silly request, but will some photoshop experts make a gif. of that scene from 300 where the black guy says "This is madness" and the King says " madness? this is SPARTA!!!" then kicks the guy....

But photoshop the Jokers face on the king and Batman in for the black guy with this dialog.... batman- "this is madness" Joker-" madness? This is JOKER!!" then he kicks batman down the hole.

I know it's silly, but Im bored at work.......

[Nepenthes]

Uh... well, beyond establishing some details, some theories as to why his skin is scarred white, his hair is green (ala the detective work Batman does in THE MAN WHO LAUGHS), we don't need anything beyond that.

I mostly agree, but if he's betrayed by mobsters it would tie into the gang war quite well (maybe even Batman causing underworld chaos in BB?) and of course there's stuff that can mirror Batman's struggle/motivation quite nicely as did Ra's and Scarecrow, so there's some other useful info there.



It's more unique to have him be something other, something beyond our understanding.I'm warming to it. But I still think that just being the Joker (even after whatever accident is explained) can still be quite beyond comprehension. Kinda in the same way that Batman is. Okay, his parents died and he's had training....but is that a reason for Batman existing and doing what he does? No, there's something dark and strange and insurmountable inside Bruce. Supernatural force of will. Match that kind of inexplicable, inhuman intensity to the Joker - demonic in the way he pursues pleasure from cruelty.


And no, the only reason it's left out of many comics is not just because we're aware of it - it's because many of the comic book authors disagree with the origin, and rightfully so, if you ask me. Unless a story makes a reference to it in some form, it cannot be assumed as having anything to do with that origin.I didn't mean the specific comedian stuff, just a background rooted in tragedy from before the chemical accident. Could be anything. To me this comes through in most Joker portrayals in some way or another, or maybe I just put it there myself.


Sure, but that doesn't mean he actually finds out anything about him, really, aside from a few details of his origin, ala THE MAN WHO LAUGHS.Exactly. Who he was briefly and how he got messed up. The origin itself isn't really a pay-off it's more about Batman having a mystery to follow and reflect on. For instance that side where the Cop interrogates a Thug about a buried mob boss, if that's actually about the Joker that's exactly what I'm talking about, awesome. Otherwise the Joker should mostly do his own talking. I just don't get people who say 'No origin, total mystery' as if he simply popped up out of hell.

[breyfogle_rules]

And you are certainly right about Nolan's abilities. Even with my strong view on no origin, I could see Nolan doing his flashback magic and making something acceptable.

[Agentsands77]

I mostly agree, but if he's betrayed by mobsters it would tie into the gang war quite well (maybe even Batman causing underworld chaos in BB?)
Sure, but it doesn't seem like he's only attacking mobsters. In the sides, he targets a seemingly decent judge.

Match that kind of inexplicable, inhuman intensity to the Joker - demonic in the way he pursues pleasure from cruelty.
Granted, but that would take a lot of time and development to establish, and since I think the Joker's not really going to be on screen all that much in THE DARK KNIGHT, it's better to just not go there.

I didn't mean the specific comedian stuff, just a background rooted in tragedy from before the chemical accident. Could be anything. To me this comes through in most Joker portrayals in some way or another, or maybe I just put it there myself.
I think it's the latter.

That never comes through to me in any Joker portrayals aside from the ones that have direct reference to THE KILLING JOKE. I don't see any evidence of tragedy in, say, Paul Dini's Joker stories or the BTAS (in fact, he provides an entirely alternate and brilliant origin in BATMAN: BLACK AND WHITE, suggesting the Joker isn't insane at all...), or Jeph Loeb's Joker, or Denny O'Neil's Joker, Grant Morrison's Joker (which has firmly brought the sort of "supersanity" concept into continuity), or countless other portrayals.

Exactly. Who he was briefly and how he got messed up.
THE MAN WHO LAUGHS deals with none of those. It deals purely with the physical aspect, but at the end of THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, we have no idea who the Joker was as a person, whether he was already psychotic beforehand, or what. All we know is that it's likely he was one of the Red Hoods, and he fell in a vat of chemicals. That's enough to satisfy audience curiosity and leave everything else a mystery.

I just don't get people who say 'No origin, total mystery' as if he simply popped up out of hell.
Because it's fun that way. Obviously, certain things will always be known (that his look derives from chemical scarring). But specifics should be left as mostly speculation, as opposed to concrete fact. If at the end of the movie, there are a few alternate suggestions as to who he is, and Batman concludes that only the Joker really knows, then I would be overjoyed.

[breyfogle_rules]

You know that one part in 300 were he's all "get 'im!" and they're all like "aarrrrrrrrrr"?

That was awsome.

[The Guard]

Then he shouldn't act.
A lot of people "shouldn't act". A lot of people make it in Hollywood simply because they're good looking, or unique looking, or because they did...something...to get them to that level, or because they're simply embraced by a portion of the population and packaged like a product. It's not about pure talent or even hard work. I've worked with several actors that can run circles around a lot of decent actors, and even some great ones, and I've only done semi-professional theatre. If there's a market for Tarantino, what's the big deal with him acting a tiny bit every so often?
I don't even find him that interesting.
But a lot of other people do. Just because you personally find him uninteresting doesn't mean that there isn't a market out there that likes him. And clearly there is.
I just found him plain awful in From Dusk Till Dawn - the movie increased exponentially in quality once he left the scene. I mean, it was embarrassing watching him try to act alongside George and Harvey. Which is surely not the point.
He's not trying to act. He's trying to be himself, and put an interesting element into the movie. It's like watching half the "famous" people out there do their thing. A lot of them are hardly even trying in terms of how much work they put into their acting. They're just doing what comes naturally, and it happens to fit a certain kind of role.
Well my point here was that an origin needn't make him sympathetic and the gangster was an example. But anyway.....I don't think it really matters that we've seen a gangster origin before. No one's gonna say "been there done that" if it's pulled off well, and of course, any Joker origin should be inconclusive and hypothetical in the vein of the comics. B89 didn't do THAT.
I personally think it's a bit of a copout for a creative person to establish another "gangster" pre-Joker, or even a criminal pre-Joker. In 1989, it was somewhat new and fresh an idea, and it included the most recognizeable elements of his classic origin to boot. In 2008, it won't be new, and it will feel that much more like a rehash. if you're trying to establish "what The Joker was beforehand", I think it's kind of lazy to say "Let's take Tim Burton's ideas and just improve them with more development". The only time I feel ok with this kind of idea-borrowing is when you're shooting for an element of faithfulness to the source material. And frankly, even though his accepted origin in the comics is that he robbed a chemical factory, and was therefore a criminal to begin with, I still think it's a bit of a stretch to use even that, especially in the universe Nolan is creating for Batman. It just feels...awkward.
made it clear in the same post that an origin can still retain and even CREATE plenty of mystique. It's a Nolan film; he's a natural at these kind of tricks. Use contradicting viewpoints, vague flashbacks, puzzling clues etc and a twist at the end that leaves us guessing.
So what you want is vague hints at an origin? Not an origin itself?

And again the 'total mystery is more scary' thing is a complete rip off, it won't work for the Joker.
I don't think a mysterious Joker is neccessarily "scarier". But it IS more interesting and has more possibilities, and makes the audience think that much more about the character and the world. You don't have to worry about limiting a character so much when you don't define their origins and motivations as rigidly.
Imagine you're a casual movie goer and this guy shows up...you'll wanna know his story, it takes him beyond just another 'nasty villain'.
So what? The problem with this is...that The Joker IS a "nasty villain". He is the epitome of all that is wrong with our society. He is someone who hurts other people because he was hurt or changed. Which society generally deems wrong. For me, it is far more interesting to see BATMAN having to resist BECOMING that...and to see the cost of devaluing life, and allowing our setbacks to turn us into monsters (through Batman's eyes, not the Joker's), than to see why The Joker became what he did. It's also more efficient writing, in terms of screentime. And they have to introduce a number of characters once again, flesh out existing ones, and seek out a good story.
Also he's very different from the Alien or Lector or any other mysterious examples you can cite, and grounding his character does not make the Joker any less wacky or frightening.
But it does limit what he was, and in some ways, what he can be, which is the point.
In fact looking at TKJ, some grounding actually makes him MORE horrifying. When we attempt to understand him we recoil in dismay. It's liking reading literature from terrorists and fundamentalists; you feel sick to the stomach because you know they're warped beyond reason or constraint. They'll do anything to hurt you.
Why would grounding The Joker make him more horrifying, exactly? Because he has recognizeable motivations? It still limits him. Ex: I don't need to know The Joker fell into a vat of chemicals and that's what made his hair green, skin white, etc. All I care is that SOMETHING happened to him at some point...and his reaction to that was to spend his life hurting others and wreaking havoc.

See this is great, don't you wanna see aspect on film? If so you can't do it without referencing a tragedy in the Jokers past and I don't think a passing mention will suffice. If they're gonna do it should be illustrated it properly in flashbacks, exposition or at least in a trail of clues.
You most certainly can see that aspect without referencing a specific tragedy. And without tragedy itself. It's entirely possible that one day The Joker woke up, realized something about the world, and was driven insane by it, and no personal tragedy was involved. It's entirely possible he simply decided that life is a joke, and acted accordingly. Reference a tragedy all you want. I just don't need/want to see what that tragedy was. It limits The Joker, and it might well be utterly ridiculous explanation of why the man has green hair, white skin, etc. Remember, The Joker will likely play a key role in the third film. The writers shouldn't explain everything about him now. He is THE villain in the Batman mythology. If Batman knows everytyhing about him by the end of THE DARK KNIGHT, what's left to explore in Batman 3?

Of course people can people say the Joker/Batman dynamic works fine without the 'tragic origins' angle, and that's true, but IMO it's too good to leave off screen. It's at the core of Joker/Batman and hope/despair and the only reason it's left out of many comics is because we readers are already aware of it in some way or another. But for a casual audience it could be invaluable in tying the movie together.
You can still have hope/despair, tragic origions, personal choice and all of that without showing Joker's actual specific origin.
Rather than detract from screen time the main reason I want an origin is to provide some framework for the movie.
Mistake number one. Then it becomes BATMAN BEGINS 2: JOKER THE MOVIE. Isn't that the issue people had with BATMAN? That The Joker's origin drove the plot? What should drive the plot in Batman 2 is escalating tensions and duality issues in general. I don't want to see a plot that spins out of The Joker's origin. Why can't what The Joker does, and Batman's reaction to it, be the driving plot? Why does it have to be a ton of exposition?
What detective work do you think Batman should be doing here? It's a natural outcome of the plot; as he tracks down the Joker and navigates the gang war he's started Batman uncovers a trail into his past, revealing a little about the Joker, sure....but much more about Batmans abilities and motivation, his struggle with duality (giving in to the monster...leading into TwoTace) and providing a tour of Gotham city. All exposition on the Joker would be driving the plot and actual flashbacks could feasibly comprise only a couple of minutes of screen time.
I want to see just that...Batman analyzing data, making deductions, investigating tirelessly, and trying to stop the guy. Not spending all his time figuring out who The Joker was. None of this CSI-era "We have stumbled onto exactly who the killer was via his past" stuff. The most mundane of clues catches criminals. Is it important to know some things about a killer's personality? But that's profiling. THOUSANDS of killers fit various profiles. Real detective work is not nearly as glamorous as all that. Who the Joker is, and where he's at, or where he will strike, is far more relevant than who he was. Batman wouldn't be wasting his time trying to find out where The Joker came from. He'd be trying to track him down, period. Remember, half of Gotham will be after The Joker in THE DARK KNIGHT.
This is just my opinion, of course. But I don't think The Joker is someone who needs to be explained. Not with a complete origin, which limits his potential in both directions. I think there are good reasons not to delve into who he is, not the least of which is the screentime involved, and what that takes away from other characters. In some ways, I think it's better to generalize it. That way, when Bruce starts the Wayne Foundation (If they don't use this angle they're fools) to help the underpriviledged, he's not only fighting crime, he's attempting to prevent future criminals.
It never had that effect on me. Instead of being genuinely, truly chaotic and sadistic for its sake, he has a deeper motivation for it. He's really just another poor soul where tragedy leads to madness (a cliche for all psychotic villains... even HANNIBAL RISING felt the need to beat that dead horse, and the upcoming Rob Zombie HALLOWEEN will do the same). It's more unique to have him be something other, something beyond our understanding.
I'd tend to agree. There's nothing that will excuse The Joker's actions, and I have yet to see a satisfying explanation for his "insanity" that doesn't destroy his mystique. His origins are my least favorite part of THE KILLING JOKE, because they limit his psychology a bit.

And, frankly, I just don't buy the whole tragedy angle. I don't buy that some adult tragedy, would turn anyone into that, unless it was really, truly vicious repeated torture and mental scarring. Which isn't what we're talking about here.
Agreed. Although something like that could easily be HINTED at.
If it works fine without it, and has and often does, then it's not the core of Joker/Batman. It's the core of a more tragic Joker than often gets portrayed, really.

And no, the only reason it's left out of many comics is not just because we're aware of it - it's because many of the comic book authors disagree with the origin, and rightfully so, if you ask me. Unless a story makes a reference to it in some form, it cannot be assumed as having anything to do with that origin.
Yep. That origin, while being the generally accepted one, still limits him as a chartacter. And with a character like The Joker, that's just an enormous mistake. If you say "One bad day, or a dip in chemicals drove him crazy", then he's crazy, and you lose a LOT of depth that comes from "what if he's not crazy? What is insanity?" And so forth.

[regwec]

Guard, considering that you used so many words there, it is astonishing that I agree with all of them.

[sasquatchs]

Lock the thread now, in my mind the perfect Joker has been described in the last few pages by Guard, AgentSands and others. If you start from the premise that Joker made a choice to be the way he is, without tragedy forcing it upon him, everything I want to see flows from that naturally.

Though I'm scared that the screenwriter's inclination will be to write something more dramatically satisfying and longwinded than that.

[breyfogle_rules]

Dang. Makes me wonder how long The Guard has been sitting there...watching...gnashing his teeth...

...waiting to STRIKE!

[Rynan]

This origin discussion is over.

[regwec]

Oh, is the thread locked?

Apparently not.

[jsf]

have we discussed what we would like to see the joker wear for clothing?

[LiveWire777]

yay 4 joker

[itsthebatman]

Guard, considering that you used so many words there, it is astonishing that I agree with all of them.

Even the stuff about Tarantino? I stick to my opinion that he couldn't act his way out a paper bag. It is even more tragic that he is appearing in movies at the expense of more talented actors simply because of who he is.

[The Guard]

Even the stuff about Tarantino? I stick to my opinion that he couldn't act his way out a paper bag. It is even more tragic that he is appearing in movies at the expense of more talented actors simply because of who he is.

Who cares if he can't act? It's an exploitation move, and the man tends to make exploitative films. He also tends to appear in his own movies anyway. It's not like he's stealing coveted roles from extremely talented actors. Why is Tarantino, who makes decent movies and generally has decent screentime, getting singled out, instead of all those others actors who can't act their way out of a paper bag?

[breyfogle_rules]

have we discussed what we would like to see the joker wear for clothing?

Not sure. I hope his cronies are teenage runaways like this though...http://matthewpoitras.com/images/helmut.jpg

[Steek]

My friend thinks Christopher Lloyd is a better actor then Robert De Niro. People have different opinions on how good an actor is. Shouldn't we be talking more about the joker instead of someone who has nothing to do with this movie at all?

[Doc Holliday]

My friend thinks Christopher Lloyd is a better actor then Robert De Niro. People have different opinions on how good an actor is. Shouldn't we be talking more about the joker instead of someone who has nothing to do with this movie at all?

Wise words from the newbie.

I'm just kidding about being a newbie, bro. But wise words nonetheless.

[Orko Is King]

Not sure. I hope his cronies are teenage runaways like this though...http://matthewpoitras.com/images/helmut.jpg

Why is there a Galactus helmet laying there?:huh:

[sienna]

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s79/murano_bucket/HeathLedge_joker.jpg

:wow: This is so cool!
I hope it's close to the actual look.

[ghost_x]

Not sure. I hope his cronies are teenage runaways like this though...http://matthewpoitras.com/images/helmut.jpg

I want Joker's henchman to resemble Alex's droogs

http://www.liberalstreetfighter.com/ee/images/uploads/Clockwork_droogs_small.jpg

[Steek]

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s79/murano_bucket/HeathLedge_joker.jpg

:wow: This is so cool!
I hope it's close to the actual look.
The glazed doughnut look doesn't do it for me I do like his eyes though.

[Nebins]

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s79/murano_bucket/HeathLedge_joker.jpg

:wow: This is so cool!
I hope it's close to the actual look.

I don't like it. His face looks flabby. I do like the color of the skin however.

[comic_guy04]

idk that pics givin me mixed feelings. kinda like if Ronald Mcdonald didn't start the charity thing and got into crystal meth, and quir eye for the straight guy.

[anduin2000]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/anduin2000/Jokerspurplehat.jpg

Heres the look and feel I think they should go for. Came across a cool amateur site thats worth taking a look at.

http://batinthesun.com/

Sorry if this is old news to a lot of you.

[dark_b]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/anduin2000/Jokerspurplehat.jpg

Heres the look and feel I think they should go for. Came across a cool amateur site thats worth taking a look at.

http://batinthesun.com/

Sorry if this is old news to a lot of you.teh face is not realistic and it looks like from a cartoon.
but i would like to see a pic with that pose and lightining for the first promo pic.

[uchiha_itachi]

yeah...what the hell is up with that nose

[Dangerous]

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s79/murano_bucket/HeathLedge_joker.jpg

:wow: This is so cool!
I hope it's close to the actual look.

A fan job right?

I think this looks pretty good.
I'm just hoping they are not gonna have him wear a mask like his goons as seen in the recent set pics. I reckon that's a given though.

[itsthebatman]

Who cares if he can't act? It's an exploitation move, and the man tends to make exploitative films. He also tends to appear in his own movies anyway. It's not like he's stealing coveted roles from extremely talented actors. Why is Tarantino, who makes decent movies and generally has decent screentime, getting singled out, instead of all those others actors who can't act their way out of a paper bag?

M. Night Shyamalan also. I don't like directors who can't act and insist on appearing in their own films. I laso don't like bad actors in general.
That's all I'm gonna say on the matter.
Your assessment of matters relating to Joker's origin is well-thought out and convincingly argued.

[X.M.D.]

Well...Of course I cant judge Ledger's Joker yet...but...wouldnt director Quentin Tarantino (lol) do a terrific crime clown (visually speaking only)??????!!!

I made this manip...not so good, but I had lotsa fun workin on it:
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1199/sjokerpa7.jpg
Enjoy the meal! :woot: :woot: :woot:


As I said...no Tarantino, please (lol) but he has the look for it.

[breyfogle_rules]

Why is there a Galactus helmet laying there?:huh:

They knocked it off his head.

Duh. ;-)

[Rynan]

Not sure. I hope his cronies are teenage runaways like this though...

I want Joker's henchman to resemble Alex's droogs

Gentlemen, we already know what his goons look like. Give it a rest.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/196/466666941_4edd930afe.jpg?v=0
Men in clown masks.

[WompuM]

I wonder how many of these guys the J-Miester will waste

[WompuM]

And why WAS there a galactus helmet there?

[breyfogle_rules]

And why WAS there a galactus helmet there?

Dunno. Maybe this explains http://www.matthewpoitras.com

[hannya]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/196/466666941_4edd930afe.jpg?v=0

So the appearance of the Joker at the beginning of TDK is becoming clearer.
1) Joker arrives dressed exactly as other robbers.
2) Joker reveals horrifying visage to William Fichtner's bank manager character.
3) Joker washes brown dye from hair and removes skin-colour make-up from face and neck.
4) Joker is revealed in all his white-skinned, green-haired glory as he escapes in a school bus.
:up:?

[ghost_x]

Gentlemen, we already know what his goons look like. Give it a rest.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/196/466666941_4edd930afe.jpg?v=0
Men in clown masks.


That's one scene, the droogs wore masks while they committed crimes, and took them off after. Somehow I don't think the henchmen will be keeping on their masks for the whole film

[breyfogle_rules]

So the appearance of the Joker at the beginning of TDK is becoming clearer.
1) Joker arrives dressed exactly as other robbers.
2) Joker reveals horrifying visage to William Fichtner's bank manager character.
3) Joker washes brown dye from hair and removes skin-colour make-up from face and neck.
4) Joker is revealed in all his white-skinned, green-haired glory as he escapes in a school bus.
:up:?

Oh yeah! I didnt think of that! Love it.

[LiveWire777]

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s79/murano_bucket/HeathLedge_joker.jpg

:wow: This is so cool!
I hope it's close to the actual look.He looks like the bastard child of Mark Walberg and Emperor Palpetine (or how ever u spell there names :huh: ). not a good look

[ghost_x]

One thing I need clearing up, what is the reasoning behind storming the bank with dyed hair and makeup to cover up his joker look, only to wash it off in front of the manager? Theatricality purposes?

I suppose the same can be said for why do they wear the masks if they intend to take them off once inside?

[Rynan]

That's one scene, the droogs wore masks while they committed crimes, and took them off after. Somehow I don't think the henchmen will be keeping on their masks for the whole film

Still, that won't mean they will be wearing long underwear and bowlers. I also doubt they'll be roaming around town looking for trouble like thugs.

Obviously, these people are not thugs. They're organized criminals.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

what ever happens.. its all very cool..just to know they are filming right now!!!!

[ghost_x]

I meant more resemblance in that they all have their own personalities, dress in a similar way etc

I think however if it wasn't for the Jokers mastermind guidance, these would be your average street thugs, the Joker has to make sure his choice in henchmen are that they are capable of executing one of his schemes yet weak minded enough so they don't revolt against him...but there has been talks of that happening hasn't there?

[blud_knight]

hey as long as the joker goons don't all look like mad agents i'm a happy camper.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

The joker is and always will be bastard.. he only cares about himself, the goons are insignificant.

[breyfogle_rules]

He looks like the bastard child of Mark Walberg and Emperor Palpetine (or how ever u spell there names :huh: ). not a good look

LMAO!

[breyfogle_rules]

the Joker has to make sure his choice in henchmen are that they are capable of executing one of his schemes yet weak minded enough so they don't revolt against him...but there has been talks of that happening hasn't there?

The sides mention some conspiring cronies, yes.

Hope Joker doesnt conveniently get water thrown on him to make his flesh colored makeup run off his face. That would be too Batman 89 for my taste. Perhaps he only has flesh makeup on his neck and ears.

This would work well for the reveal to the bank manager. Much more freaky to pull off the mask and be flesh necked but white faced.
"Its not polite to stare."

[hannya]

One thing I need clearing up, what is the reasoning behind storming the bank with dyed hair and makeup to cover up his joker look, only to wash it off in front of the manager? Theatricality purposes?

I suppose the same can be said for why do they wear the masks if they intend to take them off once inside?

Yes this is bugging me too! Can't figure it out. It's clear that when he arrives in the grumpy mask at the bank, his hair is not completely green, and Ledger was not wearing any white make-up for that set-up (but his hair was streaky brown-green).
We also know that the stunt guy in the school bus had completely green hair, and that for a shot after the bank entrance, Ledger was completely covered by a hood and cape between takes ( see the video of him swishing around in his Darth Maul cape near the school bus), so Nolan was obviously anxious to hide the Joker's whole appearance.
So either the bank entrance scene is a very , very wide shot, and make-up and green hair would be unnecessary (but even then you would expect Joker's neck to be white), or the Joker arrives with a very cheap and easy temp brown dye job on his green hair and flesh-coloured make-up on his neck.
Question is... why? Why bother with the flesh tone make-up? Who the hell has time to rinse their hair and remove their make-up right in the middle of a bank heist???
It's the best I can come up with, however. Any ideas?

[Nepenthes]

It's either a technical quirk to do with production, or, the goons don't realise that the guy who organised the job is with them and he looks like freak, and Mr.J doesn't want any hassles with them before pulling of the job.

Perhaps it just heightens impact and suspense for the big reveal.


EDIT:Who the hell has time to rinse their hair and remove their make-up right in the middle of a bank heist???

The hair is a wig, and in movieland a single doublehanded swipe would remove enough make-up to show his horrible face.

[breyfogle_rules]

It's either a technical quirk to do with production, or, the goons don't realise that the guy who organised the job is with them and he looks like freak, and Mr.J doesn't want any hassles with them before pulling of the job.



Ahhh. Smart.

[Nepenthes]

^ it's seems that way in the Chuckles&Grumpy side.

[hannya]

It's either a technical quirk to do with production, or, the goons don't realise that the guy who organised the job is with them and he looks like freak, and Mr.J doesn't want any hassles with them before pulling of the job.


The hair is a wig, and in movieland a single doublehanded swipe would remove enough make-up to show his horrible face.

Like the first part. Yes yes yes. Hadn't even occured to me. They don't know HE's with them. Makes a lot of sense.

Wig: Doesn't add up... why was Ledger's hair streaked with green?

[Smallville]

My thoughts: he is tortured and left for dead in the mask after the botched robbery (or he just pissed off the wrong thugs) and the white from the mask is "melted" on his face, changing his skin pigment. the hair color may be his own doin....

just some thoughts, thats how I would write it.

[Overman27pj]

Do we know if they will even have an 'origin' for him? I mean they say he exists at the end of the first one right?

[ghost_x]

It's been discussed for ages whether he will have an origin, I highly doubt it

[Smallville]

Do we know if they will even have an 'origin' for him? I mean they say he exists at the end of the first one right?


I do think that he calls himself "joker" prior to the change over (chemical bath etc). My guess is that he is a loose cannon and in the end the goons kill him for leaving "calling cards" and caring more about the theatricality of the hiest than the bounty.

I think we will see the "origin" of the joker as in his change from demented villian to demented supervillian of Batman.

just my thoughts though.....

[Smallville]

It's been discussed for ages whether he will have an origin, I highly doubt it


I would bet the bank that we see the transformation of the joker on screen in TDK.

Might not be the standard origin story, but we'll see "how" he became the white-faced, green-haired, large-grinned villan.

trust me on this one.......

[Nepenthes]

Do we know if they will even have an 'origin' for him? I mean they say he exists at the end of the first one right?

Most people think and/or hope that there won't be, but my better judgment tells me they're all wrong. Batman will work backwards and find out about the Jokers accident, at least, and maybe more that ties into the gang war that's happening.

[ghost_x]

I do think that he calls himself "joker" prior to the change over (chemical bath etc). My guess is that he is a loose cannon and in the end the goons kill him for leaving "calling cards" and caring more about the theatricality of the hiest than the bounty.

I think we will see the "origin" of the joker as in his change from demented villian to demented supervillian of Batman.

just my thoughts though.....


But the Joker does care about the bounty, he is first and foremost a thief, an aspect many forget due to his overshadowing personality

[breyfogle_rules]

But the Joker does care about the bounty, he is first and foremost a thief, an aspect many forget due to his overshadowing personality

Hmmm. Yeah. And if we're going by his earliest appearences, sort of an object fetishist. He prefers fine art and jewels. He like to have "the thing" more than the abstract concept of money. It seems to me his primary motivation is to do things chaotically first and foremost. His main care is the statement his grand criminal actions make. The "joke" of it all, if you will.

At least thats what I like to read into it.

[DieSmiling]

But the Joker does care about the bounty, he is first and foremost a thief, an aspect many forget due to his overshadowing personality

That's subject to interpretation. I definitely think of Joker as more of a terrorist than a thief. He just steals to fund his mad plots.

[ang_hulk]

I hope thier are good joker figures this time around.Id like to see his thugs to.

[ghost_x]

That's subject to interpretation. I definitely think of Joker as more of a terrorist than a thief. He just steals to fund his mad plots.

Thats not entirely true, he's been known in the past to steal as sort of a compulsive disorder, that relates far more to his character.

[ghost_x]

Hmmm. Yeah. And if we're going by his earliest appearences, sort of an object fetishist. He prefers fine art and jewels. He like to have "the thing" more than the abstract concept of money. It seems to me his primary motivation is to do things chaotically first and foremost. His main care is the statement his grand criminal actions make. The "joke" of it all, if you will.

At least thats what I like to read into it.

Ye exactly, the conecpt of the robbery is far more exciting to the Joker than the money

[Smallville]

I hope thier are good joker figures this time around.Id like to see his thugs to.


you............aremy........number one..........uhhhhh....mmmmmm....guy.

i still have my bob the goon figure!

[regwec]

One thing I need clearing up, what is the reasoning behind storming the bank with dyed hair and makeup to cover up his joker look, only to wash it off in front of the manager? Theatricality purposes?

Well, he then blows the manager's brains out, so it doesn't really matter.

[Rynan]

Thats not entirely true, he's been known in the past to steal as sort of a compulsive disorder, that relates far more to his character.

Or maybe he's just greedy. After all, the man's a criminal and Purple suits don't grow on trees you know.

[AndrewGilkison]

Or maybe he's just greedy. After all, the man's a criminal and Purple suits don't grow on trees you know.

Exactly. It's not like they call Joker the Clown Prince of CRIME just because it sounds catchy.

Of course, the sides also allude to Sal Moroni owning the bank Joker is robbing, and I doubt that would be a coincidence. Joker is sending a message to Moroni.

[sohojozo]

I think the disguised Joker reveal idea with the bank heist might have a little more to do with audience perspective. I mean WE sure as hell know that it is the Joker going in, but if the general audience doesn't see green hair, they might doubt that the Joker is with them, especially with the thugs talking about the frontman sitting out on his own heist. it is a surprise both to the criminals AND the audience.

[DieSmiling]

I'm just saying, if I were trying to describe the Joker to someone who knew nothing about him, I wouldn't start by saying "first and foremost he's a thief."

He's much more interested in causing chaos and anarchy, and in doing so, getting his own name in the paper. He's an ego-maniac looking to terrorize Gotham and get credit for doing so -- for outdoing Batman.

He may have some klepto tendencies, but to call Joker a thief isn't giving him the credit he deserves.

[The Guard]

That image of The Joker with the enormous nose is from the short film PATIENT J. No, it doesn't look realistic, but it's not supposed to. Aaron Schoenke likes his short films to resemble the outlandish comic book characters they're based on, but to have more realistic motivations and grittier moments.

[Rynan]

I'm just saying, if I were trying to describe the Joker to someone who knew nothing about him, I wouldn't start by saying "first and foremost he's a thief."

He's much more interested in causing chaos and anarchy, and in doing so, getting his own name in the paper. He's an ego-maniac looking to terrorize Gotham and get credit for doing so -- for outdoing Batman.

He may have some klepto tendencies, but to call Joker a thief isn't giving him the credit he deserves.

Please elaborate on this. It's kinda vague.

[deathfromabove]

Ok, now just keep an open mind. But I was thinking Matt Damon as Joker. I did this manip. What do you think?

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/8315/damonjokerjq0.jpg

breyfogle rules rules. thank you for joining, sir.

[ghost_x]

Well, he then blows the manager's brains out, so it doesn't really matter.

I did not know that. It doesn't really make the scene any clearer though. It really just spoilt the scene without telling me anything...

good job :oldrazz::up:

[DieSmiling]

Please elaborate on this. It's kinda vague.

I'm saying declaring the Joker "first and foremost a thief" is something I don't agree with. Cawoman, at least initially, is first and foremost a thief. I feel like the Joker's motivations are far beyond becoming rich through crime; I think he derives pleasure from inducing terror, chaos, and mayhem. That's his motivation. Entertaining himself through his actions. He commits robberies to gain acclaim and get the money neccessary to execute grander plans.

Think of all the great Joker stories. They're usually about Joker executing some kind of sick plot that only he would find amusing.

He may have started of as more of a simple thief, but I think it's evident, as with all comic book characters, that he has evolved tremendously over time.

[hannya]

I'm saying declaring the Joker "first and foremost a thief" is something I don't agree with.

I think perhaps DieSmiling was referring to an archetype rather than just a profession. A loner who delights in taking from others, who lives for the thrill of stealing not just material goods but dignity, lives, you name it. A high-stakes performance artist, in other words, with a psychopaths's disregard for the pain of others thrown in for good measure...

[Rynan]

I'm saying declaring the Joker "first and foremost a thief" is something I don't agree with. Cawoman, at least initially, is first and foremost a thief. I feel like the Joker's motivations are far beyond becoming rich through crime; I think he derives pleasure from inducing terror, chaos, and mayhem. That's his motivation. Entertaining himself through his actions. He commits robberies to gain acclaim and get the money neccessary to execute grander plans.

I don't think so. The Joker is a petty criminal, in the comics(pre-1989) and on TV. He DIDN'T have any lofty goals. He used the terror of his appearance and the fear/disorder it created for extortion and revenge. He was just a mean kid with a stick, threatening to use it if he didn't get what he wanted.

Think of all the great Joker stories. They're usually about Joker executing some kind of sick plot that only he would find amusing.

They also had the potential for great gain as well(i.e. The Laughing Fish). Most of the times, they weren't "sick", but instead brilliantly orchestrated crimes(i.e. The Joker's Crime Circus). Making a profit while making people fools was the norm.

He may have started of as more of a simple thief, but I think it's evident, as with all comic book characters, that he has evolved tremendously over time.

I see it as devolution, as The Joker stories today usually revolve around getting revenge on Batman and NOTHING else. In the past, he had variety. He could be robbing one day, extorting another and then getting revenge on someone who insulted him. He was unpredictable. Now, we know what he's going to do: try to kill Batman. True, in the older story he did try to kill Batman, but that wasn't his only shtick. Now it's just murder.

[dark_b]

guys what could hte plot be fro this movie to top the first one? i like when a lot of people could die. this was in the second spiderman movie,superman,batman begins. in batman begins a lot of people would die and go crazy. so what could joker do? if b89 was never made i think there would be a 90% chance that nolan would use it. but now he cna not. so what do you think will joker do?

[ghost_x]

dark_b something tells me your a sociopath.

The plot could really be anything. See if it wasn't for the Scarecrow fear gas in the first I would of said the Joker would be using his Venom to cause mass fatalities. Somehow I can see the Joker starting a huge crime war with all the Mafia syndicates in Gotham, this producing pure anarchy in the streets.

[Rynan]

what do you think will joker do?

IMO, With Falcone gone, the criminal fraternity of Gotham will be weak and in chaos. The Joker will pray on this impotency and disorder, robbing and eliminating mobsters until he eventually become the lawless lord of Gotham's underworld. IMO.

[ghost_x]

Maroni's in now, whether or not he actually replaces Falcone is another story, but if he does I don't think he would allow any degradation in the business. Which is why when Joker starts his crime spree a war will ensue. You will have the Police (Gordon) on one side, Mafia (Maroni) on the other, the Joker in the middle and Batman caught in the middle trying to stop the Joker

[Bandyt]

Personally, the Joker's more than just a petty thief, or someone taking revenge on Batman. I think a classic example of this is in The Killing Joke, the non-backstory story. It's sort of revenge, but also just pure, insane torture of sorts, he's a pure sadistic psychopath. With a flair of brilliance of course.

[ghost_x]

TKJ is a recent arc, we're referring to the earlier Joker appearances, where he had more of a fetish and compulsion for his work. The Joker of more recent times has become overshadowed from his look and eccentric personality rather than his position as a criminal

[Bandyt]

Ah, so you're more referring to the Joker that yells at newspapers about Bon3rs?

[ghost_x]

exactly

[Bandyt]

"I'll show them how many Boners the Joker can make!"

[ghost_x]

Those right there are the words of a criminal mastermind

[Bandyt]

So, now that Maroni is in it, do you think that it will be him that throws the Acid on Harvey Dent, like in The Long Halloween?

[ghost_x]

It would make sense, as they have followed alot of TLH closely. Didn't Goyer a while back say that Joker would be the one to throw the acid?

[fabman]

That was when there wasn't even a script, just Goyer and Nolan throwing ideas at each other. It might have changed.

[ghost_x]

I wouldn't hate it, if that were the case, I wouldn't mind seeing a stand off between Joker and Dent

[Bandyt]

To me, acid throwing would be a very Joker thing to do. It would make sense in my mind.

[Spider-Fan83]

^ as long as he doesn't shoot the acid out of a flower, I am fine with it lol

[Rynan]

I wouldn't hate it, if that were the case, I wouldn't mind seeing a stand off between Joker and Dent

I can see it. If The Joker's motivation similar to that which I purposed, I can see him hating Dent for picking him up before he was finished with his work.

But with Maroni confirmed in TDK, the idea that The Joker is going to do the deed is called into question.

No matter what happens, I believe the third movie will be a war between Two-face and The Joker.

[breyfogle_rules]

^ as long as he doesn't shoot the acid out of a flower, I am fine with it lol

I maybe wouldnt mind that!

[ghost_x]

^ as long as he doesn't shoot the acid out of a flower, I am fine with it lol

I would be disappointed if he doesn't shoot acid out of a flower

[ghost_x]

I can see it. If The Joker's motivation similar to that which I purposed, I can see him hating Dent for picking him up before he was finished with his work.

But with Maroni confirmed in TDK, the idea that The Joker is going to do the deed is called into question.

No matter what happens, I believe the third movie will be a war between Two-face and The Joker.

My thoughts exactly

[ghost_x]

Do we know if Ledger is contracted yet for the third movie?

[DieSmiling]

I don't think so. The Joker is a petty criminal, in the comics(pre-1989) and on TV. He DIDN'T have any lofty goals. He used the terror of his appearance and the fear/disorder it created for extortion and revenge. He was just a mean kid with a stick, threatening to use it if he didn't get what he wanted.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Joker's goals have ALWAYS been more than those of a common bank robber.



They also had the potential for great gain as well(i.e. The Laughing Fish). Most of the times, they weren't "sick", but instead brilliantly orchestrated crimes(i.e. The Joker's Crime Circus). Making a profit while making people fools was the norm.

It's not like the Joker's goal in the Laughing Fish was to make a profit. If so, it's the worst scheme of all time. He was doing it because of the ridiculous irony of the situation -- to amuse himself.

I see it as devolution, as The Joker stories today usually revolve around getting revenge on Batman and NOTHING else. In the past, he had variety. He could be robbing one day, extorting another and then getting revenge on someone who insulted him. He was unpredictable. Now, we know what he's going to do: try to kill Batman. True, in the older story he did try to kill Batman, but that wasn't his only shtick. Now it's just murder.

Again, agree to disagree. Joker's obsession with Batman is easily one of my favorite things about him.

[Miranda Fox]

For all of those - like me - who want to know what the Joker looks like?

I may have something for you.

I'll preface this by saying yes, I know. It's a guy on IMDB. As reliable sources go, that's somewhere between The Daily Star and Weekly World News. But, having looked at his previous posts, all his past info has been correct. As in, he had exact filming dates which none of us knew before filming actually started. I tend to think he's for real.

Right, so, Joker's look:

First off... the idiots that keep posting the "SEE JOKER!!!!" posts with the ugly fake pic.... knock it off... You are soo effin wrong it aint funny. I got a glimpse of Heath in makeup today and it is awesome. Yes he does wear a mask in the bank robbery. He does take it off at the end of the robbery. I wont reveal anything about how it looks but boy it looks good. No fake smile crap like the "Jack Joker". But VERY close to this:

http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/Heath-Joker.jpg

For those of you slamming Heath, Maggie and Billy Fichtner, just wait. You will eat those words.

Have a little faith in Chris Nolan. That man aint stupid.

If that is very close to what we'll get: :up: :up: :up:

And another post I found interesting:

I was on the set. Fichtner is in the movie as the bank manager. There is a twist at the end of the bank scene so I am not sure if he actually dies but he does get shot. He takes out some of the clowns in the process

I'm bringing that up for two reasons - it actually explains something in the sides that wasn't clear: why the bank manager was injured before he was shot.

Secondly, the twist...interesting. There's possibly more to that than meets the eye.

[ghost_x]

I don't know, people post that picture of Ledger in the straight jacket because that is essentially the most plausible and faithful manip out there. It's like an easy option. I'm thinking Nolan's won't be that similar

[Miranda Fox]

I don't know, people post that picture of Ledger in the straight jacket because that is essentially the most plausible and faithful manip out there. It's like an easy option. I'm thinking Nolan's won't be that similar

I see what you're saying and I'd agree 100% if it weren't for the fact he did know filming dates before anybody else. So...dude knows something, even if he wasn't really on the set.

As to how close that picture is - it actually matches the grey skin rumours (I know DeFett's original was much brighter and this is just the same one darkened) and the hair colour seems about right. Either way, we'll see soon enough.

Keep checking EW. :woot:

[Rynan]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Joker's goals have ALWAYS been more than those of a common bank robber.

What lofty goals per say are that? The man has been always out for himself. He's isn't trying to send a message about life or anything. All he wants is money, power and revenge; what any good criminal would want. He just believes he's a SUPERIOR criminal than the average criminal.


It's not like the Joker's goal in the Laughing Fish was to make a profit. If so, it's the worst scheme of all time. He was doing it because of the ridiculous irony of the situation -- to amuse himself.

Wrongo, bucko. Read it again. As ridiculous as it may seem, it was in actuality an elaborate insane, but brilliant, scheme to get legal money by polluting the water making all the fish look like him. When he found out he couldn't do that, he shifted to extortion, using a terror campaign to FORCE them to give him "his" share of the profits. He would kill to get that money.


Again, agree to disagree. Joker's obsession with Batman is easily one of my favorite things about him.

And easily the most cliche' and boring part about The Joker today. I mean, I want to see the f***er do something other than get strangled by Batman, going into the tired old "If you kill me, I'll win, so choke away.". He's now a tiger with no teeth. He's become a comic book personality, not a true antagonist or even a character anymore, more useful for sales than actual stories. The Joker's currently cannon fodder for more capable villains. It's pathetic.

[Shedhut]

bye guys.

I rather be surprised this time than becoming the omniscient batguy i turned into with begins. It is one thing to know things head in the right direction but another thing being unable to stop guessing what's going to happen and thereby build up expectations which cant be satisfied. I'm gonna try to use my imagination in a place where...it has a purpose.



PS:
i want my time back:o

[ghost_x]

bye guys.

I rather be surprised this time than becoming the omniscient batguy i turned into with begins. It is one thing to know things head in the right direction but another thing being unable to stop guessing what's going to happen and thereby build up expectations which cant be satisfied. I'm gonna try to use my imagination in a place where...it has a purpose.



PS:
i want my time back:o

I hope you find what you are looking for...:dry:

[breyfogle_rules]

bye guys.

I rather be surprised this time than becoming the omniscient batguy i turned into with begins. It is one thing to know things head in the right direction but another thing being unable to stop guessing what's going to happen and thereby build up expectations which cant be satisfied. I'm gonna try to use my imagination in a place where...it has a purpose.



PS:
i want my time back:o

Ahhh. Gonna try and find a girlfriend I see. Good luck!

(he'll be back)

[regwec]

I did not know that. It doesn't really make the scene any clearer though. It really just spoilt the scene without telling me anything...

good job :oldrazz::up:

Sorry. I assumed you had read the sides: I think they are key to understanding what's going on here.

[The Guard]

STOP. LIMITING. THE JOKER. He can be ANYTHING.

Yes, The Joker used to be a robber. So was EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL in comic books. A long time ago, it was rare to be able to show violence, death, etc, so most supervillains had to be made into thieves. Why would we want The Joker of 2008 to be a villain steeped in this cliche?

Money and Power tend to be criminal goals. These are the goals of your average thug. Or of an intelligent sane man. Utter chaos isn't. His desire to create utter chaos and deliver his insane punchlines is what makes The Joker an interesting and unique character.

What lofty goals per say are that? The man has been always out for himself. He's isn't trying to send a message about life or anything. All he wants is money, power and revenge; what any good criminal would want. He just believes he's a SUPERIOR criminal than the average criminal.

That is not all he wants. If you really think that's all The Joker is after, then you haven't read enough comics featuring him. That is certainly not The Joker that should show up on film. Even Burton's Joker was after something else.

Wrongo, bucko. Read it again. As ridiculous as it may seem, it was in actuality an elaborate insane, but brilliant, scheme to get legal money by polluting the water making all the fish look like him. When he found out he couldn't do that, he shifted to extortion, using a terror campaign to FORCE them to give him "his" share of the profits. He would kill to get that money.

There was nothing brilliant about Joker's Laughing Fish scheme. Nevermind that he couldn't copyright a natural resource; no one in their right mind would have purchased smiling, infected fish. It's about as brilliant as Luthor's "buy my hunk of ****ty rock" scheme in SUPERMAN RETURNS. Was it insane? Sure. But hardly brilliant.

I absolutely love The Joker/Batman conflict. Not the "You will become me if you kill me" stuff. That's the obvious aspect of it. A scant few issues/episodes of various shows have nailed what it has always had below the surface. That The Joker NEEDS Batman to survive, to be happy. He needs the game, the chase, and he needs the attention. And on some sick level, he believes Batman needs him, too.

[ghost_x]

Sorry. I assumed you had read the sides: I think they are key to understanding what's going on here.

It's cool. Nah, I ruined Spiderman 3 by reading all the spoilers and want to try to avoid that for TDK, as I know the storyline is far more compelling and involves more twists. I have a basic understanding of the scene as most has been talking about it in these boards, so I can roughly figure out.

[Nimrandir]

If that is very close to what we'll get: :up: :up: :up:
I sincerely hope it is not close to that. IMO that look is extremely simplistic, unoriginal and frankly cartoonist. I am hoping that Joker looks something like that clay sculpture( I don't know if it was real or fan-made) It looked like Ledger and it was the best renditioning of Joker to date I have seen. Perfect. It would be great if someone could colorize it. I don't have the software.

[Rynan]

STOP. LIMITING. THE JOKER. He can be ANYTHING.

Correction: KEEP. LIMITING. THE JOKER.
Through Limitation, we have growth. By limiting his field of what he does, we are more able to create a more interesting and sophisticated character. By expanding his scope to infinite, he becomes a shapeless blob, devoid of all purpose and meaning. Expansion equals dissolution. Through more, we have less.

That is the current problem. No ones knows what he does. His supposed "infinite possibilities" have made him impossible to write for.

Yes, The Joker used to be a robber. So was EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL in comic books. A long time ago, it was rare to be able to show violence, death, etc, so most supervillains had to be made into thieves. Why would we want The Joker of 2008 to be a villain steeped in this cliche?

The idea of doing excessive violence is cliche' as well, as is the cliche' giving villains "deeper" motivations than what is apparent. Both of those are not realistic.

Money and Power tend to be criminal goals. These are the goals of your average thug. Or of an intelligent sane man. Utter chaos isn't. His desire to create utter chaos and deliver his insane punchlines is what makes The Joker an interesting and unique character.

Apparently, someone doesn't understand what insanity is.


That is not all he wants. If you really think that's all The Joker is after, then you haven't read enough comics featuring him. That is certainly not The Joker that should show up on film. Even Burton's Joker was after something else.

He was: ATTENTION. He wanted people recognize his criminal genius.

By the way, if he doesn't want the money, then what is funding his conceptual projects? A trust fund?

There was nothing brilliant about Joker's Laughing Fish scheme. Nevermind that he couldn't copyright a natural resource; no one in their right mind would have purchased smiling, infected fish. It's about as brilliant as Luthor's "buy my hunk of ****ty rock" scheme in SUPERMAN RETURNS. Was it insane? Sure. But hardly brilliant.

You should really read that story. It was ALL of America's fish, both the eastern and western seaboards. It was an enormous brilliant plan. They would HAVE TO buy his fish, there was no way around it, except for one little hitch.

That hitch kinda proved that even though he is a criminal genius, even he overlooks something.

I absolutely love The Joker/Batman conflict. Not the "You will become me if you kill me" stuff. That's the obvious aspect of it. A scant few issues/episodes of various shows have nailed what it has always had below the surface. That The Joker NEEDS Batman to survive, to be happy. He needs the game, the chase, and he needs the attention. And on some sick level, he believes Batman needs him, too.

Now I wasn't denouncing the Batman/Joker relationship. Not at all. I was just wondering when did The Joker become the Green Damn Goblin?

[Nepenthes]

"Why be a disfigured outcast if you can be a notorious Crime God"


Like Grant Morrison I tend to view the Joker as a Crime God. If crime is the violation of moral and societal laws then essentially a crime god is the living antithesis of order and harmony, in all it's forms. So I'm kinda with the Guard on this one in that the Jokers projects shouldn't be so categorised (however I do think other aspects of the Joker should be 'limited' in a sense). The real point of the Jokers crimes the terrorism that results. Fear, a sense of helplessness, trauma, public chaos...it's all a protest, to make a particular point. So even he's motivated to pull a job simply for money(which is perfectly reasonable) he'll still find a way incorporate his artistic expression. That urge is deeper than his immediate, material needs. It comes out in everything he does.

[The Guard]

Correction: KEEP. LIMITING. THE JOKER.
Through Limitation, we have growth. By limiting his field of what he does, we are more able to create a more interesting and sophisticated character. By expanding his scope to infinite, he becomes a shapeless blob, devoid of all purpose and meaning. Expansion equals dissolution. Through more, we have less.
How do you have "less"? Do you forget what he's done or something? Limiting him is boring. Growth, if there is or should be such a thing for The Joker, can be achieved in a variety of ways, even if he can do damn near anything he wants.

That is the current problem. No ones knows what he does. His supposed "infinite possibilities" have made him impossible to write for.
No, him having been overused and having done almost everything there is to do or experience has made him difficult to write. The Joker is overused as a character, especially recently. THAT'S why writers have trouble with him. Finding something new to do with him. He's been given godlike powers, he's been killed, he's changed the DC Universe into copies of himself, you name it.
The idea of doing excessive violence is cliche' as well, as is the cliche' giving villains "deeper" motivations than what is apparent. Both of those are not realistic.
I'm pretty sure The Joker's particular brand of havoc is a hell of a lot less cliche than your average pulp "bank robbery".
Apparently, someone doesn't understand what insanity is.
Insanity is relative. It depends on the situation, and the context we're talking about depends on your definition of it.
a. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
b. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.
Now honestly...without the legal mumbo jumbo to help us out...what the HELL does that mean, and how does it pertain to the Joker? I believe The Joker to be eccentric. Not insane. John Doe's character said it best in SE7EN. It's comfortable to label people insane when their actions frighten us, or fall well outside the norm. In my eyes, The Joker's as sane as they come. He just chooses to harm people and to create chaos.
He was: ATTENTION. He wanted people recognize his criminal genius.
And how did he get that attention? By KILLING people. A lot of people. The man wanted to cause utter chaos. In BATMAN, Joker saw his murders as his "art", and he used the power he gained in taking over the mobs to further his art. The m an spent his time cutting out pictures for goodness sake. He didn't go around robbing banks or museums or any of that.

By the way, if he doesn't want the money, then what is funding his conceptual projects? A trust fund?
I never said The Joker shouldn't have access to money at some point. I'm saying he shouldn't be about material things as he once was, with the vaults full of jewels and cash and so forth.
You should really read that story. It was ALL of America's fish, both the eastern and western seaboards. It was an enormous brilliant plan. They would HAVE TO buy his fish, there was no way around it, except for one little hitch.
I've read the story many times. Its still a stupid plan. And its highly, highly unrealistic. One, to think that he could poison that many fish so quickly, and two, that anyone would have purchased Joker Fish, period. And obviously, if he had an actual plan, its success involved monetary gain from copyrighted fish, which he couldn't do anyway. So his plan sucked, and only succeeded in creating chaos.
Now I wasn't denouncing the Batman/Joker relationship. Not at all. I was just wondering when did The Joker become the Green Damn Goblin?
I'm not sure I understand the reference.
"Why be a disfigured outcast if you can be a notorious Crime God"

Like Grant Morrison I tend to view the Joker as a Crime God. If crime is the violation of moral and societal laws then essentially a crime god is the living antithesis of order and harmony, in all it's forms. So I'm kinda with the Guard on this one in that the Jokers projects shouldn't be so categorised (however I do think other aspects of the Joker should be 'limited' in a sense). The real point of the Jokers crimes the terrorism that results. Fear, a sense of helplessness, trauma, public chaos...it's all a protest, to make a particular point. So even he's motivated to pull a job simply for money(which is perfectly reasonable) he'll still find a way incorporate his artistic expression. That urge is deeper than his immediate, material needs. It comes out in everything he does.
I don't mind if people SEE him as a Crime God, but The Joker can be so much more than that. He's an ideology, and a philosophy on life. This is a man who has completely rejected societies boundaries, period. So why would he have any himself? I have never seen the modern Joker as being about material things as much as he is about psychological ones. He loves power. He loves control. He loves causing chaos. He doesn't rob banks, or stockpile jewels, or cash. At least, when I stopped reading comics he didn't.

[ZeroCorpse]

The Joker is basically Loki. He exists to cause mayhem and spread mischief. he is a self-styled "Master of Insanity" in that he doesn't do anything BECAUSE it makes sense, but precisely the opposite of that; He lives to be confusing, chaotic, and force everyone to see the "joke" that he sees in his twisted mind.

He is basically a psychotic, murderous version of Andy Kaufman. He can't see why other people don't understand how FUNNY these things are to him. Death as a result of an eleborate prank? HILARIOUS! Even MORE hilarious if the prank gets him something he wants or gets someone out of his way.

His chaotic nature makes him unpredictable. The punchline is ever-changing in his head, and figuring out all the points of the joke is something only one man has been able to do, and Joker HATES him for "spoiling" his best gags.

Yes, he wants money. He wants power. He wants to make people notice him, obey him, and laugh at his jokes. He wants people to APPRECIATE him, dammit!

Crime? He doesn't see himself as a "criminal" per se... Not like those lowlife bank robbers and contract killers, anyway. He's "sophisticated" and has more lofty goals than a quick buck or the instant death of Batman. He wants to-- NEEDS to be entertaining in everything he does. There has to be a certain theatricality to his actions, and to him the theatrics are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the crime itself. The crime is just a means to an end, and a side-effect of the theatrics.

He likely considers himself a genius performance artist, and considers his lack of empathy for other human beings to be the thing which separates him from other "mundane" artists and entertainers. He's willing to kill you to make you "get" his gags, and he's willing to destroy a whole city to entertain the rest of the world... As long he's recognized as the star of the show.

I hated Nicholson's Joker. He was so hammy! But Burton and Hamm had Joker's motivations right. If they hadn't camped it up so much, and hired Jack Nicholson to essentially play Jack Torrence from the Shining, Batman 1989 would have shown us a Joker that was quite close to the books.

[Nepenthes]

^ "basically a psychotic, murderous version of Andy Kaufman" :joker: lol yeah I definitely see that!

I don't mind if people SEE him as a Crime God, but The Joker can be so much more than that. He's an ideology, and a philosophy on life. This is a man who has completely rejected societies boundaries, period. So why would he have any himself? I have never seen the modern Joker as being about material things as much as he is about psychological ones. He loves power. He loves control. He loves causing chaos. He doesn't rob banks, or stockpile jewels, or cash. At least, when I stopped reading comics he didn't.

This statement kinda describes a 'Crime God' as I see it. It's not just 'breaking the law' in a legal sense but undermining everything that contributes to civilised harmony. Morality, culture etc. I like the term ' crime god' because it's basically just dressing the concept of 'chaos' (versus order) in a noir fiction/villain context, just another expression of the old Satanic opposite; total deviance, rejection, perversion and self-interest. So we know Nolan and Ledger are on the right track when they say 'this guy's a total anarchist'. He defies basic humanity, a big part of which is based on empathy, shared responsibility and concepts of law....so even just minor gags like dressing in drag and calling Batman 'Darling' are crimes against gender laws, for example.


I disagree that he aims for power and control. Sure, he needs to build influence so he can complete his project of the day (e.g. organising henchman, gaining diplomatic immunity!) but once the gag is played he'll happily surrender everything he's gained and go back to Arkham laughing. He's never built or retained a real criminal empire. Instead I'd say all he is cares about is DAMAGE, in the broadest possible sense of the word. Damage and attention, because he's trying to validate his own existence. He himself is the real walking, talking 'joke' at the center of all but a joke doesn't exist with out an audience.

[D.P.]

Great analysis people.

[hannya]

For all of those - like me - who want to know what the Joker looks like?

I may have something for you.




:up::up::up::woot:

Liking this more and more. Fichtner taking out clowns? Massive. Worth the admission alone I'll bet.

[dark_b]

i am 100% sure that nolan will nail jokers character. thelooks is what is now a mistery.
leaked pics leaked pics

[DeFett]

For all of those - like me - who want to know what the Joker looks like?

I may have something for you.

I'll preface this by saying yes, I know. It's a guy on IMDB. As reliable sources go, that's somewhere between The Daily Star and Weekly World News. But, having looked at his previous posts, all his past info has been correct. As in, he had exact filming dates which none of us knew before filming actually started. I tend to think he's for real.

Right, so, Joker's look:

If that is very close to what we'll get: :up: :up: :up:

Thanks for the cool info!!:yay:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a301/DeFett/DeFett-Joker2.jpg

[dark_b]

looks a little extreme even for nolan. we will see.

[hannya]

double post sorry

[hannya]

DeFett:
I maniped your great image a bit to make him look straight at us.
Hope you don't mind!

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6343/jokercloseupxq1.jpg

[Steelsheen]

For all of those - like me - who want to know what the Joker looks like?

I may have something for you....

ok, so more intense make up version of what we already saw? the important stuff is the details-- which we have yet to get a good look at.

so its not gonna be some radical The Batman type Joker. i'm ok with that.

[D.P.]

Is that blood on his mouth? Or just smeared lipstick? lol

[uchiha_itachi]

^awesome manip

[Miranda Fox]

Thanks for the cool info!!:yay:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a301/DeFett/DeFett-Joker2.jpg

Still one of the best manips ever! :up: :hyper:

[Nepenthes]

^ I've always liked how the red on his lips bleeds into his chin :up:

[Bandyt]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Chemical burns aren't usually neat and tidy.

[Miranda Fox]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Chemical burns aren't usually neat and tidy.

Exactly. :up:

[hannya]

^ I've always liked how the red on his lips bleeds into his chin :up:

Yes yes. And Bandyt's right too. This is what I really like about where I hope and think Nolan's Joker is going. This guy gets dumped in chemicals, his skin is bleached and scarred, his eyes are bloodshot, his lips are burned raw. The green hair will take some explaining, but hey...

[breyfogle_rules]

This is indeed a clever manip. But it's clearly done from a VERY young photo of Heath.
How could that be the closest manip when he doesn't even really look like that anymore?

He looks like puberty hit him so hard they had to put him in a straitjacket.

But whatever. Miranda is basically like Hannibal from the A-team...so I'm thankful for the snippet.
Some compelling investigative work there! :yay:

[regwec]

I like the manip, but it reminds me a great deal of the loathesome Jamie Oliver.

http://a4.vox.com/6a00cd970074174cd500cdf7edd154094f-500pi

[Miranda Fox]

I like the manip, but it reminds me a great deal of the loathesome Jamie Oliver.

http://a4.vox.com/6a00cd970074174cd500cdf7edd154094f-500pi

:csad: :wow:

[itsthebatman]

Well, if it means the Joker can cook up a decent meal for his henchmen in between bank heists, it will certainly add depth to his character.
I like the manip. If he ends up looking like that...:up:

[Van Petrol]

Well, if it means the Joker can cook up a decent meal for his henchmen in between bank heists, it will certainly add depth to his character.
I like the manip. If he ends up looking like that...:up:

"JOKER BURGERS!!!.....Talk about a Happy Meal!..." :joker:

[itsthebatman]

"JOKER BURGERS!!!.....Talk about a Happy Meal!..." :joker:
LOL! Should thought of that.

[Miranda Fox]

"JOKER BURGERS!!!.....Talk about a Happy Meal!..." :joker:

ROTFLMAO! :up:

[The Guard]

This statement kinda describes a 'Crime God' as I see it. It's not just 'breaking the law' in a legal sense but undermining everything that contributes to civilised harmony. Morality, culture etc. I like the term ' crime god' because it's basically just dressing the concept of 'chaos' (versus order) in a noir fiction/villain context, just another expression of the old Satanic opposite; total deviance, rejection, perversion and self-interest. So we know Nolan and Ledger are on the right track when they say 'this guy's a total anarchist'. He defies basic humanity, a big part of which is based on empathy, shared responsibility and concepts of law....so even just minor gags like dressing in drag and calling Batman 'Darling' are crimes against gender laws, for example.

Then we're on the same page.

I disagree that he aims for power and control. Sure, he needs to build influence so he can complete his project of the day (e.g. organising henchman, gaining diplomatic immunity!) but once the gag is played he'll happily surrender everything he's gained and go back to Arkham laughing. He's never built or retained a real criminal empire. Instead I'd say all he is cares about is DAMAGE, in the broadest possible sense of the word. Damage and attention, because he's trying to validate his own existence. He himself is the real walking, talking 'joke' at the center of all but a joke doesn't exist with out an audience.

I think wanting to cause damage absolutely stems from power and control issues of one kind or another. I'm not referring to physical power (political office, the head of the mob, etc), but rather the psychological aspects of power and control. The Joker has always relished having power over people (fear, terrorism, even his leadership stuff). The Joker plays with people. In effect, he plays with people's lives (his mass murder moments certainly point to that), including his henchmen's. And he loves it when Batman, or the cops, or his victims, are powerless. When Batman loses control. That's absolutely an obsession with power and control in action.

The Joker goes back to Arkham laughing because in his mind, he's won. Because in some way, he maintains power over his victims. I'd argue that The Joker has built and maintained several criminal empires over the years. They just tend not to last very long, what with the prevelance of superheroes in his world.

[ghost_x]

Has Jamie Oliver invaded America?

[Steek]

DeFett:
I maniped your great image a bit to make him look straight at us.
Hope you don't mind!

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6343/jokercloseupxq1.jpg
Can someone slick his hair back cause from that first picture by the trailer it was slicked back. Just curious.

[Muziko]

DeFett:
I maniped your great image a bit to make him look straight at us.
Hope you don't mind!

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6343/jokercloseupxq1.jpg

Me Likes. Me Likes it A Lot. :yay:
I'm sure the Joker we see in TDK will be AWESOME... I'm sure we wont be dissapointed when official pics are revealed.

Speaking of "dissapoint"... I just came back from viewing a highly anticipated comic book movie(which shall remain unnamed for spoiler purposes) and WOW... what garbage. I don't know WHAT to expect from comic book movies now. First GR, then THIS? If the people in charge of these movies don't get their act together, the comic book - to - big screen trend will go out of style. The only hope I have is for TDK and maaaaaybe Iron Man (from the looks of the armor I've seen).

Okay...now that I got that out of my system...back to the Clown Prince!

[Bandyt]

Hahah, Very cryptic, only one comic-book movie has been release withing the past month.

[hannya]

I like the manip, but it reminds me a great deal of the loathesome Jamie Oliver.

http://a4.vox.com/6a00cd970074174cd500cdf7edd154094f-500pi

The "loathsome" Jamie Oliver. The man who has single-handedly reformed the diet of British schoolkids and spends much of his time and money on giving young people from difficult backgrounds a second chance in life.
Ah, but wait... he didn't go to Oxbridge! Exterminate the brute.
Sorry, was that off-topic?

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I prefer Gordon Ramsay.

[Nepenthes]

I like the manip, but it reminds me a great deal of the loathesome Jamie Oliver.

LOL true I knew he reminded me of someone! I was thinking a demented Harpo Marx though...:joker:

http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/images/marx_brothers.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6343/jokercloseupxq1.jpg

I'm not referring to physical power (political office, the head of the mob, etc), but rather the psychological aspects of power and control. The Joker has always relished having power over people (fear, terrorism, even his leadership stuff). The Joker plays with people. In effect, he plays with people's lives (his mass murder moments certainly point to that), including his henchmen's. And he loves it when Batman, or the cops, or his victims, are powerless....

The Joker goes back to Arkham laughing because in his mind, he's won. Because in some way, he maintains power over his victims.

:up: Damn right I didn't see it that way before. Especially about going back to Arkham...most people would be traumatised for the rest of their lives after running across the Joker, he can to afford to rest his legs for a while and take time hatching a new plan.

[regwec]

The "loathsome" Jamie Oliver. The man who has single-handedly reformed the diet of British schoolkids and spends much of his time and money on giving young people from difficult backgrounds a second chance in life.
Ah, but wait... he didn't go to Oxbridge! Exterminate the brute.
Sorry, was that off-topic?

I had no idea whether he had been to Oxbridge or not. Why does it matter? His parents are actually quite posh. His family is Tory through and through. He speaks in a mockney accent because, like a lot of middle class British youth, he likes to pretend to be working class. It is partly for that reason that I find it offensive when he tells guinely working class parents how to raise their children. Basically, he annoys me. He might be a fine, upstanding fellow; but he grates.

Anyway, Heath seems to have lost some weight recently, so the two now look less alike.

[hannya]

I It is partly for that reason that I find it offensive when he tells guinely working class parents how to raise their children.

Anyway, Heath seems to have lost some weight recently, so the two now look less alike.

If "genuinely working class parents" think raising their children means feeding them pies and chips through the school fence, then he's right to have a go at them.
"Mockney? An Essex accent is an Essex accent, it's been around since the mid 1600s. Oliver's father runs a pub and built a successful business from nothing. That's working class. He didn't poison his kids with sugar and fat. That kind of behaviour is not the right of the working classes. It's just proud, lazy pig ignorance.
Anyway glad to hear Ledger's slimmed up. No-one wants to see a porky Joker. I'm sure we agree on that :cwink:

[NoName86]

I find it interesting too that Defett's manip so closely resembles that Joker manip one that was done where he is holding the dead mob boss' mouth open into a smile. The wrinkles and all. It has to be the look they are going for.

[hannya]

I find it interesting too that Defett's manip so closely resembles that Joker manip one that was done where he is holding the dead mob boss' mouth open into a smile. The wrinkles and all. It has to be the look they are going for.
I think that look will satisfy pretty much everyone. As long as he's white-skinned and green-haired, I don't think many people are going to take issue with scarred or wrinkly skin, it fits a realistic approach to the "chemical bath". Everything official we've heard so far supports it: the Joker will be sinister, he'll be scary, and the first time he reveals his face he scares the **** out of William Fichtner. It's going to be an ugly Joker in fabulous clothes. Rockin'.

[regwec]

"Mockney? An Essex accent is an Essex accent, it's been around since the mid 1600s.
I know, but Oliver's is assumed.

Oliver's father runs a pub and built a successful business from nothing. That's working class.
I don't know. My Aunt runs a business that she, too, built from nothing. Her father is a baronet. I don't really think she's working class. I could be wrong- it's a thorny issue based mostly on prejudice.

Anyway glad to hear Ledger's slimmed up. No-one wants to see a porky Joker. I'm sure we agree on that :cwink:

Yes, indeed.

[hannya]

I know, but Oliver's is assumed.



Allrighty. :yay:
I personally think Oliver, at the very least, has triggered a debate about the British diet. Which is good (the debate, not the diet :oldrazz:)

All this has started me thinking about the Joker's background. I'm not an afficianodo of the comics but I gather it's generally agreed that he's a gangster through and through. I just read Batman #1 again, the Long Halloween, and the Five-way Revenge. A brilliant hoodlum? A psychotic thief with mafia ties? Fill me in.:woot:

[breyfogle_rules]

No Oliver in the States yet. We just have Emeril.
The guy who deep fries EVERYTHING.

Maybe he could be Two-Face. His face got deep fried while on his cooking show. The finale could be Joker Oliver, Two-Face Emeril and Julia Child as Batman on the Iron Chef.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7089/emerilsp0.jpg

[mopho]

would u like to have a thief joker? or a serial killer?

[ghost_x]

I live in essex, and my accent isn't as strong as Oliver's

[itsthebatman]

I live in essex, and my accent isn't as strong as Oliver's

I say we rename this thread the Jamie Oliver for Joker thread.
'Eat up kids! Lovely Joker fish! Put a smile on your face first thing in the morning! Outrageous!' etc etc.
Oh I haven't the energy. Just back from SM3. I didn't think it was possible, but it both sucks and blows.

[Miranda Fox]

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3603/evenkittenscannotsavethck6.jpg

Jamie Oliver killed the Joker thread. RIP. :csad:

[ghost_x]

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/5715/jamieoliverheadshotom5.jpg

[itsthebatman]

http://catcareclub.com/Photos/100KittenSmiling.jpg
Joker kitten!
http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/vol/5000/4720/4720-37737-1-batman-legends-of-t_150.jpg
And the real deal.

[Miranda Fox]

http://catcareclub.com/Photos/100KittenSmiling.jpg
Joker kitten!
http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/vol/5000/4720/4720-37737-1-batman-legends-of-t_150.jpg
And the real deal.

Hahahaha! :up:

[Nessy]

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3603/evenkittenscannotsavethck6.jpg

Jamie Oliver killed the Joker thread. RIP. :csad:

:csad: *sniff*

[Noir]

...So. No new Joker pics yet?

[ghost_x]

unfortunately not

[Rynan]

Sorry I'm late to respond. I'm working on my art final.

How do you have "less"? Do you forget what he's done or something? Limiting him is boring. Growth, if there is or should be such a thing for The Joker, can be achieved in a variety of ways, even if he can do damn near anything he wants.


No, him having been overused and having done almost everything there is to do or experience has made him difficult to write. The Joker is overused as a character, especially recently. THAT'S why writers have trouble with him. Finding something new to do with him. He's been given godlike powers, he's been killed, he's changed the DC Universe into copies of himself, you name it.

Okay, I think these two tie together...

I'm pretty sure The Joker's particular brand of havoc is a hell of a lot less cliche than your average pulp "bank robbery".

And this one too. You see, by limiting him to stuff like "average pulp bank robberies", you breath life back into the character. After 80's, 90's and today, we've being doing nothing but drilling holes in his head, streaching out him out too thin and exploring too much into The Joker/Batman relationship. He's become a stagnant antagonist, who has lost any interest other than sales. So what better way to save a character than taking him back to his source? Have him rob a few banks, kill a few critics, all in hopes of saving him as a villain. That's the idea. He must evolve and to go further, he must go back.

I believe The Joker to be eccentric. Not insane.

I agree with this statement. However, I truly believe that The Joker is a anti-social misanthrope. His crimes probably spawn from his personal belief that he is superior to the normal people and his hatred of them. To him, people are idiots. Money funds his biased lifestyle.

And how did he get that attention? By KILLING people. A lot of people. The man wanted to cause utter chaos. In BATMAN, Joker saw his murders as his "art", and he used the power he gained in taking over the mobs to further his art. The m an spent his time cutting out pictures for goodness sake. He didn't go around robbing banks or museums or any of that.

I view most the murders of in that movie as revenge murders. He killed Grissom for setting him up and for his mob leadership. He then killed Rotelli for challenging his leadership. He then killed Vinny for trying to rob him of his power. The press then gave Batman the credit for that hit. I don't dispute that The Joker views himself as some sort of artist, so Batman taking credit for HIS crime was insulting. He would Gotham pay for backing the wrong horse, by contaminating beauty products. Batman stopped that plan, so The Joker decided to go "So what?" and try to kill all of Gotham at once to make Batman pay for that defeat. He failed and with his means of production gone, he tried to flee and got killed.

I am also willing to view everything The Joker did in that movie, from his assuming power to the smilex scare to the homicidal parade as one long elaborate plan to get revenge on Batman.


I never said The Joker shouldn't have access to money at some point. I'm saying he shouldn't be about material things as he once was, with the vaults full of jewels and cash and so forth.

I don't understand your aversion to his WANTING the money. I mean, the man needs to pay for purple suits, pay his men and, as I said, fund his criminal life. Everyone needs money. Everyone.

He's an ideology, and a philosophy on life. This is a man who has completely rejected societies boundaries, period. So why would he have any himself?

When criminal become philosophers, they stop being criminals. They become guilt ridden people trying to rationalize there way in life. Your joker is a rebel fighter, an anti-hero. To you, he is not a criminal. He is who you want to be. To be free of responsibility and to have higher goals than getting this weeks paycheck. The villain becomes more important than the hero.

I, on the other hand, see The Joker as a hood. More like Hymie Weiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymie_Weiss) than Che Guevara. A daring fearless imaginative crook, who the criminal element fears and loathes as much as Batman. Money, power, and revenge should be his creed. Chaos, murder and fear are his tools to get it. Threaten the people into doing your bidding.

As I said about your aversion to his greed, I don't understand your aversion to him being a crook. It just seems illogical for him to be anything else, especially in a corrupt place like Gotham.

[VolgusZildrohar]

i still wish they had casted crispin glover for the part. but nevermind, i hope ledger will get it right. i don´t want to see a simple "hollywood-oh-i´m-so-creepy" joker.....

they don´t seem to get derranged killers right in these days

[Ender Durden]

i still wish they had casted crispin glover for the part. but nevermind, i hope ledger will get it right. i don´t want to see a simple "hollywood-oh-i´m-so-creepy" joker.....

they don´t seem to get derranged killers right in these days


BOO!! HISS!!....

[hannya]

BOO!! HISS!!....

Ryan Gosling was far and away the outstanding choice. Watch him in The Believer or Half Nelson. He would have been a terrifying Joker

[Asgard]

Can anyone tell me what the chemicals the Joker fell into did to his face and body other than turn it white?

[TCBats00]

Can anyone tell me what the chemicals the Joker fell into did to his face and body other than turn it white?
To my recollection, it also made him immune to most poisons.

[itsthebatman]

Can anyone tell me what the chemicals the Joker fell into did to his face and body other than turn it white?

A magic vat of insane-o-acid. One bath and bam! You're a flamboyant homicidal maniac with the complexion of a corpse.
Seriously, it's never been specified. To my knowledge.

[Nepenthes]

Can anyone tell me what the chemicals the Joker fell into did to his face and body other than turn it white?

I read somewhere that the chemicals might have deadened his pain receptors but I don't remember it mentioned in any comics.

[regwec]

To my recollection, it also made him immune to most poisons.

His resiliance to toxins is generally said to be a result of years of self-experimentation.

[Rynan]

His resiliance to toxins is generally said to be a result of years of self-experimentation.

Hm. I thought it was just because he just kept injecting himself with the antidote.

Also, I deny the magic insane-o-acid theorem. He had to have been messed up before he took the dip.

[Doc Holliday]

i still wish they had casted crispin glover for the part

Ryan Gosling was far and away the outstanding choice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/andyspics/lexwrong.jpg


God you don't know how long I've been looking for a place to post that.

[Nepenthes]

No i think Ryan Gosling would have been very interesting, much better than Hulme or Bettany at least...

..but hell I was hoping for Benicio Del Toro, so what do i know?

[Doc Holliday]

No i think Ryan Gosling would have been very interesting, much better than Hulme or Bettany at least...

..but hell I was hoping for Benicio Del Toro, so what do i know?

Well, don't get me wrong, Gosling can act, I just don't think he would be right for the part. Of course, if you had told me ahead of time that Heath would be cast, I would have said the same thing.

And Benicio is an interesting choice as well.

[ronzpeed]

Willem Dafoe would've rocked, who cares if he was the Green Goblin.

[Bandyt]

I reckon Andy Hallet could have done a great Job too, but he's not well enough known...He played the green guy with the horns in the Angel tv series.

[Ender Durden]

Ryan Gosling was far and away the outstanding choice. Watch him in The Believer or Half Nelson. He would have been a terrifying Joker

:huh: wha? he was talking about crispin glover. how did gosling come into the picture?

btw i do agree tho, he probly wouldve made a great joker.

[Nessy]

It's so funny that we're still talking about Joker casting ideas when he's already been cast and filming for a few weeks.

Yup.

There are many actors who could play the Joker. But well, Nolan chose Ledger. And in my opinion he fits the Joker perfectly. He will not disappoint us ;)
Hey... in Ledger we trust?! :oldrazz:

[Asgard]

Thanks for the answers guys.

My knowledge of the Joker comes mostly from the cartoons and he's always been shown with the white skin, dark red lips, and green hair. I was also wondering if this is the approach Nolan will be going for with the Joker, or if he's going to have his face scarred.

[Nessy]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a380/ringdeacon/10te92.jpg



o,O Somehow I like this manip. On this pic heath looks very much like the actor who played Harry Osborn in the Spidey movies. *lol*

Could you post the original pic?

[The Guard]

And this one too. You see, by limiting him to stuff like "average pulp bank robberies", you breath life back into the character.

How is using a stale plot device going to breathe life into a character? That angle has been DONE to DEATH, in almost every genre. Nearly every classic supervillain in HISTORY has been a robber at some point or another. Why relegate The Joker to that stale cliche of a motivation?

After 80's, 90's and today, we've being doing nothing but drilling holes in his head, streaching out him out too thin and exploring too much into The Joker/Batman relationship. He's become a stagnant antagonist, who has lost any interest other than sales. So what better way to save a character than taking him back to his source? Have him rob a few banks, kill a few critics, all in hopes of saving him as a villain. That's the idea. He must evolve and to go further, he must go back.
I'm referring to The Joker of THE DARK KNIGHT, not the overexposed comic book Joker. Where to take him in the comics is a whole seperate issue.
I agree with this statement. However, I truly believe that The Joker is a anti-social misanthrope. His crimes probably spawn from his personal belief that he is superior to the normal people and his hatred of them. To him, people are idiots. Money funds his biased lifestyle.
Seems to me that if he is, as he thinks, so much superior to most people...money wouldn't be the be-all end-all as it is for almost everyone else. Seems to me he'd find a better laugh.
I am also willing to view everything The Joker did in that movie, from his assuming power to the smilex scare to the homicidal parade as one long elaborate plan to get revenge on Batman.
That's one way to look at it. Another is to view it all as an attention-grabbing exercise, his attempt to make Gotham notice his existence, and fear him. Does he want to be more popular than Batman and feared more? Almost certainly. But the only time it becomes "revenge against Batman" is...well, it never really does. Joker just has him attacked when Batman gets in his way. Nothing Joker does is calculated to hurt Batman directly. He does sort of strike at him through the people, but only indirectly, and only after Batman foils his beauty product plans.

I don't understand your aversion to his WANTING the money. I mean, the man needs to pay for purple suits, pay his men and, as I said, fund his criminal life. Everyone needs money. Everyone.
I never said he shouldn't want money. His goals shouldn't be to stockpile it just for the hell of it as he did in the old comics.
When criminal become philosophers, they stop being criminals. They become guilt ridden people trying to rationalize there way in life. Your joker is a rebel fighter, an anti-hero. To you, he is not a criminal. He is who you want to be. To be free of responsibility and to have higher goals than getting this weeks paycheck. The villain becomes more important than the hero.
You certainly assume a lot. In this case, you're dead wrong. My Joker is absolutely a criminal. He's not an anti-hero, he's a villain. You have no idea who I want to be, and I don't know where that even enters into it. A criminal who is a philosopher just means that the criminal has a philosophy. It doesn't excuse his actions. Nor does it make him more important than the hero. Because Batman also has a philosophy, one that tends to be more highly valued in society.

I, on the other hand, see The Joker as a hood. More like Hymie Weiss than Che Guevara. A daring fearless imaginative crook, who the criminal element fears and loathes as much as Batman. Money, power, and revenge should be his creed. Chaos, murder and fear are his tools to get it. Threaten the people into doing your bidding.
That simplifies The Joker, and that's an incredibly boring end goal. Incredibly. Money, power and revenge? Power as a goal, at least psychological power over his victims, I can see. Revenge, when compared to killing innocent people who have never harmed you at all, is just boring.
As I said about your aversion to his greed, I don't understand your aversion to him being a crook. It just seems illogical for him to be anything else, especially in a corrupt place like Gotham.
I don't have an aversion to him being a crook. I have an aversion to him ONLY being a crook, and not just using that to further his ends. The Joker is the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to villainy. There are worse things in terms of deviance than robberies where people get killed. Serial killers and mass murderers come to mind.

[NoName86]

@Miranda Fox-if I recall correctly, didn't you mention something about a rumor going around that an offical Joker photo will be released within a few weeks? I know this was about a week and half or two weeks ago, and was wondering if you had heard anything on it.

By the way folks, anybody else find it hilarious that Latino Review mentioned they would have something coming within a few weeks again? This was about 3 weeks ago when that fake photo got everyone all fired up. I find it funny that once again they fail to keep their promise.

[Miranda Fox]

@Miranda Fox-if I recall correctly, didn't you mention something about a rumor going around that an offical Joker photo will be released within a few weeks? I know this was about a week and half or two weeks ago, and was wondering if you had heard anything on it.

By the way folks, anybody else find it hilarious that Latino Review mentioned they would have something coming within a few weeks again? This was about 3 weeks ago when that fake photo got everyone all fired up. I find it funny that once again they fail to keep their promise.

The pictures are being taken this week. They get passed through various channels from there, so I really can't say when they'll show up. It'll probably be the end of May, which is when the official website is supposed to be going online. However, I'd watch publications like EW. They had the first Batman picture IIRC. ;)

As for LR - they said a script review for a superhero film coming next year was going up this week (as in definitely, not 'might be' as was the case before). They included a disclaimer, which makes me strongly suspect it's TDK.

We'll see if they deliver on this.

[itsthebatman]

The pictures are being taken this week. They get passed through various channels from there, so I really can't say when they'll show up. It'll probably be the end of May, which is when the official website is supposed to be going online. However, I'd watch publications like EW. They had the first Batman picture IIRC. ;)

As for LR - they said a script review for a superhero film coming next year was going up this week (as in definitely, not 'might be' as was the case before). They included a disclaimer, which makes me strongly suspect it's TDK.

We'll see if they deliver on this.

They are definitely drinking in the last chance saloon with this script review at this stage. Stand and deliver, LR.

[Miranda Fox]

They are definitely drinking in the last chance saloon with this script review at this stage. Stand and deliver, LR.

Call me crazy - but I think they might be about to deliver this time. I can't really see the point in saying a) it was definitely next week and b) giving a legal disclaimer if they are just going to chicken out again.

[King Rockwell]

I've gotta be honest. I've got a lot of faith in Nolan, but I just know there's no way Ledger can pull out something that beats Paul Molnar. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yGZoJdBb7Q) The dude had the classically iconic look while still maintaining believability. Ledger's cool and A Knight's Tale is one of my favorites, but Molnar's just phenomenal.