The man who laughs: The Joker thread

[Fenrir]

People saying "GOOD" or "That's what I want" or something idiotic like that are fools who need to get off the computer and see the world.

Or maybe you get a brain for a change that will help you understand the viewpoints of those who like this Joker pic. I've already stated my thoughts on this before:

See this is the kind of retarded crap that is really pissing me off now. We like the new Joker look because of some blind fanboy loyalty to Nolan? Well, I guess one could just as easily attribute your and that of many of your fellow gay-for-Burton cronies to the apparent dislike of Batman Begins and obvious hard-ons for the "master of macabre", thereby putting you in opposite end of the very same boat, chucky.

:rolleyes:

I mean, how hard can it be to grasp the simple fact that it is possible those of us who like the new look could be because we either appreciate the bold and creative decision to give us a Joker we've never seen before (and really, how is that any different than any comic book artist/writer putting his own stamp on the character by radically changing his version from previous incarnations?) or absolutely love the appearance of the Lee Bermejo Joker? Particularly when I've explicitly made known my desire to see the influence of Bermejo's artwork on Nolan's Joker countless number of times before since long before the Joker pic was released?

Or let's even put all that aside for a moment - how ****ing hard is it to understand that someone could ACTUALLY like something you don't?

:wow:...Non-possibility! :cmad:

Nolan and his minions are trying to trick us again. True, bona fide, die-hard Batman fans would NEVER accept the new Joker look. Everyone else are either pretenders, conformist Nolanites or easily satisfied sheep.

Ugh...this place has really gone down the ****ing toilet. :down: :down: :down:

And besides, what's so wrong about wanting something like this?

http://files.photojerk.com/Killphaser/jokerbermejomanipcopyqf7.jpg

I honestly think it's one of, if not the best Joker pic out there, in that it interprets the look of the character within plausible boundaries without taking taking the liberty of exaggerating his features to impossible lengths commonly exercised by many other comic book artists.

I worry about the kids with this. This will be our comic book legacy. I'm just waiting for the day one my little cousins tells me about The Joke's cut smile, then my soul will die. Lucky for my cousins, I can give them the history of this character and explain why this is a bad thing. Other children won't be so lucky. That is, if they can even see the movie at all. Most parents will shy away from a disfigurement like that, which would then make this a Batman Returns situation and we all know what happened after BR.

I believe Batman Begins already showed what kind of direction this franchise is taking, especially when the prelude for the Joker to come is "armed robbery, double homicide", which goes to show this Joker isn't exactly kid-friendly by any means. When I watched BB in theaters, I've seen children sitting beside me shut their eyes out of sheer terror during the fear gas hallucination scenes. The whole tone of the franchise is very dark and sober aimed primarily at the 13-28 age demographic, which is what Batman's main readership is. Just look at the most influential and renowned Batman stories to date and tell me if the material is suitable for toddlers. I am not worried about parents not bringing their kids to see The Dark Knight, because if it's a great film, even if it is rated R it could still easily make more than enough bucks to be profitable at the end of the day that would guarantee a sequel.

The problem with Batman Returns was mis-marketing. It's promotional tie-ins with McDonalds and other similar franchises gave people an impression of the film being family friendly when it was anything but. As long as the studio doesn't screw up on that front, there's nothing to worry about. And frankly I don't give a damn either provided Nolan delivers what we all expect - the best possible superhero movie to date.

So, in a nutshell, stop being such a drama queen.

[Rynan]

Nolan can't just make wholesome fairy tales for all the family about the world of Batman. It wouldn't make sense.

You should feel ashamed for insulting the intelligence of children. Kids enjoy Batman just as much as we do, if not more. We were all children once. We grew up with Batman. Who are we to deprive them of the same experiences?

Comics already have forsaken them and if an overly graphic looking Joker is preventing them from enjoying Batman, we should be concerned.

[ghost_x]

Or maybe you get a brain for a change that will help you understand the viewpoints of those who like this Joker pic. I've already stated my thoughts on this before:



And besides, what's so wrong about wanting something like this?

http://files.photojerk.com/Killphaser/jokerbermejomanipcopyqf7.jpg

I honestly think it's one of, if not the best Joker pic out there, in that it interprets the look of the character within plausible boundaries without taking taking the liberty of exaggerating his features to impossible lengths commonly exercised by many other comic book artists.



I believe Batman Begins already showed what kind of direction this franchise is taking, especially when the prelude for the Joker to come is "armed robbery, double homicide", which goes to show this Joker isn't exactly kid-friendly by any means. When I watched BB in theaters, I've seen children sitting beside me shut their eyes out of sheer terror during the fear gas hallucination scenes. The whole tone of the franchise is very dark and sober aimed primarily at the 13-28 age demographic, which is what Batman's main readership is. Just look at the most influential and renowned Batman stories to date and tell me if the material is suitable for toddlers. I am not worried about parents not bringing their kids to see The Dark Knight, because if it's a great film, even if it is rated R it could still easily make more than enough bucks to be profitable at the end of the day that would guarantee a sequel.

The problem with Batman Returns was mis-marketing. It's promotional tie-ins with McDonalds and other similar franchises gave people an impression of the film being family friendly when it was anything but. As long as the studio doesn't screw up on that front, there's nothing to worry about. And frankly I don't give a damn either provided Nolan delivers what we all expect - the best possible superhero movie to date.

So, in a nutshell, stop being such a drama queen.

I concur on all points, great post

[SilentType]

People saying "GOOD" or "That's what I want" or something idiotic like that are fools who need to get off the computer and see the world.

I worry about the kids with this. This will be our comic book legacy. I'm just waiting for the day one my little cousins tells me about The Joke's cut smile, then my soul will die. Lucky for my cousins, I can give them the history of this character and explain why this is a bad thing. Other children won't be so lucky. That is, if they can even see the movie at all. Most parents will shy away from a disfigurement like that, which would then make this a Batman Returns situation and we all know what happened after BR.
Good thing you'll be there to ruin the movie for them instead of allowing them to enjoy more than one interpretation of the character.

[sohojozo]

once more, there have been adult versions of fairy tales made that i DONT believe were intended for children, and i don't think that is insulting to them, that they might not be able to watch a horror version of Snow White.

[dark_b]

people who dont like the joker( i will not say haters ok) are nwo already saying that this joker will not be good for kids?

[ghost_x]

Do you reckon parents are pissed off that they feel Shrek has disillusioned their kids about the original interpretations of Disney characters

[Doc Samson]

I'm pretty sure half the Batman comicbook stories aren't exactly fit for kids

[DieSmiling]

People saying "GOOD" or "That's what I want" or something idiotic like that are fools who need to get off the computer and see the world.

I worry about the kids with this. This will be our comic book legacy. I'm just waiting for the day one my little cousins tells me about The Joke's cut smile, then my soul will die. Lucky for my cousins, I can give them the history of this character and explain why this is a bad thing. Other children won't be so lucky. That is, if they can even see the movie at all. Most parents will shy away from a disfigurement like that, which would then make this a Batman Returns situation and we all know what happened after BR.

So you're telling people who don't care about having a marketable Joker to go out and see the real world, yet you're concerned about your little cousins growing up with a cut smile Joker?

[Goddamn_Batman]

Look, Nolan's Joker won't ruin the Joker for kids. Come on, I grew up watching Burton's Joker, with the perma-smile and Wayne-murdering and everything, and I still found out that this wasn't in line with his "real" character, if you want to argue that he even has one. The fact is, one of three things will happen with kids and TDK:
1. They'll see it and won't like it, in which case, who cares.
2. They'll see it and like it, and be happy.
3. They'll see it and like it, and be happy, and be interested, and will start to read comic books trying to learn more about these characters, and will find out that even though the movie was good, the comics, which are different, can be just as good too.

For kids in #1, screw 'em, who cares. For #2 and #3 either they like it, or they like it and learn more. In neither case is the Batman mythology being ruined for them. Like I said, I grew up watching a non-traditional version of the Joker, and so did all of my friends, but we all just kind of know that that was one take on the Joker. So what's the big deal?

[FlawlessVictory]

Good thing you'll be there to ruin the movie for them instead of allowing them to enjoy more than one interpretation of the character.

Exactly. No one is proclaimng this to be the definitive version of the Joker. This is just one interpretation, as was Cesar Romero's, Jack Nicholson's, etc..

[Akimych]

Heath Ledger will play Joker in "Dark Knight"


Thanks to me for the information!!!

[FlawlessVictory]

I'm pretty sure half the Batman comicbook stories aren't exactly fit for kids

There a lot of Batman stories that aren't completely fit for kids. Perhaps we should not allow the kids to read them. :whatever:

[Ani-mater]

Do you reckon parents are pissed off that they feel Shrek has disillusioned their kids about the original interpretations of Disney characters


UUUUH "original" interpretations? I dont think so... Disney fell into a formula by the late 90's, take a story that has been in the public domain for ever (in some cases like Pinocchio, they snatched it up right when the copyright ran out) then butcher the stories and add a few musical numbers with talking animal sidekicks.

If you want "original" go to the source material, not Disney... they only hold copyright on the character designs, not the story.

PDI/Dreamworks is merely putting their own stamp on these characters, again from the original public domain source material... except for shrek and that annoying donkey:whatever:

[ghost_x]

UUUUH "original" interpretations? I dont think so... Disney fell into a formula by the late 90's, take a story that has been in the public domain for ever (in some cases like Pinocchio, they snatched it up right when the copyright ran out) then butcher the stories and add a few musical numbers with talking animal sidekicks.

If you want "original" go to the source material, not Disney... they only hold copyright on the character designs, not the story.

PDI/Dreamworks is merely putting their own stamp on these characters, again from the original public domain source material... except for shrek and that annoying donkey:whatever:

Uhhhh, I think you missed the sarcasm :dry::whatever:

[Ani-mater]

uuuuuuh

[ghost_x]

Uuuuhh indeed

[Ani-mater]

yeah I know Im just a disney nerd

[Ani-mater]

any opportunity and I jump on it

[ghost_x]

Thats almost as bad as a treki, not quite there, but close

[Jinnobi]

The Joker is the best villain ever. He is just psychotic and unpredictable. That's why he is the best. Nolan will make him realistic in that approach, who cares if it's for kids or not. Batman is an adult hero facing adult problems.

[stonecold]

hi. ( sorry its my 1st post so sorry if this is in the wrong thread or not in continuity or something! )

whatever people here think about the design.. it pisses me off when i read some pussy write something like ' it was ruined for me by the casting of ledger - he can never ever be the joker to me'. being this hardcore against it is kinda wrongheaded to me, seems abit pointless. you havent seen what he will do with it. yeah you doubt him cos you cant hack watching Brokeback Mountain or you think of how bad he is in Casanova.. i dont blame you.. but still, at last leave something in yourself open to the idea that he might just blow you away . otherwise its just foolish to dismiss him. he might suck, but ive been looking at his films for the 1st time and i can see why they got him definately.. .also..go watch a film called Candy and tell me the guy cant act ****ing amazingly when he chooses. real intense and dark as ****, honestly. remember that this is a guy who was pushed hard into 'heartthrob' romantic hollywood rolls, whose career faultered slightly bcause he wanted to fight against that image, hes made some **** films..but he's changing... so he's not some one dimensional pin-up. he has a darkside, dont worry. also check his role in dogtown and monsters ball... i dunno its a bold choice but it might be genius. maybe actually giving the joker sex appeal and then ****ing that up with the scars is a sick idea that might work. im kind of into it.

i think the look is dark... i like it.. i agree the image looks ugly..not really anything like the joker we know. but i had this image staring coldly at me for hours and it fills me with very bad vibes. its just ****ing darker than anything i could have predicted. to me somewhere in the eyes i see the joker i've always wanted to see. he looks like he looking straight through you. he looks like hes going to **** with you, mess with your head and then kill you and play with your dead body... thats the joker to me. i think when we see him smile and see ledgers performance..i hope..a great many people who are worrying about this will change there minds. so personally im excited about it, although i can 100% understand the negativity ... its a weird challenging image but i sort of like that its such a head****. i think thats a ****ing cool opening salvo for this movie. once you see him in his handmade purple suit im sure the classic joker will stand before us.

sorry this is rambling..ive been reading these boards for ages and finally decided to join. im a fan of posts from all sides of the divides..so i hope i dont get jumped on for maybe posting this in the wrong thread or whatever. im actually more excited about this movie BECAUSE this joker is such an unknown quantity. i think it would have been bad to cast someone where it would be completely obvious how they would play it ( carrey, glover etc ). the casting of ledger actually feels more dangerous to me. more unstable. like he might just go ****ing crazy and become that character, fearlessly take it to the place the joker is in the best graphic novels etc. when i look at that photo..whatever my misgivings about the seeming lack of classic joker look... i see something utterly psychopathically dark in that look and that almost single-handedly makes me believe in ledger becoming the joker. thats my opinion anyway..i hope it works out. dark knight..****ing bring it on.

anyway thats my 2 cents..

[Schlosser85]

I think Brokeback Mountain, Monster's Ball, Lords of Dogtown, and Candy should have proven by now that Ledger can act.

[NoName86]

You should feel ashamed for insulting the intelligence of children. Kids enjoy Batman just as much as we do, if not more. We were all children once. We grew up with Batman. Who are we to deprive them of the same experiences?

Comics already have forsaken them and if an overly graphic looking Joker is preventing them from enjoying Batman, we should be concerned.There for a minute I thought you were that guy from the Christian Children's fund thingy, lol, the way you were talking about how only a few select kids get the opportunity to know the "real Joker", and how all the rest are damned to get used to the cut smile Joker. Awww poor babies. lol

I suppose everytime you see anyone in public with scars on their face you would make your children turn away? lol. The real Joker is nothing like the Barmejo pic, nowhere near as gruesome, nowhere near at all. But I suppose in your mind that it is ok for them read comics and see pics of a guy whose face is half scarred up, (Two Face) and is far more gruesome in every appearence he has ever had than this Joker could ever be.


Forums always amaze me, lol.

[SHADOWBAT69]

::stands up and proclaims::

I am a Burtonite, and I like Nolans Joker.


All we have is this one shadowy picture with no hair or wardrobe. Its really hard to get an overall conception of what this visual characterization of Joker is going to look like. There is also the performance factor we have to take into consideration. Its still too soon in the game to make any final judgments.

As for the kids, Im sure there may be parents who dont like this version of the Batman movies and may feel its too "adult" or whatever, and prohibit their children from seeing it. But, ya know what? Theres no stopping that with any movie, some people have different beliefs or standards, let it be. As for marketing any toys or images, there was already an interview with ledger where he briefly touched upon that. He stated that he saw a preliminary sculpt for a Joker doll in his likeness and said they had scaled it back to make it less frightening or the kids would be afraid to buy it. lol

These are petty concerns that we have no control over. Batman will always be around, there are always going to be different versions of the Batman universe. Just sit back and enjoy them.

[Keyser Soze]

hi. ( sorry its my 1st post so sorry if this is in the wrong thread or not in continuity or something! )

whatever people here think about the design.. it pisses me off when i read some pussy write something like ' it was ruined for me by the casting of ledger - he can never ever be the joker to me'. being this hardcore against it is kinda wrongheaded to me, seems abit pointless. you havent seen what he will do with it. yeah you doubt him cos you cant hack watching Brokeback Mountain or you think of how bad he is in Casanova.. i dont blame you.. but still, at last leave something in yourself open to the idea that he might just blow you away . otherwise its just foolish to dismiss him. he might suck, but ive been looking at his films for the 1st time and i can see why they got him definately.. .also..go watch a film called Candy and tell me the guy cant act ****ing amazingly when he chooses. real intense and dark as ****, honestly. remember that this is a guy who was pushed hard into 'heartthrob' romantic hollywood rolls, whose career faultered slightly bcause he wanted to fight against that image, hes made some **** films..but he's changing... so he's not some one dimensional pin-up. he has a darkside, dont worry. also check his role in dogtown and monsters ball... i dunno its a bold choice but it might be genius. maybe actually giving the joker sex appeal and then ****ing that up with the scars is a sick idea that might work. im kind of into it.

i think the look is dark... i like it.. i agree the image looks ugly..not really anything like the joker we know. but i had this image staring coldly at me for hours and it fills me with very bad vibes. its just ****ing darker than anything i could have predicted. to me somewhere in the eyes i see the joker i've always wanted to see. he looks like he looking straight through you. he looks like hes going to **** with you, mess with your head and then kill you and play with your dead body... thats the joker to me. i think when we see him smile and see ledgers performance..i hope..a great many people who are worrying about this will change there minds. so personally im excited about it, although i can 100% understand the negativity ... its a weird challenging image but i sort of like that its such a head****. i think thats a ****ing cool opening salvo for this movie. once you see him in his handmade purple suit im sure the classic joker will stand before us.

sorry this is rambling..ive been reading these boards for ages and finally decided to join. im a fan of posts from all sides of the divides..so i hope i dont get jumped on for maybe posting this in the wrong thread or whatever. im actually more excited about this movie BECAUSE this joker is such an unknown quantity. i think it would have been bad to cast someone where it would be completely obvious how they would play it ( carrey, glover etc ). the casting of ledger actually feels more dangerous to me. more unstable. like he might just go ****ing crazy and become that character, fearlessly take it to the place the joker is in the best graphic novels etc. when i look at that photo..whatever my misgivings about the seeming lack of classic joker look... i see something utterly psychopathically dark in that look and that almost single-handedly makes me believe in ledger becoming the joker. thats my opinion anyway..i hope it works out. dark knight..****ing bring it on.

anyway thats my 2 cents..


Good way to make a statement on your arrival to the boards. Welcome to The Hype!

[Spider-Bat]

I mentioned the new pic at my Comic shop, and everyone chimed in and said how ugly and horrible Heath looks and that it is not the Joker.

[The Last Meatbag]

One thing I also don't get about all the people hating Ledger's comments of

"He's too much of a pretty boy"

When SOOO many people wanted Jude Law to play the Joker.

[L.A.]

Has anyone seen this yet?:D :joker:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/ryansoldout/jokebackmountain.jpg

[DangerousInc.]

Cant wait to see Joker under Scarecrow's Fear Gas!

[Klattimus_Darby]

I don't ever really post on these threads, how do I paste an image into them?

[Klattimus_Darby]

I happened to have taken an image of Heath Ledger as he's smiling, drawn his face, and added on top of it the Joker make-up. The thing is A) he doesn't look anything like Heath Ledger anymore (we already knew that)... B) he looks an amazing bit more like the Joker than I ever expected. The problem with the official pic, it is completely out of character with the idea that everybod holds of what Joker looks like. Not the scarring per se, but there is no hair and there is no smile, and frankly those two simple things add up to a lot. You guys need to see this image as soon as I figure out how to post it.

[Showtime]

Not sure if you can yet.

[Klattimus_Darby]

Okay, somebody help... How do I post an image?

[DangerousInc.]

Go to www.imageshack.us and post the url link here.

[Klattimus_Darby]

[URL="http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=50148571&albumId=0"]

This is a link to my myspace where I posted the image. Check it out.

[Klattimus_Darby]

[img=http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5356/jokerdrawingti2.th.jpg] (http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jokerdrawingti2.jpg)

Hey thanks

[DangerousInc.]

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8348/jokerdrawingti2ru8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

NP :woot:

[Klattimus_Darby]

I know that this image doesnt look anything like the official pic, but the thing is, I swear to God, all I did was take a straight up pic of Ledger smiling, drew make-up on over the smile, and that was the result. Technically speaking, that is what you can more or less expect, give or take the look of the hair. I mean theoretically at least.

[Klattimus_Darby]

Whoa, thanks for putting that up, but let me scale it down or something, give me a sec. Seriously, thanks though.

[DangerousInc.]

It does look a little like what he does in the official pic but the picture itself is brilliantly drawn. Well done. Wish I could draw as well as that.

[BatJew]

I wanted to get an idea of what he would look like smiling with teeth and a little green hair so...behold, the crappyness of my manip:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/jokermanip.jpg

[Klattimus_Darby]

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/918/jokerdrawing2by2.th.jpg (http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jokerdrawing2by2.jpg)

[DangerousInc.]

I wanted to get an idea of what he would look like smiling with teeth and a little green hair so...behold, the crappyness of my manip:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/jokermanip.jpg
:wow: Thank god he wont look like that!

[BatJew]

:wow: Thank god he wont look like that!
Lol :csad::oldrazz: Its the best I could do in 5 minutes...

[Klattimus_Darby]

Thank you much, Dangerous. I actually colored this pic in with photoshop, but I have no access to the file on the computer I'm on. Eventually I'll post it on the forum though. The thing is, I originally did this picture simply for my own sake, just so I personally could try to get an idea beyond the mug shot that was released. Frankly, I was genuinely surprised at how familiar the face looked after all, especially considering how unorthodox the Joker looks n the official pic. I'm telling you guys, give him some hair and a smile and he's going to look a lot more familiar then we all expect.

[strikezone89]

I wanted to get an idea of what he would look like smiling with teeth and a little green hair so...behold, the crappyness of my manip:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/jokermanip.jpg

wtf?
looks like hillbillie joker.lol

[Klattimus_Darby]

Lol. Pretty strange...

[Killing Joke926]

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8348/jokerdrawingti2ru8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



NP :woot:


This probably the best Joker I've ever seen in Ledger. It's a deal to where it looks like Heath, but also looks like the Joker; and in my opinion its a picture where a Chelsea smile makes the picture realistic and actually makes Ledger look like a better Joker. Whoever did this drawing, AWSOME JOB!:woot:

P.S. The eyes are what makes this picture excel with flying colors.

[Klattimus_Darby]

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6642/heathwq0.th.png (http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=heathwq0.png)

[Klattimus_Darby]

Thats the image I worked off of. See! Ledger can be the Joker!

[strikezone89]

Just a little something I did for another site awhile back.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a380/ringdeacon/The-Joker-Returns.jpg

sorry but it looks like "queer eye for a straight guy" joker

[BatJew]

?? (Crappy coloring I know)

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/jokersketchcolor.jpg
Wow, youve made me even more excited for this movie now! :woot:

[Klattimus_Darby]

No actually BatJew that makes it look pretty good.

[BatJew]

No actually BatJew that makes it look pretty good.
It makes me even more confident in Nolan. I believe he is on the right track. This Joker will be terrifying. He looks exactly like the 1940's Joker (before DC tamed him and turned him into a harmless, cackling buffoon) but with a gashed smile, which makes him look even more hideous. I cant wait to see what Two Face will look like next....

[DangerousInc.]

Looks good :)

[BatJew]

Just a little something I did for another site awhile back.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a380/ringdeacon/The-Joker-Returns.jpg
Dear lord I hope they dont give him a suit like that. It looks absolutely dreadful. It needs to be darker and little more shabby looking....*barfs*

[HoratioRome]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I just wanted to go on record to say that the design shown for the Joker is HORRIBLE. I hate it. enough maybe to even skip this movie.

[BatJew]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I just wanted to go on record to say that the design shown for the Joker is HORRIBLE. I hate it. enough maybe to even skip this movie.
Read Jett's last interview with Bermejo, his view on the Joker is the view everyone should have. Go in with an open mind, it IS a movie after all.

[DangerousInc.]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I just wanted to go on record to say that the design shown for the Joker is HORRIBLE. I hate it. enough maybe to even skip this movie.

Fine go ahead. I think its quite ignorant for people to base a whole movie on 1 pic without seeing anything. You havent seen the Joker in action yet. And Joker it the purple suit doesnt work for this kind of film even though he does wear a purple outfit @ one point and looks most like the comic Joker when Scarecrow is under the influence of the fear gas.

[DangerousInc.]

Yeah Ive seen that b4.

[DangerousInc.]

That sort of Joker wont fit TDK IMO

[BatJew]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a380/ringdeacon/jokerreturns.jpg
Sorry but I think that looks horrible. Its not scary or intimidating at all. His smile in that pic makes him look retarded or something...

[DangerousInc.]

^^ Yeah a geeky retard!

[TheBatman072]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I just wanted to go on record to say that the design shown for the Joker is HORRIBLE. I hate it. enough maybe to even skip this movie.


Meh. Whatever. You can wallow in your hate while the rest of us enjoy ourselves.


No skin off our backs.

[Klattimus_Darby]

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5958/untitledob5.th.png (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitledob5.png)

[Klattimus_Darby]

Take a look at that pic with the official make up job on him. Looks pretty Joker-y eh?

[BatJew]

Take a look at that pic with the official make up job on him. Looks pretty Joker-y eh?
Lol, he still looks like a dork...:P

[Bandyt]

Going back to an earlier topic of discussion on the thread, I saw "Zodiac" yesterday (excellent film, BTW, possibly the best of the year so far), and I think we can add "Hurdy Gurdy Man" by Donovan to songs that fit The Joker! :woot:


Haha, Yeah! Hell Yeah! It's an awesome song for him. I can see him torturing someone to it, Just like I've had recurring images of Someone in a chair, shadowed out with the Joker there (ledger joker put together in my head) slashing randomly at them, Cackling, all this to "Mr. Sandman" by the Chordettes.

[BatJew]

Haha, Yeah! Hell Yeah! It's an awesome song for him. I can see him torturing someone to it, Just like I've had recurring images of Someone in a chair, shadowed out with the Joker there (ledger joker put together in my head) slashing randomly at them, Cackling, all this to "Mr. Sandman" by the Chordettes.
That reminds me too much of Halloween. They need something more original :o

[BatJew]

Someone with great skill in manipping should use this photo and create a manip that looks close to the official pic:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/ledger.jpg

[HoratioRome]

Fine go ahead. I think its quite ignorant for people to base a whole movie on 1 pic without seeing anything. You havent seen the Joker in action yet. And Joker it the purple suit doesnt work for this kind of film even though he does wear a purple outfit @ one point and looks most like the comic Joker when Scarecrow is under the influence of the fear gas.

well I think it is ignorant to make statements that are obvioulsy wrong.
I am not "basing a whole movie on 1 pic" that is why I said it is enough to MAYBE to skip the whole movie".
The maybe implies that other factors and future information would play a role..
furthermore I find it extremely ignorant for YOU to say "the joker in purple suit doesn't work for this kind of movie". How do you know?

those of you who support this new "realisitic" joker are COMPLETELY missing the point of the joker.
It doesn't matter that YOU like the design or not. What matters is that it would no longer be the joker.
The broad smile, green hair, purple/colorfull suit, the white skin and make up, and the clown aspect of the joker are Essential to the character. THAT is what makes him who he is, as opposed to any other villain.
it is that juxtaposition of cute but deadly, funny looking but scary, silly but terrible which makes him particularly menacing.
He is a clown, but a clown who'll rip your heart out as soon as look at you.
the reason why I MAY miss the whole movie because of this is because if they make the joker as different from the comic character as this picture implies then,
1) I am less interested because it wouldn't be about the character I know and love
2)the whole movie would be affected by this as the Joker plays an integral part in the whole movie
3)Missing that juxtaposition would be a lot less interesting to me and would lessen the overall experience
4)I am sick and tired of Hollywood presuming to know better

bottom line is I love the joker, so if the Joker isn't in the movie I am as interested as I would be for any new upcoming movie villain. which means I ain't that interested.

It's time we stopped accepting what hollywood throws at us just because they keep the name.,

[DangerousInc.]

lmao ^^ You should learn to take your own advice in your first line!:whatever:

[DangerousInc.]

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1333/ledgereckhart224072sn5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
A pic to manip. Ledger & Eckhart

[Ibn]

I am a man of faith. I'm going to assume that that is blood on his face, and that there is no make up, but true discoloration. Even if it isn't though. I'll go along with it. However, nobody better EVER say ANYTHING about Tim Burtons "interperetation" again. Nolans Joker is FFFFAAAAARRRRRR from what the joker is in the comics, especially if that is indeed make-up. Already I see people saying stuff like, "oh it's completely different from the comics......... but it's okay, b/c you still get that it's Joker". Now Tim Burton did the exact same thing, and his Joker looked a WHOLE HELL of alot more like Bob Kane's pictures than Ledger does. Again, I will go along with what Chris Nolan does, b/c I love these characters and I think there in decent hands. But the Tim Burton hate is NO LONGER JUSTIFIED. It never was to begin with, but this proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Nepenthes]

Already I see people saying stuff like, "oh it's completely different from the comics......... but it's okay, b/c you still get that it's Joker".

^ Well, it's true though.

anyway who cares if Burtons "looked more like the joker"? Really.

[Darkest Knight]

The TDK Joker does look like the Joker. A harlequin of disfigurement, and tragedy. With white face, red lips, green hair, and excessive grin. It's the Joker, but with a more disturbing and grim twist. Love it.

[3 Dev Adam]

First, that horrible batsuit that I'll always hate. Now, Freak Joker From Hell. Suffer the little me.

[Spider-Bat]

I knew from the start Heath would be a bad choice, but I tried to have hope with the make up, but now I have no hope for him. That is not the Joker. I guess his lip stick got smeared on Brokeback Mountain. :joker:

[strikezone89]

good morning

[Emperor Bohe]

?? (Crappy coloring I know)

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/jokersketchcolor.jpg
Wow, youve made me even more excited for this movie now! :woot:

me likey.

[Cronus]

Ok… in my opinion … change = appreciated …. But too much of it = can’t appreciate!!!
After Tim Burton's joker (which I didn’t like that much) I was hoping to see a perfect joker… and yes I was highly in doubt with “Heath Ledger”… cut smile / smudge smile / creep smile what ever you say …. Its not the joker smile…. I know maybe the movie would be a great batman movie coz I have at least that faith on “Nolan” but once again Hollywood failed to give us a decent joker!!!!! I don’t know why its happening repeatedly … I think “Joker” is the most easy character to bring alive with the original look … it doesn’t mean that he have to wear purple suit or any other colorful outfit… what I am trying to say is it’s more important to concentrate on his facial look then the out fit and stuff!! I know few would not agree with me but I can’t help my self … this is how I wanted him to see him….
still hoping for a perfect joker to come near future!!!

[Orko Is King]

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8348/jokerdrawingti2ru8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

NP :woot:

:wow: You're a talented guy.

[dark_b]

TDK joker doesnt look like the joker from the comics?
ok like last year with SR. everything that you see on the joker was in the comics.

you lost.

[Steelsheen]

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8348/jokerdrawingti2ru8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

NP :woot:

?? (Crappy coloring I know)

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/jokersketchcolor.jpg
Wow, youve made me even more excited for this movie now! :woot:

these are good :up:

[Judson Caspian]

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/ledger.jpg

Incredible that what seems to be a perfect Joker smile has been completely ruined.

[Schlosser85]

I knew from the start Heath would be a bad choice, but I tried to have hope with the make up, but now I have no hope for him. That is not the Joker. I guess his lip stick got smeared on Brokeback Mountain.

Yet someone else who "knows" over a year ahead of time that Heath Ledger is going to be a bad Joker. And another lame Brokeback Mountain joke too! :whatever:

Can't we just wait for more, better-quality pictures where he's actually smiling and in character, and also wait for the actual movie? Seems there's a lot of time-travelers in here.

[dark_b]

Incredible that what seems to be a perfect Joker smile has been completely ruined.see thats why some people ehre are talking about. you dont like teh new pic of the joker?
fine

but how can you knwo that you wont like teh smile?

[kenellard]

how 'bout making a rule that if you say this movie is gonna be great based solely on the Ledger pic you're not allowed to b***h and moan at people who have less faith in the movie based solely on the Ledger pic?

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

People have a right to express themselves.. good or bad views, we should embrace peoples opinion.

then bash them when we don't agree, JK ;) :D

[dark_b]

how 'bout making a rule that if you say this movie is gonna be great based solely on the Ledger pic you're not allowed to b***h and moan at people who have less faith in the movie based solely on the Ledger pic?i am with you on that.

[Steelsheen]

how 'bout making a rule that if you say this movie is gonna be great based solely on the Ledger pic you're not allowed to b***h and moan at people who have less faith in the movie based solely on the Ledger pic?

how about a rule "Lets Agree To Disagree"?

[ghost_x]

I'm all for people's opposing opinions, but when they express it in the form of an idiotic statement as

'this movie is going to suck ya'll because Ledger was brokedbacked'

that's a limit

[JonesGbg]

Someone with great skill in manipping should use this photo and create a manip that looks close to the official pic:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/ledger.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x232/JonesGbg/ledger.jpg

So how's this for a first post?

[Hunter Rider]

Nice work http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[ghost_x]

Not bad at all

[Keyser Soze]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x232/JonesGbg/ledger.jpg

So how's this for a first post?

WOW! That's some A-grade work, JonesGbg! What a way to make an entrance! I shall now pimp this manip all over the forum...

Welcome to The Hype!

[wake]

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8348/jokerdrawingti2ru8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

NP :woot:


Ya turned him into Keanu Reeves!

[Bandyt]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x232/JonesGbg/ledger.jpg

So how's this for a first post?


Yeah, This is how I reckon the smile will be like, you know, more professional of course, but it will be his normal large smile, but the scars will just lengthen it a bit more and, yeah, I don't think they will open up much. Nice Manip. The smile will be sameish but the eyes, will not be jolly, they will be insane and at points ice cold.

[ghost_x]

I'm hoping for some yellow contacts

[Bandyt]

I like the red/pink eyed Joker.

[ghost_x]

Now thats a joker

http://www.comicartfans.com/Images/Category_941/subcat_31926/Thumbs/Copy%20of%20DSC00085.JPG

[Bandyt]

Oh, as in the whites yellow? Yeah, it wouldn't make much sense if he had mangled greyish skin and green hair and his eyes weren't farked up at least a little.

[Keyser Soze]

well I think it is ignorant to make statements that are obvioulsy wrong.
I am not "basing a whole movie on 1 pic" that is why I said it is enough to MAYBE to skip the whole movie".
The maybe implies that other factors and future information would play a role..
furthermore I find it extremely ignorant for YOU to say "the joker in purple suit doesn't work for this kind of movie". How do you know?

those of you who support this new "realisitic" joker are COMPLETELY missing the point of the joker.
It doesn't matter that YOU like the design or not. What matters is that it would no longer be the joker.
The broad smile, green hair, purple/colorfull suit, the white skin and make up, and the clown aspect of the joker are Essential to the character. THAT is what makes him who he is, as opposed to any other villain.
it is that juxtaposition of cute but deadly, funny looking but scary, silly but terrible which makes him particularly menacing.
He is a clown, but a clown who'll rip your heart out as soon as look at you.
the reason why I MAY miss the whole movie because of this is because if they make the joker as different from the comic character as this picture implies then,
1) I am less interested because it wouldn't be about the character I know and love
2)the whole movie would be affected by this as the Joker plays an integral part in the whole movie
3)Missing that juxtaposition would be a lot less interesting to me and would lessen the overall experience
4)I am sick and tired of Hollywood presuming to know better

bottom line is I love the joker, so if the Joker isn't in the movie I am as interested as I would be for any new upcoming movie villain. which means I ain't that interested.

It's time we stopped accepting what hollywood throws at us just because they keep the name.,



You know, I find this post to be condescending, and pretty damn offensive.

Thank you for kindly imforming us that anybody who likes the picture doesn't understand The Joker as a character. I've been a fan of The Joker for 17 years, I get the point of him just fine, thanks. For example, I understand that he's more than a set of lips.

It's his mentality that makes him brilliant. That callous disregard for humanity, the cruel psychopath who views life as one big joke. Yes, of course, the look is of central importance too: green hair, white skin, red lips. The costume you can play around with a bit - though he should ideally be wearing a suit of some kind - but if you have those key elements of the look, you're fine. And from what we've seen, Ledger's Joker DOES have these visual elements intact.

And if you're in the mood for questioning people "missing the point" of The Joker, perhaps look at yourself. If you think drawing lines on either side of his mouth and thickening his lipstick completely destroys his character and makes him not The Joker anymore, then perhaps its YOUR understanding of The Joker that's tenuous at best.

And what's all this talk about The Joker not being in the film? Don't be so melodramatic. The Joker IS in the film. I'm not sure if you were around for the marketing campaign leading up to the reveal, but every step of that SCREAMED The Joker. Go on the site now, and you'll be given a message that's easily identified with The Joker. But no, a scary villain with white skin, green hair and red lips, who says HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!, is in no way, shape or form, anything remotely like The Joker. :whatever:

And as for your arrogant claims that the opinions of anyone who likes the design "don't matter", yes, they're just opinions. But let's turn that around on you. If opinions don't matter, then your don't either. That big rant you wrote? Just an opinion. It doesn't matter. The film's still going to be made, whether you choose to pursue your one-man boycott or not, and while you choke on your sour grapes, Batman fans all over the world will go and see "The Dark Knight", and see THE JOKER (yes, its The Joker) in action.

And who knows? If all goes well, maybe even the people who don't like the teaser image now - the ones who are open-minded, and willing to give the film a chance - will leave the cinema saying, "Now THAT was The Joker!"

[ghost_x]

Ye, although I also like the yellow pupils, but Alex Ross's Joker eyes are pretty good

[Superhero 101]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x232/JonesGbg/ledger.jpg

So how's this for a first post?

In The Name Of Borat
NIIIIIIIICEEEEE!!!

[Bandyt]

You know, I find this post to be condescending, and pretty damn offensive.

Thank you for kindly imforming us that anybody who likes the picture doesn't understand The Joker as a character. I've been a fan of The Joker for 17 years, I get the point of him just fine, thanks. For example, I understand that he's more than a set of lips.

It's his mentality that makes him brilliant. That callous disregard for humanity, the cruel psychopath who views life as one big joke. Yes, of course, the look is of central importance too: green hair, white skin, red lips. The costume you can play around with a bit - though he should ideally be wearing a suit of some kind - but if you have those key elements of the look, you're fine. And from what we've seen, Ledger's Joker DOES have these visual elements intact.

And if you're in the mood for questioning people "missing the point" of The Joker, perhaps look at yourself. If you think drawing lines on either side of his mouth and thickening his lipstick completely destroys his character and makes him not The Joker anymore, then perhaps its YOUR understanding of The Joker that's tenuous at best.

And what's all this talk about The Joker not being in the film? Don't be so melodramatic. The Joker IS in the film. I'm not sure if you were around for the marketing campaign leading up to the reveal, but every step of that SCREAMED The Joker. Go on the site now, and you'll be given a message that's easily identified with The Joker. But no, a scary villain with white skin, green hair and red lips, who says HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!, is in no way, shape or form, anything remotely like The Joker. :whatever:

And as for your arrogant claims that the opinions of anyone who likes the design "don't matter", yes, they're just opinions. But let's turn that around on you. If opinions don't matter, then your don't either. That big rant you wrote? Just an opinion. It doesn't matter. The film's still going to be made, whether you choose to pursue your one-man boycott or not, and while you choke on your sour grapes, Batman fans all over the world will go and see "The Dark Knight", and see THE JOKER (yes, its The Joker) in action.

And who knows? If all goes well, maybe even the people who don't like the teaser image now - the ones who are open-minded, and willing to give the film a chance - will leave the cinema saying, "Now THAT was The Joker!"


That is a Post of pure pwnage. I agree with everything you said in regards to the other guy. Even if I hated the Jokers look, I'd still go see the film, being a batman fan. Not going to see it because you don't like the look is like a little kid holding his breath because his mother won't buy him the toy he wants, or better yet, holding his breath because his mother bought him a toy he didn't like and wants her to tredge back and refund it and buy the right toy for the ungrateful little shieza....Yeah.

[Keyser Soze]

Haha, Yeah! Hell Yeah! It's an awesome song for him. I can see him torturing someone to it, Just like I've had recurring images of Someone in a chair, shadowed out with the Joker there (ledger joker put together in my head) slashing randomly at them, Cackling, all this to "Mr. Sandman" by the Chordettes.

Here's another one for the list - "Life On Mars?" by David Bowie.

[Karem-Knight]

"Paint it Black"- Rolling Stones describes The Joker perfectly.

[ghost_x]

People wanted Paint if Black for Venom and now the Joker?

I can't see Nolan using anything that commercial, without some ironic twist to it at least

[Bandyt]

I was thinking Mr. Sandman because it was on his MySpace before it was taken down.

[ghost_x]

I'd like some old crooner song playing with the Joker, maybe some Rat Pack

[Mr. Thing]

"Singin' In The Rain" while beating someone up...in the rain!

[ghost_x]

Been there, done that, can't get any better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZF2o_vQQSE

[Darkest Knight]

Isn't that the movie Ledger said he was going to base his performance off of?

[ghost_x]

Yep

[Darkest Knight]

God this is gonna be so good. Just look at the creepy ass face, and imagine the horrors. I couldn't be more excited over this movie.

[ghost_x]

Now Alex is a terrifying character, and Ledger will be a success if he performs the Joker half as good as Macdowell did

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I'm Hoping he is uncomfortable to watch, like you don't know what he is going to do next.

[ghost_x]

^ agreed

[Bandyt]

Farking Clockwork Orange, LOOOOVE IT! He died in Heroes. Ah well.

[Keyser Soze]

Farking Clockwork Orange, LOOOOVE IT! He died in Heroes. Ah well.

...

...

:cmad:

You know, we're only on like episode 13 here in the UK, and we don't even know Malcolm McDowell is going to show up yet, and now you're telling me he not only joins the cast, but he DIES!

Two surprises ruined in one post. :cmad:

[Crook]

Well dude if you didn't want spoilers, then don't GO into the----oh wait, no, that doesn't apply here.... :O

My condolences. :o

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

...

...

:cmad:

You know, we're only on like episode 13 here in the UK, and we don't even know Malcolm McDowell is going to show up yet, and now you're telling me he not only joins the cast, but he DIES!

Two surprises ruined in one post. :cmad:



I was just thinking something like that.:cmad: :cmad:

[dark_b]

thsi is a really good movie.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

thsi is a really good movie.



what is dude?

:)

[Karategirlx2001]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x232/JonesGbg/ledger.jpg

So how's this for a first post?

That's bloody beautiful.

[dark_b]

what is dude?

:)clockwork orange......stanley kubrick :wow:

[Carmine Falcone]

Now Alex is a terrifying character, and Ledger will be a success if he performs the Joker half as good as Macdowell did

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-zRtT5jPLA

Just look at him at 1:06 in this clip. I've never seen anybody more Joker-esque.

[Darkest Knight]

Carmine, awesome avatar. To me still, those early Joker pictures are easily the creepiest and most disturbing look of the Joker, via Bob Kane. It's the black around the eyes that sets the look off.

[Noir]

There was I, that was, Alex and me three droogs and we sat in the Krova Milk-bar trying to make up our raddosacks on what to do for the evening..

[dark_b]

Carmine, awesome avatar. To me still, those early Joker pictures are easily the creepiest and most disturbing look of the Joker, via Bob Kane. It's the black around the eyes that sets the look off.
i agree with you. the way he looks is extreme scary. and i also think that its all about the eyes in those pics.

[Carmine Falcone]

Carmine, awesome avatar. To me still, those early Joker pictures are easily the creepiest and most disturbing look of the Joker, via Bob Kane. It's the black around the eyes that sets the look off.

Totally. def. one of my fav Joker renditions. Along with Brian Bolland.

It's so awesome that Ledger said it was gonna be more about the eyes because in the first Joker stories he is descbribed as having ''eyes burning with hate'' and ''not a smile of mirth-but rather of DEATH'' I can't wait to see it onscreen.

[Darkest Knight]

Definetely. See people don't understand. They naturally think it is the Joker's smile that makes him look creepy. While at times it does, its how it plays out in the eyes which determines how disturbing he looks. Glad Nolan is using black eye makeup around Joker's eyes. Here is how you know its the eys that make the look ... to me the ONLY time Nicholson looked intimidating or scary as the Joker in B89, was when he's sitting at Grissom's desk and his eyes are emphasized in the scene as the creepiest part about him. After that scene, it's all downhill.

[Carmine Falcone]

Definetely. See people don't understand. They naturally think it is the Joker's smile that makes him look creepy. While at times it does, its how it plays out in the eyes which determines how disturbing he looks. Glad Nolan is using black eye makeup around Joker's eyes. Here is how you know its the eys that make the look ... to me the ONLY time Nicholson looked intimidating or scary as the Joker in B89, was when he's sitting at Grissom's desk and his eyes are emphasized in the scene as the creepiest part about him. After that scene, it's all downhill.

Definitely agree with that last part. Nicholson's Joker is a hell of a lot of fun to watch. And it is a good version of the character but it could be more dark. (consciencly avoiding the term ''creepier'' here -- it's tiring)

The Joker has insane moments with the maniac laughter and killing but I think he should have some brooding moments aswell (as in my avatar) It gives him some more depth in a way -- Which the first pic of Ledger gave us hint of. Atleast I thought so.

[Cobblepot]

The picture doesn't clearly show black make-up around his eyes. It could just be the lighting. But the picture cleary gives us the overall look of the Joker. With an intense and dark look. Can't wait for a few more pictures. I'm really curious to see his outfit.

[Untilteld]

someone do a manip of Joker under the fear toxin, that'd be wicked.

[Crook]

Definetely. See people don't understand. They naturally think it is the Joker's smile that makes him look creepy. While at times it does, its how it plays out in the eyes which determines how disturbing he looks. Glad Nolan is using black eye makeup around Joker's eyes. Here is how you know its the eys that make the look ... to me the ONLY time Nicholson looked intimidating or scary as the Joker in B89, was when he's sitting at Grissom's desk and his eyes are emphasized in the scene as the creepiest part about him. After that scene, it's all downhill.
Imo, to say it's all about the eyes undermines the importance of the smile. They both compliment each other to make a devious combo. In the same way that a sickening smile just doesn't quite have an impact with vacant eyes, the devilish glare only sticks out (as Joker-ish) when there's a grin attached it.

After all, the Joker we've all known is about smiling at the most inopportune moments.

[Bandyt]

Sorry for ruining the Heroes thing, we're on the internets, can't you just download the episodes? sheesh. I started it before it even started here in Aus. But yeah, my bad. I can't wait until Ledger does a locked forhead evil grin things. Going to be sweet.

[Cobblepot]

The real question is: will he be using a crowbar?

[dark_b]

The picture doesn't clearly show black make-up around his eyes. It could just be the lighting. But the picture cleary gives us the overall look of the Joker. With an intense and dark look. Can't wait for a few more pictures. I'm really curious to see his outfit.whats called the skin that is above the eyes(closing the eyes)

this is black.

[Cobblepot]

I'm still not convinced, sure he'll have dark eyes but no "panda" look.

[Darkest Knight]

Oh god ... now we have "the panda look", man fanboys can't adapt for ish. That "panda" look is heavily what the Joker is based off of. Ever seen those porcelin harlequin dolls? Or clowns at the circus? Most clowns have some shade of dark blue, red, or black around their eyes. Makes them much more frightening to look at. So if he does have black eyes, are you going to bounce off the wall like some of the other nutterballs here reacted towards cut smile? And all of a sudden the look stinks? Ugh...

[dark_b]

I'm still not convinced, sure he'll have dark eyes but no "panda" look.you see the skin and its black. it is not in he shadows.

[Cobblepot]

Yeah but that doesn't mean they are going to do that all the time. They could just have done it for this one photo, to give him a more darker look.

[Darkest Knight]

The most frightening Joker looks, ALL have darkened / black silhoutted eyes

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/MitchMatch/jokerfacezf2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/MitchMatch/joker2ge1nx.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/MitchMatch/Mr.jpg

It gets no more frightening than these looks for the Joker.

[Cobblepot]

You guys don't get what I'm saying, I like those dark eyes and it could be make up. But it's not supposed to look like make up.

[Darkest Knight]

Either or, makes no difference. As long as it looks that terrifying.

Plus, Joker wouldn't deface the Harvey Dent pic like so:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/MitchMatch/Ibelieveinharveydenttoo.jpg

To look like himself, if he wasn't to have black around his eyes.

[dark_b]

Yeah but that doesn't mean they are going to do that all the time. They could just have done it for this one photo, to give him a more darker look.
maybe he wont have white skin. maybe he will have green skin.maybe tehy did teh white skin only for this photo :huh:

[Cobblepot]

Hmmm, i'll give you that.

[Cobblepot]

maybe he wont have white skin. maybe he will have green skin.maybe tehy did teh white skin only for this photo :huh:

That's just dumb, don't play me like a fool.

[Darkest Knight]

I'm not getting mad at you, Cobblepot ... just saying look at the facts.

[ghost_x]

There was I, that was, Alex and me three droogs and we sat in the Krova Milk-bar trying to make up our raddosacks on what to do for the evening..

It's actually rassoodocks

[Cobblepot]

I'm not mad, but Dark_b was making a really dumb comment.

[Noir]

It's actually rassoodocks
Sorry I haven't read the novel in a while.

[dark_b]

That's just dumb, don't play me like a fool.sorry. i just wrotte what i thought. i dont think you are dumb.

[ghost_x]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-zRtT5jPLA

Just look at him at 1:06 in this clip. I've never seen anybody more Joker-esque.

Absolutely, and I got to play him in a stage version, best role of my life, taking characteristics heavily from the Joker.

[Cobblepot]

sorry. i just wrotte what i thought. i dont think you are dumb.

:woot:

[Cobblepot]

No harm done.

[Noir]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/MitchMatch/joker2ge1nx.jpg



I see this picture a thousand times a day, is that Conrad?

[ghost_x]

That picture is a newbies favourite welcome gift.

Ye it's conrad

[Noir]

yeah I know, whenever a newbie comes here that is almost always the first picture they post :D

[HoratioRome]

You know, I find this post to be condescending, and pretty damn offensive.

Thank you for kindly imforming us that anybody who likes the picture doesn't understand The Joker as a character. I've been a fan of The Joker for 17 years, I get the point of him just fine, thanks. For example, I understand that he's more than a set of lips.

It's his mentality that makes him brilliant. That callous disregard for humanity, the cruel psychopath who views life as one big joke. Yes, of course, the look is of central importance too: green hair, white skin, red lips. The costume you can play around with a bit - though he should ideally be wearing a suit of some kind - but if you have those key elements of the look, you're fine.

actually you reinforce my argument while disagreeing with it. Look, when it comes to fictional characters, there are certain essential elements that make a character who he is. Without those it simply becomes someone else. If you've been a fan for "17 years" then you must know that there are many Joker rip offs out there. Many characters who are basically copycats of the Joker. Yet I hope you will agree that none of them are THE joker. the question is why?
What is the difference between Green Goblin and the Joker for example?
You yourself recognize that the look of the joker in addition to his mental characterization play an essential role in defining him. would Batman be Batman if he wore Daredevil's outfit?



And from what we've seen, Ledger's Joker DOES have these visual elements intact.


Ok this is where I get really pissed and confused. How can someone who can write as well as you do come to such a ridiculous conclusion. I don't know you but let me do something stupid. Let me tell you about YOU. I guarantee that if YOU had seen this picture WITHOUT any Joker reference, that the thought of the Joker would not have even entered you mind. There is NOTHING jokerish about that pic. Having white make up, a scar, and red around one's lips does NOT make on the Joker. Not in the least. If that is the case than yeah clock work orange WAS the joker. and so where all the joker rip offs of the past.
"fanboys" are so eager to love and accept what they are told that they shut down their most basic thought processes and accept WHATEVER they are told.




And if you're in the mood for questioning people "missing the point" of The Joker, perhaps look at yourself. If you think drawing lines on either side of his mouth and thickening his lipstick completely destroys his character and makes him not The Joker anymore, then perhaps its YOUR understanding of The Joker that's tenuous at best.

sorry but you're wrong on this part as well. It isn't MY definition of the joker that I am using, it is rather the UNIVERSALLY accepted definition of the character which I am using as a standard. btw, it is the same description YOU used when YOU described him. YOU yourself combined BOTH his attitude AND his look in describing him. All the components play a factor in defining the Joker. If they had the look perfect but his attitude wrong, it wouldn't be anymore the Joker then if they have the attitude dead on but the look completely wrong. Your problem is that you're so eager to accept what your told you shut your eyes to the obvious. THAT does not LOOK ANYTHING like the "Joker".

And what's all this talk about The Joker not being in the film? Don't be so melodramatic. The Joker IS in the film. I'm not sure if you were around for the marketing campaign leading up to the reveal, but every step of that SCREAMED The Joker. Go on the site now, and you'll be given a message that's easily identified with The Joker. But no, a scary villain with white skin, green hair and red lips, who says HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!, is in no way, shape or form, anything remotely like The Joker. :whatever:

No, the Joker that has been established for over SIXTY years would NOT be in the film IF this is what he looks like throughout the film. He would be a Joker like character but it wouldn't be THE joker. saying HAHA or having white skin, green hair and red lips are not enough. It is how those elements are put together. otherwise all the scary movies with Clown killers were about the joker. :whatever:

And as for your arrogant claims that the opinions of anyone who likes the design "don't matter", yes, they're just opinions. But let's turn that around on you. If opinions don't matter, then your don't either. That big rant you wrote? Just an opinion. It doesn't matter. The film's still going to be made, whether you choose to pursue your one-man boycott or not, and while you choke on your sour grapes, Batman fans all over the world will go and see "The Dark Knight", and see THE JOKER (yes, its The Joker) in action.
you better believe that my personal opinions DON't matter. only the facts do. whether I HATE or LOVE this design means as little as anyone else's preference for the design. The question at hand is whether or not the design captures the character it is supposed to be representing. As such what I stated is NOT an opinion but rather a fact; therefore it carries much greater weight.
facts are, especially with comic book characters the look of a character plays an essential role in defining that character (once again Batman with Daredevils oufit is NOT Batman). This design looks NOTHING like the Joker (no more than Catwoman looked like THE Catwoman). Therefore THE Joker that has been established for over SIXTY years will not be represented in this movie. At best we will get a new character who is clearly inspired by the Joker and also calls himself the joker.

Oh and I know the movie will be made. Just like all the other crappy superhero movies that have been made in the past. What you fail to realize is that it is NOT a one man campaign. THAT is why the greater the changes the less successful these movies have been. So you can choke on YOUR love for this design, it still won't be the joker, and fans will not go see it as much as if it was the real thing. THey NEVER have.

And who knows? If all goes well, maybe even the people who don't like the teaser image now - the ones who are open-minded, and willing to give the film a chance - will leave the cinema saying, "Now THAT was The Joker!"
there is still a chance that that may happen with me. All I'm saying is that so far, it's not looking good.

[Darkest Knight]

I actually wouldn't have minded if the Joker looked like that in the movie. But oh jesus would the sniveling little dorks be upset. I mean, my gosh ... a permanent smile, dark green lips, dark eyes, NO PURPLE SUIT!!! ... it would stray TOO FAR from the source material. That's how ridiculous they sound. Especially considering that is the prototype image of what the Joker is based off of.

[Darkest Knight]

I bet you anything TDK J-man does not once wear a purple suit. God knows I won't mind, because he is still the Joker ... but the comic book purists and groupies will have fits in the theatre if he doesn't have a single article of purple clothing on. Since you know, the purple suit is what makes the Joker.

:whatever:

[Klattimus_Darby]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9640/thejokernt2.th.png (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thejokernt2.png)

Here ya go. Behold, The Joker! We'll see how close he'll look to that come next year...

[Bond]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9640/thejokernt2.th.png (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thejokernt2.png)

Here ya go. Behold, The Joker! We'll see how close he'll look to that come next year...
:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

I LOVE IT!

This is my favortie manip so far.

Excellent job, dude.

[Keyser Soze]

actually you reinforce my argument while disagreeing with it. Look, when it comes to fictional characters, there are certain essential elements that make a character who he is. Without those it simply becomes someone else. If you've been a fan for "17 years" then you must know that there are many Joker rip offs out there. Many characters who are basically copycats of the Joker. Yet I hope you will agree that none of them are THE joker. the question is why?
What is the difference between Green Goblin and the Joker for example?
You yourself recognize that the look of the joker in addition to his mental characterization play an essential role in defining him. would Batman be Batman if he wore Daredevil's outfit?

Yes, there are certain elements of a character that make him who he is. And yes, this Joker maintains those. Let's see what Lee Bermejo, the artist behind "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel" and the highly-anticipated upcoming Joker miniseries has to say on this issue:

Lee Bermejo:
"Visually speaking, I don't think a cut-smile has anything to do with defining the character or not. The characteristcs I think are the MOST important to portray visually are these:

He has white skin…
He has red lips…
He has green hair…
He tells jokes that are not funny…
And, he kills people.

I think you got these elements and then you can go from there."

And let's look at Lee Bermejo's Joker for reference:

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/060604/jokercover.jpg

Now, it seems the source of your discontent with this part of your reply was my comment that a purple suit isn't essential to the character of The Joker. And while the purple suit is my favourite look, and one I'd like to see somehow incorporated into the movie (albeit in a more modern cut than the 1930s throwback look), it is far from the only way The Joker can be interpreted:

Alex Ross, dressed in black

http://www.alexross.com/CP1273_Tango_with_Evil.jpg

"The Dark Knight Returns", dressed in white

http://www.toymania.com/news/images/1203_dcd_dkjoker.jpg

Gasp! Both are still instantly recognisable as Joker WITHOUT slavishly sticking to the exact details of his look from 60 years ago!


Ok this is where I get really pissed and confused. How can someone who can write as well as you do come to such a ridiculous conclusion. I don't know you but let me do something stupid. Let me tell you about YOU. I guarantee that if YOU had seen this picture WITHOUT any Joker reference, that the thought of the Joker would not have even entered you mind. There is NOTHING jokerish about that pic. Having white make up, a scar, and red around one's lips does NOT make on the Joker. Not in the least. If that is the case than yeah clock work orange WAS the joker. and so where all the joker rip offs of the past.
"fanboys" are so eager to love and accept what they are told that they shut down their most basic thought processes and accept WHATEVER they are told.

This is where logic and coherence start to go bye-bye in your argument. I'll expand on the reasons why later. But for now, I'll address just what's so "ridiculous" about this conclusion. How can you "guarantee" what my own thoughts are, for a start? Now, I'm going to be bold, and make the outrageous claim that I have a better grasp of my thought processes than you do, but looking at that, I can INSTANTLY recognise that as The Joker. I see the white skin, I see the red lips. Yes, we're missing the green hair, but that's because it's a close-up. Cut-smile or not, we'd still be missing the green hair, and judging by your narrow, restrictive argument, if you were presented with this:

http://img.search.com/thumb/3/3d/JokercolorLG.jpg/225px-JokercolorLG.jpg

In a close-up that cut out the green hair, you'd be totally lost as to who it was, since you need absolutely every last detail exactly right to recognise a character you claim to be so familiar with.

It's one thing to say you don't like Nolan's interpretation of The Joker. But to look at the picture of Heath Ledger as The Joker, and say there is NOTHING Joker-like about it, then your clearly letting your hate think for you instead of your brain.


sorry but you're wrong on this part as well. It isn't MY definition of the joker that I am using, it is rather the UNIVERSALLY accepted definition of the character which I am using as a standard. btw, it is the same description YOU used when YOU described him. YOU yourself combined BOTH his attitude AND his look in describing him. All the components play a factor in defining the Joker. If they had the look perfect but his attitude wrong, it wouldn't be anymore the Joker then if they have the attitude dead on but the look completely wrong. Your problem is that you're so eager to accept what your told you shut your eyes to the obvious. THAT does not LOOK ANYTHING like the "Joker".

No. You are using YOUR definition of The Joker. It's far from UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED definition that you are using as your standard. Or rather, you are using that as your standard, but refuse to acknowledge the various elements of the picture that clearly meet those standards. If it was "UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED" that this Joker DIDN'T meet those standards, then why do the VAST majority of votes in the poll on the other thread lean on the positive side of the scale. Oh wait, I forgot, everyone who likes it, their opinions don't count... :whatever:

You're only weakening your own argument by saying this picture looks nothing like The Joker. You talk about how people who like the picture are deceiving themselves, but by saying this, it is exactly what you are doing. A creepy, psychotic, nightmarish clown with white skin and red lips has to at least look SOMETHING like The Joker. The resemblance is there. Argue about how GOOD a Joker it is if you wish, but it's clear this IS an interpretation of The Joker.

You'd perhaps have a leg to stand on in your shallow argument if you commented on the lack of a grin, the most significant absence in the picture. But like I said before, some people ignore such core elements of a character's persona, because they get to the stage you are at now, where they fetishise the visuals and the details. To the point where a character becomes a bunch of bullet-points to tick off, rather than something that captures a character's essence overall.


No, the Joker that has been established for over SIXTY years would NOT be in the film IF this is what he looks like throughout the film. He would be a Joker like character but it wouldn't be THE joker. saying HAHA or having white skin, green hair and red lips are not enough. It is how those elements are put together. otherwise all the scary movies with Clown killers were about the joker. :whatever:

And I suppose the Spider-Man on the big screen WASN'T SPIDER-MAN because the webbing on his suit was raised, and he had organic webshooters, right? And Batman on the screen WASN'T BATMAN because he had the Nomex survival suit instead of grey tights, right?

Once Heath Ledger's smiling, and kitted out in appropriate attire, and actually BEING THE JOKER, indentations on the sides of his mouth are going to become largely inconsequential. Already, manips like this...

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x232/JonesGbg/ledger.jpg

...suggest that in context, the "cut-smile" is going to be largely inconsequential.

you better believe that my personal opinions DON't matter. only the facts do. whether I HATE or LOVE this design means as little as anyone else's preference for the design. The question at hand is whether or not the design captures the character it is supposed to be representing. As such what I stated is NOT an opinion but rather a fact; therefore it carries much greater weight.
facts are, especially with comic book characters the look of a character plays an essential role in defining that character (once again Batman with Daredevils oufit is NOT Batman). This design looks NOTHING like the Joker (no more than Catwoman looked like THE Catwoman). Therefore THE Joker that has been established for over SIXTY years will not be represented in this movie. At best we will get a new character who is clearly inspired by the Joker and also calls himself the joker.

*Bangs head against wall*

No, no, no. What you are saying, it isn't FACT. It is an opinion. What I am saying isn't FACT. It is an opinion. It's not "This image does not capture the character of The Joker", it's "I don't think this image captures the character of The Joker". Many think it DOES capture the character of The Joker, the ones who think The Joker's "character" is something more complex than the shape of his lips. This isn't you swatting aside an opinion, with the might of FACT behind you. This is your opinion clashing with my opinion. That's what an argument is. To return to my good friend Lee Bermejo:

"That's the beauty of these characters, though. They're so ripe for interpretation. That's one of the reasons they're still around and still so popular. Anybody who claims to “know” these characters just has an "idea" of what they want that character to be. This is their right, but it's not necessarily what they will always get."

So now that we've established that you're not spouting FACT, but OPINION, I can go on to explain my problems with your OPINION. Yes, look plays an important role. If The Joker presented was flesh-coloured, had blond hair, and dressed in a ballerina outfit, I'd probably have a problem with the look. But from the VERY LITTLE (a point that should be emphasised) we've seen of The Joker, the basics are present. White skin. Green hair. Red lips. The rest are details. And DETAILS can be changed.

Like with Batman. Dress him up as Daredevil, and he's not Batman. But dress him in a cape and a cowl, with pointy ears and a Bat insignia, then you've got Batman, whether or not the exact DETAILS (tights VS rubber) are correct.

If you think that movie adaptations are not true recreations of the comics characters unless everything is EXACTLY like the comics, then the only comic book movie you should be watching is "Sin City". No, wait. That's not Hartigan! It's Bruce Willis....PRETENDING to be Hartigan! Oh noes thats not really the character I love!

The key word is "adaptation". The very definition of the word alone implies change. But what makes a good adaptation isn't slavishly imitating every visual detail. It's capturing the essence of the source material. That's why "Batman Begins" (which made a lot of visual changes, but was faithful to the heart-and-soul of the Batman mythos) is recognised as a GREAT adaptation.

If you can't bear to see any change whatsoever, and view only the comics versions as acceptable renditions of your beloved characters, then ignore the movies, and stick to the comics. Nobody's taking your comics away and burning them. They'll still be there for you if they're the only thing that can meet your lofty standards.

Oh and I know the movie will be made. Just like all the other crappy superhero movies that have been made in the past. What you fail to realize is that it is NOT a one man campaign. THAT is why the greater the changes the less successful these movies have been. So you can choke on YOUR love for this design, it still won't be the joker, and fans will not go see it as much as if it was the real thing. THey NEVER have.

there is still a chance that that may happen with me. All I'm saying is that so far, it's not looking good.

Yeah, crappy superhero movies have been made in the past. "Ghost Rider" had a lukewarm reception despite his classic look being maintained. And the old "Captain America", that was REALLY crap. But hang on, the costume was recreated PERFECTLY in that film. How could it be bad. Could it be...that...recreating visuals is not what's important in determining a good film?

"Batman Begins" was an excellent film, probably the best superhero film yet. And so I have high hopes for "The Dark Knight". And if its as good as the first film - and as faithful to the spirit of the comics - I'm sure I'll leave thinking that, yes, that IS The Joker. And I'm sure plenty others will think the same thing. And really, it's what we think that matters. If you THINK Nolan's interpretation is NOT The Joker, then that's your choice. But remember it's not fact. It's what you think.

[Klattimus_Darby]

Horatio,
Take a look at that image I posted up. Are you really going to be all that upset if that is what the Joker looks like, assuming he retains the personality we all expect.

[Darkest Knight]

You can't talk to people like that. Horatio is a nut ball. Not b/c he doesn't like the image of the Joker, but b/c he is making up reasons for it not being a valid interpretation.

[Keyser Soze]

You can't talk to people like that. Horatio is a nut ball. Not b/c he doesn't like the image of the Joker, but b/c he is making up reasons for it not being a valid interpretation.

The worst thing about his posts though is his contempt for people who DO like the picture. That arrogant assumption that we can't just like the picture because we like it, it has to be because we're brainwashed sheep, or because we don't understand who The Joker is.

But I've commented on this subject ad nauseum in the past. I'd rather quote an old post than rehash it:

"I don't see what the obsesive attitude is on here, where you have to "choose a side". Anyone who likes Nolan's version of The Joker must hate how he looks in the comics. And any "true fan" of The Joker and his look in the comics is obligated to hate this new interpretation.

Are we not allowed to like both?

To counter regwec's past claims that we will blindly accept anything, he stated that we'd be equally happy with a comics-accurate depiction....yes, I would. I love how The Joker looks in the comics. If we'd got a Joker that looks like he did in "The Killing Joke", yes, I'd have been happy.

But at the same time, I also like the movie version of The Joker. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm "spitting on" the comics, as somebody said earlier, or that I suddenly hate all other interpretations. It just means...gasp!...what I say it means. That I like the new look. It doesn't have to be "right" or "wrong". It's just different."

[Darkest Knight]

I get you, Soze ... and you made really good points. Just let it go, you can't reason with them. I had to do the same thing with Cconn, and he didn't get or budge either.

[HoratioRome]

Yes, there are certain elements of a character that make him who he is. And yes, this Joker maintains those. Let's see what Lee Bermejo, the artist behind "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel" and the highly-anticipated upcoming Joker miniseries has to say on this issue:

Lee Bermejo:
"Visually speaking, I don't think a cut-smile has anything to do with defining the character or not. The characteristcs I think are the MOST important to portray visually are these:

He has white skin…
He has red lips…
He has green hair…
He tells jokes that are not funny…
And, he kills people.

I think you got these elements and then you can go from there."

And let's look at Lee Bermejo's Joker for reference:

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/060604/jokercover.jpg


Yet again you prove my point while disagreeing with it. Do me a favor and please look at what Mr. Bermejo himself, whom you reference came up with. His drawing is in every way the joker. There is NO WAY I don't immediately see the Joker by looking at that picture. in fact, you continue to prove my point as Every other picture you use clearly depicts the joker in a way that the Ledger pic doesn't even come close to. Dude open your mind just once and look beyond what the guy is saying and think it through for yourself. If he is in fact correct that the ONLY thing that matters is that he has white skin, green hair, etc. The ask yourself a) why did his drawing go beyond those basic aspects? you know the curly hair, the long face, the obvious "joker grin" etc.
B) if I came up with a dude with an afro, white skin, red lips but shape like that of a circus clown, a fat man who weighs 500 pounds, etc. would that STILL be the joker to you?

Now, it seems the source of your discontent with this part of your reply was my comment that a purple suit isn't essential to the character of The Joker. And while the purple suit is my favourite look, and one I'd like to see somehow incorporated into the movie (albeit in a more modern cut than the 1930s throwback look), it is far from the only way The Joker can be interpreted:

Alex Ross, dressed in black

http://www.alexross.com/CP1273_Tango_with_Evil.jpg

"The Dark Knight Returns", dressed in white

http://www.toymania.com/news/images/1203_dcd_dkjoker.jpg

Gasp! Both are still instantly recognisable as Joker WITHOUT slavishly sticking to the exact details of his look from 60 years ago!

I did not say the color purple was essential. once again the pics you are using to show me hoe the Joker does not have to look like the joker ALL clearly look like the joker.



This is where logic and coherence start to go bye-bye in your argument. I'll expand on the reasons why later. But for now, I'll address just what's so "ridiculous" about this conclusion. How can you "guarantee" what my own thoughts are, for a start? Now, I'm going to be bold, and make the outrageous claim that I have a better grasp of my thought processes than you do, but looking at that, I can INSTANTLY recognise that as The Joker. I see the white skin, I see the red lips. Yes, we're missing the green hair, but that's because it's a close-up. Cut-smile or not, we'd still be missing the green hair, and judging by your narrow, restrictive argument, if you were presented with this:

http://img.search.com/thumb/3/3d/JokercolorLG.jpg/225px-JokercolorLG.jpg

In a close-up that cut out the green hair, you'd be totally lost as to who it was, since you need absolutely every last detail exactly right to recognise a character you claim to be so familiar with.

I said that what I was about to do was "stupid". But I stand by it. Without any reference to the Joker YOU would not have recoginzed "the Joker". If you were on a game show and they showed you that pic and then asked who who that was, your answer would NOT be Joker. Yeah I know it's ridiculous of me to say so, but I stand by it.
so please answer this. If there had been NO reference to Batman or Joker or superheroes, or comics etc. and you were shown that picture. Would you say that was the Joker?
On the other hand, If I was presented with your pic without the hair I would in fact recognize the joker. The smile is VERY distinctive,..and classic Joker. Combined with the long face and the white skin, it would be a no brainer. the same cannot be said of the Nolan pic.


I have to go. will answer the rest later.

It's one thing to say you don't like Nolan's interpretation of The Joker. But to look at the picture of Heath Ledger as The Joker, and say there is NOTHING Joker-like about it, then your clearly letting your hate think for you instead of your brain.




No. You are using YOUR definition of The Joker. It's far from UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED definition that you are using as your standard. Or rather, you are using that as your standard, but refuse to acknowledge the various elements of the picture that clearly meet those standards. If it was "UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED" that this Joker DIDN'T meet those standards, then why do the VAST majority of votes in the poll on the other thread lean on the positive side of the scale. Oh wait, I forgot, everyone who likes it, their opinions don't count... :whatever:

You're only weakening your own argument by saying this picture looks nothing like The Joker. You talk about how people who like the picture are deceiving themselves, but by saying this, it is exactly what you are doing. A creepy, psychotic, nightmarish clown with white skin and red lips has to at least look SOMETHING like The Joker. The resemblance is there. Argue about how GOOD a Joker it is if you wish, but it's clear this IS an interpretation of The Joker.

You'd perhaps have a leg to stand on in your shallow argument if you commented on the lack of a grin, the most significant absence in the picture. But like I said before, some people ignore such core elements of a character's persona, because they get to the stage you are at now, where they fetishise the visuals and the details. To the point where a character becomes a bunch of bullet-points to tick off, rather than something that captures a character's essence overall.




And I suppose the Spider-Man on the big screen WASN'T SPIDER-MAN because the webbing on his suit was raised, and he had organic webshooters, right? And Batman on the screen WASN'T BATMAN because he had the Nomex survival suit instead of grey tights, right?

Once Heath Ledger's smiling, and kitted out in appropriate attire, and actually BEING THE JOKER, indentations on the sides of his mouth are going to become largely inconsequential. Already, manips like this...

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x232/JonesGbg/ledger.jpg

...suggest that in context, the "cut-smile" is going to be largely inconsequential.



*Bangs head against wall*

No, no, no. What you are saying, it isn't FACT. It is an opinion. What I am saying isn't FACT. It is an opinion. It's not "This image does not capture the character of The Joker", it's "I don't think this image captures the character of The Joker". Many think it DOES capture the character of The Joker, the ones who think The Joker's "character" is something more complex than the shape of his lips. This isn't you swatting aside an opinion, with the might of FACT behind you. This is your opinion clashing with my opinion. That's what an argument is. To return to my good friend Lee Bermejo:

"That's the beauty of these characters, though. They're so ripe for interpretation. That's one of the reasons they're still around and still so popular. Anybody who claims to “know” these characters just has an "idea" of what they want that character to be. This is their right, but it's not necessarily what they will always get."

So now that we've established that you're not spouting FACT, but OPINION, I can go on to explain my problems with your OPINION. Yes, look plays an important role. If The Joker presented was flesh-coloured, had blond hair, and dressed in a ballerina outfit, I'd probably have a problem with the look. But from the VERY LITTLE (a point that should be emphasised) we've seen of The Joker, the basics are present. White skin. Green hair. Red lips. The rest are details. And DETAILS can be changed.

Like with Batman. Dress him up as Daredevil, and he's not Batman. But dress him in a cape and a cowl, with pointy ears and a Bat insignia, then you've got Batman, whether or not the exact DETAILS (tights VS rubber) are correct.

If you think that movie adaptations are not true recreations of the comics characters unless everything is EXACTLY like the comics, then the only comic book movie you should be watching is "Sin City". No, wait. That's not Hartigan! It's Bruce Willis....PRETENDING to be Hartigan! Oh noes thats not really the character I love!

The key word is "adaptation". The very definition of the word alone implies change. But what makes a good adaptation isn't slavishly imitating every visual detail. It's capturing the essence of the source material. That's why "Batman Begins" (which made a lot of visual changes, but was faithful to the heart-and-soul of the Batman mythos) is recognised as a GREAT adaptation.

If you can't bear to see any change whatsoever, and view only the comics versions as acceptable renditions of your beloved characters, then ignore the movies, and stick to the comics. Nobody's taking your comics away and burning them. They'll still be there for you if they're the only thing that can meet your lofty standards.



Yeah, crappy superhero movies have been made in the past. "Ghost Rider" had a lukewarm reception despite his classic look being maintained. And the old "Captain America", that was REALLY crap. But hang on, the costume was recreated PERFECTLY in that film. How could it be bad. Could it be...that...recreating visuals is not what's important in determining a good film?

"Batman Begins" was an excellent film, probably the best superhero film yet. And so I have high hopes for "The Dark Knight". And if its as good as the first film - and as faithful to the spirit of the comics - I'm sure I'll leave thinking that, yes, that IS The Joker. And I'm sure plenty others will think the same thing. And really, it's what we think that matters. If you THINK Nolan's interpretation is NOT The Joker, then that's your choice. But remember it's not fact. It's what you think.

[Keyser Soze]

Yet again you prove my point while disagreeing with it. Do me a favor and please look at what Mr. Bermejo himself, whom you reference came up with. His drawing is in every way the joker. There is NO WAY I don't immediately see the Joker by looking at that picture. in fact, you continue to prove my point as Every other picture you use clearly depicts the joker in a way that the Ledger pic doesn't even come close to. Dude open your mind just once and look beyond what the guy is saying and think it through for yourself. If he is in fact correct that the ONLY thing that matters is that he has white skin, green hair, etc. The ask yourself a) why did his drawing go beyond those basic aspects? you know the curly hair, the long face, the obvious "joker grin" etc.
B) if I came up with a dude with an afro, white skin, red lips but shape like that of a circus clown, a fat man who weighs 500 pounds, etc. would that STILL be the joker to you?

Ummm.....wow.

You're really killing your own argument dead without me having to say much here. So, Bermejo's Joker has a cut-smile, and is dressed nothing like classic Joker, but you say the drawing is "in every way The Joker". And you're even folding back on your argument about the look having to be exact. So, your anger's not about the cut-smile. It's obviously not about what he's wearing, as we don't see that in the teaser. To me, it's starting to seem like a prejudice against the movie version of The Joker more than anything. It makes sense, based on the contempt for all superhero movies you've expressed in the past. My guess is that no matter what Nolan/Ledger presented us with in this teaser, you'd still be unhappy.

And also, Heath Ledger isn't 500 pounds, and the set pics reveal he doesn't have an afro. He looks like The Joker. So that point is irrelevant.

I did not say the color purple was essential. once again the pics you are using to show me hoe the Joker does not have to look like the joker ALL clearly look like the joker.

Well why did you highlight the part of my post where I said you can play around with the costume, so long as it stays as a suit, then? You're changing your argument, which shows you yourself know you're on unstable ground here.


I said that what I was about to do was "stupid". But I stand by it. Without any reference to the Joker YOU would not have recoginzed "the Joker". If you were on a game show and they showed you that pic and then asked who who that was, your answer would NOT be Joker. Yeah I know it's ridiculous of me to say so, but I stand by it.
so please answer this. If there had been NO reference to Batman or Joker or superheroes, or comics etc. and you were shown that picture. Would you say that was the Joker?
On the other hand, If I was presented with your pic without the hair I would in fact recognize the joker. The smile is VERY distinctive,..and classic Joker. Combined with the long face and the white skin, it would be a no brainer. the same cannot be said of the Nolan pic.

I say, yes, I would recognise that as The Joker. And I'm sure you'll say "No, you wouldn't!" and we'll go back and forth and back and forth, but I don't really see how much further an argument with you telling me my own thoughts can go.

And finally - you bring the smile aspect of the argument into effect! Maybe you took the hint I gave you. The smile is the one thing the teaser pic is missing. If he was smiling, it would be even more recognisable as The Joker. But then again, as this image shows:

http://moviepoopshoot.com/comics101/images/2004/jan7/jokerinrepose.jpg

The Joker isn't always smiling.

I have to go. will answer the rest later.

Looking forward to it.

[Klattimus_Darby]

Honestly, I have to agree with Horatio in the sense that the Offiial Joker pic, in and of itself really doesn't look like the Joker. Let's face it folks, its just a mug shot of a guy in clown make-up, with a ****ed up face. I'm afraid that that equation doesn't add up to an obvious Joker. I think that what all the mock ups that have been put out by myself and others show is that he can look like the Joker, ****ed up face or not, with a little bit of characterization thrown in. And some hair. Hair goes a long way. BUt so does that smile. THe scars aren't what's wrong with the image. Its the utter lack of facial movement. Honestly, how often does the Joker just have a blank stare on his face? Very out of character. All the same, I have a lot of faith in this idea after seeing what he looks like smiling.

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9640/thejokernt2.th.png (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thejokernt2.png)

[Keyser Soze]

Honestly, I have to agree with Horatio in the sense that the Offiial Joker pic, in and of itself really doesn't look like the Joker. Let's face it folks, its just a mug shot of a guy in clown make-up, with a ****ed up face. I'm afraid that that equation doesn't add up to an obvious Joker. I think that what all the mock ups that have been put out by myself and others show is that he can look like the Joker, ****ed up face or not, with a little bit of characterization thrown in. And some hair. Hair goes a long way. BUt so does that smile. THe scars aren't what's wrong with the image. Its the utter lack of facial movement. Honestly, how often does the Joker just have a blank stare on his face? Very out of character. All the same, I have a lot of faith in this idea after seeing what he looks like smiling.

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9640/thejokernt2.th.png (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thejokernt2.png)

I only partially agree. Your point that it's the lack of a smile and not the scars that are the problem is a good one. My biggest flaw with this picture is that Ledger isn't smiling. That would give us a far better idea of what he's going to look like in the film.

I never said the picture was perfect. There is definitely room for improvement - as manips by you and others has demonstrated. However, that said, I still think it is clearly The Joker. Yes, a Joker that has the potential to be much better with more pictures, but still The Joker.

[Klattimus_Darby]

You know what I really like about what Nolan's doing here- I know that the word "reinvention" is kinda scary... well how about reinterpretation...

It's like this. The classic continuity distilled down to its basic idea is about a guy. A horrific accident happens to him, snaps his brain, changes his appearence, and he becomes the demented individual we all know and love.

In comics, this physical deformation changed the color of his appearence, but not his physical appearence. I like the idea of something happening that not just dyes his skin and hair, but literally changes the way he looks. Something that really would drive a man insane. Something that deforms a man inside and outside. I think it makes sense, (call it "more realistic") but I think something that is so horrific as to drive a man insane would entail more than a chemical bath. It should be horrible, and frankly it looks like something horrible has happened to the Joker.

[Keyser Soze]

In all honesty, I have no real problem with the cut-smile as a concept. If anything, the thing that bugs me is how he gets it. I dunno, the "zipline accident" rumour seems a bit contrived for my tastes, and since reports state he is already The Joker (green hair, white skin) when it happens, it seems a bit pointless. Of course, if it's executed well, it could end up working.

In all honesty, I'd prefer it if The Joker just showed up in the film, with the "cut-smile" already in place, as well as the green hair and white skin. He's already The Joker. We get no origin (aside from MAYBE some vague flashbacks later in the film), which in my opinion makes him a lot more frightening. And it means we don't get a rehash of Batman 89, with Joker wanting revenge on Batman for disfiguring him.

[itsthebatman]

In all honesty, I have no real problem with the cut-smile as a concept. If anything, the thing that bugs me is how he gets it. I dunno, the "zipline accident" rumour seems a bit contrived for my tastes, and since reports state he is already The Joker (green hair, white skin) when it happens, it seems a bit pointless. Of course, if it's executed well, it could end up working.

In all honesty, I'd prefer it if The Joker just showed up in the film, with the "cut-smile" already in place, as well as the green hair and white skin. He's already The Joker. We get no origin (aside from MAYBE some vague flashbacks later in the film), which in my opinion makes him a lot more frightening. And it means we don't get a rehash of Batman 89, with Joker wanting revenge on Batman for disfiguring him.
The problem with the cut-smile is that, if he appears with that, with no origin, I think people will be confused and will be wondering 'How did that happen?. More so, than if he just appears with white skin, green hair, red lips. I think the kind of physical disfigurement caused by the cut-smile warrants some kind of explanation. I think Joker may first appear without the smile, and later be disfigured by the zipline/batarang (which is contrived, but no more so than the whole 'chemical waste bath' thing). The disfigurement then sends hims further over the edge and really fuels his hatred of Batman, by truly affecting the appearance of a very vain man. In B89, the revenge aspect wasn;t really developed - Joker just wanted more media attention than bats and to control the city, he only brought up the accident in the bell tower when bats was knocking seven shades of s*** out of him.
Does any of that make sense?

[Klattimus_Darby]

I don't know if I think Joker should look normal, look like the Joker, then get his mouth cut. I actually agree that he should show up in the movie as is, with perhaps flashbacks to his origin. I'd be just as happy if not happier with him explaining to to Batman or something, though. Where did all this ip-line business come from anyway? I know its the rumor going around town and all, but where from? I like that "chelsea grin" rumor much better.

[Keyser Soze]

The problem with the cut-smile is that, if he appears with that, with no origin, I think people will be confused and will be wondering 'How did that happen?. More so, than if he just appears with white skin, green hair, red lips. I think the kind of physical disfigurement caused by the cut-smile warrants some kind of explanation. I think Joker may first appear without the smile, and later be disfigured by the zipline/batarang (which is contrived, but no more so than the whole 'chemical waste bath' thing). The disfigurement then sends hims further over the edge and really fuels his hatred of Batman, by truly affecting the appearance of a very vain man. In B89, the revenge aspect wasn;t really developed - Joker just wanted more media attention than bats and to control the city, he only brought up the accident in the bell tower when bats was knocking seven shades of s*** out of him.
Does any of that make sense?

It makes perfect sense, and I understand what you are saying. It's completely valid.

However, I think that the confusion about the scars could be a good thing. It makes the viewer uneasy, raises questions. How did he get the scars? Who did it to him? Did he do it to himself? That mystery about him could serve to make the character that little bit more unnerving.

But if an explanation is ESSENTIAL, then we could get a vague flashback to a chemical plant, with mobsters giving The Joker (before he was The Joker) a "Glasgow smile" - a rather common old-school gangland way of "sending a message" to someone - before they toss him into a vat of chemicals to his apparent death. The "dead man" emerges, his skin bleached white, his hair turned green (?), and the potentially-fatal wounds sealed up, but in the shape of a horrific death-smile. The man snaps, and The Joker is born.

Cue line from The Joker: "Maybe I was in a rival gang, maybe I was just a normal guy, an innocent victim. Some days I remember it one way, other days I remember it the other way. I like to think of my past as multiple choice."

[Master_Prophet]

actually you reinforce my argument while disagreeing with it. Look, when it comes to fictional characters, there are certain essential elements that make a character who he is. Without those it simply becomes someone else. If you've been a fan for "17 years" then you must know that there are many Joker rip offs out there. Many characters who are basically copycats of the Joker. Yet I hope you will agree that none of them are THE joker. the question is why?
What is the difference between Green Goblin and the Joker for example?
You yourself recognize that the look of the joker in addition to his mental characterization play an essential role in defining him. would Batman be Batman if he wore Daredevil's outfit?



Ok this is where I get really pissed and confused. How can someone who can write as well as you do come to such a ridiculous conclusion. I don't know you but let me do something stupid. Let me tell you about YOU. I guarantee that if YOU had seen this picture WITHOUT any Joker reference, that the thought of the Joker would not have even entered you mind. There is NOTHING jokerish about that pic. Having white make up, a scar, and red around one's lips does NOT make on the Joker. Not in the least. If that is the case than yeah clock work orange WAS the joker. and so where all the joker rip offs of the past.
"fanboys" are so eager to love and accept what they are told that they shut down their most basic thought processes and accept WHATEVER they are told.


sorry but you're wrong on this part as well. It isn't MY definition of the joker that I am using, it is rather the UNIVERSALLY accepted definition of the character which I am using as a standard. btw, it is the same description YOU used when YOU described him. YOU yourself combined BOTH his attitude AND his look in describing him. All the components play a factor in defining the Joker. If they had the look perfect but his attitude wrong, it wouldn't be anymore the Joker then if they have the attitude dead on but the look completely wrong. Your problem is that you're so eager to accept what your told you shut your eyes to the obvious. THAT does not LOOK ANYTHING like the "Joker".


No, the Joker that has been established for over SIXTY years would NOT be in the film IF this is what he looks like throughout the film. He would be a Joker like character but it wouldn't be THE joker. saying HAHA or having white skin, green hair and red lips are not enough. It is how those elements are put together. otherwise all the scary movies with Clown killers were about the joker. :whatever:

you better believe that my personal opinions DON't matter. only the facts do. whether I HATE or LOVE this design means as little as anyone else's preference for the design. The question at hand is whether or not the design captures the character it is supposed to be representing. As such what I stated is NOT an opinion but rather a fact; therefore it carries much greater weight.
facts are, especially with comic book characters the look of a character plays an essential role in defining that character (once again Batman with Daredevils oufit is NOT Batman). This design looks NOTHING like the Joker (no more than Catwoman looked like THE Catwoman). Therefore THE Joker that has been established for over SIXTY years will not be represented in this movie. At best we will get a new character who is clearly inspired by the Joker and also calls himself the joker.

Oh and I know the movie will be made. Just like all the other crappy superhero movies that have been made in the past. What you fail to realize is that it is NOT a one man campaign. THAT is why the greater the changes the less successful these movies have been. So you can choke on YOUR love for this design, it still won't be the joker, and fans will not go see it as much as if it was the real thing. THey NEVER have.

there is still a chance that that may happen with me. All I'm saying is that so far, it's not looking good.

Sounds like a fanboy pissed off to me.

I was so overwhelmed by your post, I actually created an account just to post a response.

First of all, the joker as we all know will probably not be the joker that we see in this movie. I've accepted that. Nolan is trying to create and maintain realism in the Batman franchise, something that never really was there before Begins. To dismiss Heath Ledger as Joker because of an early make up test pic is ignorant and arrogant. Personally I think it kicks major booty, and Heath will make a fine Joker. We want realism.

[Keyser Soze]

Welcome to the Hype, Master Prophet!

[The Joker]

We want realism.

Who is we??

[Rezzo]

Who is we??

Well I certainly love the realism that Nolan has brought to the Batman franchise, so I´m one of those that really likes and wants the realism in TDK just like BB had

[FlawlessVictory]

I like the Joker look overall but I have one problem with it. The lipstick!! Why is it so messy? Can someone please explain why this would make any sense? I would never think of the Joker as somone who is messy, with his looks that is. So why this?

[The Joker]

Well I certainly love the realism that Nolan has brought to the Batman franchise, so I´m one of those that really likes and wants the realism in TDK just like BB had

I'm sure you do.

But, when someone says we, that comes across as though they're speaking for everyone. Which is just ignorant, IMO.

Realism is fine to a certain extent. Too much realism is a curse. Like with Scarecrow in BB. He didn't feel like a comic book villain. Just some nutty suit with a potato sack on his head.

These are fictional characters come from a fictional world of fantasy. Lets not go overboard on the realism so much that it makes them a pale shadow of their comic book counterparts.

[Rezzo]

I like the Joker look overall but I have one problem with it. The lipstick!! Why is it so messy? Can someone please explain why this would make any sense? I would never think of the Joker as somone who is messy, with his looks that is. So why this?

Well I like the look so far and I have no problem with how the lipstick is in that one pic but we have to wait to see how it works in the context of the movie, plus it´s just one picture it´s not like it´s set in stone that The Joker will look like that throughout the whole movie

[Rezzo]

I'm sure you do.

But, when someone says we, that comes across as though they're speaking for everyone. Which is just ignorant, IMO.

Realism is fine to a certain extent. Too much realism is a curse. Like with Scarecrow in BB. He didn't feel like a comic book villain. Just some nutty suit with a potato sack on his head.

These are fictional characters come from a fictional world of fantasy. Lets not go overboard on the realism so much that it makes them a pale shadow of their comic book counterparts.

But the thing is that the movies ARE NOT the comics, some characters just don´t translate that well in a movie without looking ridiculous, I was a little disappointed with the look of the Scarecrow at first but in time I grew to love that look

[Darkest Knight]

But that's the thing, Joker isn't all smiles. The first pic of Ledger as Joker alone brings added depth to the character. Via the 'tragic past' element. And the fact people are complaining he isn't "smiling", yet are simeltaneously upset at a fixed or carved smile, completely blows another hole in their eratic arguments. If he clearly isn't smiling, wouldn't that mean he can show any emotion with his mouth? Which is one of the reasons people were against a cut smile. And as Keyser Soze already showed, Joker wasn't always meant to smile. As it shows in that sinister Bob Kane picture, of Joker on his own contemplating and brooding. Joker is a paradox. Don't you get it? He has this HUGE gashed smile in his face, yet his regular mouth shows a completely different human expression. This is what Joker represents, he's a contradiction. Death by smile, jokes that aren't funny, etc. I really actually question whether some of you know the actual character you claim to love so much.

[The Joker]

But the thing is that the movies ARE NOT the comics, some characters just don´t translate that well in a movie without looking ridiculous

I agree.

Scarecrow and Joker are not one of those characters, however. I'm not against Ledger's look as the Joker. But, he'd better have the green hair and purple suit.

His performance will be the defining factor though, IMO.

I was a little disappointed with the look of the Scarecrow at first but in time I grew to love that look

Wish I felt that way.

[Rainer7]

Add me to the list of people who enjoyed the realism and want it to continue.

[Rezzo]

I agree.

Scarecrow and Joker are not one of those characters, however. I'm not against Ledger's look as the Joker. But, he'd better have the green hair and purple suit.

His performance will be the defining factor though, IMO.



Wish I felt that way.

Well the personality of The Joker is what I will be looking at in the movie more than his look but yea I do hope he has his green hair and his purple suit but just want it to be ridiculous, it visually has to work

[Darkest Knight]

Joker~

He "better have the purple suit"?! haha, or what? Petty things like this are not what makes the Joker the character he is. Jesus, comic book loyalists are so superficial and stupid.

[Keyser Soze]

I'm sure you do.

But, when someone says we, that comes across as though they're speaking for everyone. Which is just ignorant, IMO.

Realism is fine to a certain extent. Too much realism is a curse. Like with Scarecrow in BB. He didn't feel like a comic book villain. Just some nutty suit with a potato sack on his head.

These are fictional characters come from a fictional world of fantasy. Lets not go overboard on the realism so much that it makes them a pale shadow of their comic book counterparts.

I'm going to have to disagree on Scarecrow. For me, he was one of the highlights of "Batman Begins". Cillian Murphy's performance was excellent, and has turned out to be a star-making turn for him - deservedly so!

But more than that, I think his look fit nicely into the world of the movie. I loved the Scarecrow mask worn over the suit. It just had an eerie, surreal feel to it. Not so sure what to think of his later costume, mainly because we didn't get a clear look at it. But I'd like to think that if he shows up in the sequel, he'll be kitted out in a long brown trenchcoat. That would work well I think.

[The Joker]

Joker~

He "better have the purple suit"?! haha, or what?

Or I wont like it. What did you think I meant? I'd blow up the world? :whatever:

Petty things like this are not what makes the Joker the character he is.

Really?

So, there wouldn't be any complaints if they denied Batman his cape, or pointy eared cowl etc? The way Joker dresses is an expression of his psyche. Just like Batman's.

Jesus, comic book loyalists are so superficial and stupid.

You'd probably know better than most, troll.

[strikezone89]

how much longer do u think we have to wait for an offical or spy full body pic of mr.j

[The Joker]

I'm going to have to disagree on Scarecrow.

That's your right.

[Keyser Soze]

Joker~

He "better have the purple suit"?! haha, or what? Petty things like this are not what makes the Joker the character he is. Jesus, comic book loyalists are so superficial and stupid.

That attitude's uncalled for, Darkest Knight. Surely we can be civil in debate, without resorting to calling anyone we disagree with "stupid". I've just been calling out people like HoratioRome for taking that kind of attitude. It's unacceptable, no matter what side of the debate you're on.

Please, be respectful.

[Rezzo]

how much longer do u think we have to wait for an offical or spy full body pic of mr.j

Well I´m sure someone will snap a shot of him on set in full Joker makeup along with his outfit but I´m guessing there won´t be an official picture for sometime

[Keyser Soze]

Well I´m sure someone will snap a shot of him on set in full Joker makeup along with his outfit but I´m guessing there won´t be an official picture for sometime

Maybe we'll see him in December...:cwink:

[Hunter Rider]

Joker~

He "better have the purple suit"?! haha, or what? Petty things like this are not what makes the Joker the character he is. Jesus, comic book loyalists are so superficial and stupid.

Debate civilly,take a leaf from Keyser,he is leading the way on how to conduct a point to point debate minus personal insults

[Darkest Knight]

Really?

So, there wouldn't be any complaints if they denied Batman his cape, or pointy eared cowl etc?

WOW, you're comparing apples and oranges. Seriously ... The guidlines to the look of Batman:

Bat ears
Cape
Chest Symbol
Utility Belt

You'd be talking about fully altering a character. This wasn't done for the Joker if he doesn't wear a purple suit. The purple suit isn't what defines Joker as a character, or even what defines his look.

Guidlines for Joker's look:
White Skin
Smile
Red Lips
Green Hair

And you could put a carpet around him, or have him run around naked and he'd be the Joker. Joker has wore things that weren't purple suits PLENTY of times.

[Rezzo]

Maybe we'll see him in December...:cwink:

quite possibly :ninja:

[Keyser Soze]

Debate civilly,take a leaf from Keyser,he is leading the way on how to conduct a point to point debate minus personal insults

:joker: I get the brownie points! :joker:

[Darkest Knight]

That attitude's uncalled for, Darkest Knight. Surely we can be civil in debate, without resorting to calling anyone we disagree with "stupid". I've just been calling out people like HoratioRome for taking that kind of attitude. It's unacceptable, no matter what side of the debate you're on.

Please, be respectful.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just when the idiots pop up ... its hard not to beat them back into the ground. I need more self restraint.

[Hunter Rider]

:joker: I get the brownie points! :joker:

And a gold star:oldrazz:

[The Joker]

Joker has wore things that weren't purple suits PLENTY of times.

And Batman has worn different variations of his costume, too. He doesn't even wear the type of costume he does in the movies.

But, that's practical.

Joker's purple suit is an expression of his flamboyancy and psyche of his character. It's outlandish and crazy just like him. It's his trademark look, and there's no reason why it can't be put on screen.

There is a reason why Batman cannot have grey spandex.

[Hunter Rider]

the Purple suit-while not a huge deal for me-is iconic as part of his appearance.

[The Joker]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just when the idiots pop up ... its hard not to beat them back into the ground. I need more self restraint.

For the love of god, ban this troll.

[Hunter Rider]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just when the idiots pop up ... its hard not to beat them back into the ground. I need more self restraint.

I can help you with that.....leave the name calling out of your posts

[Keyser Soze]

WOW, you're comparing apples and oranges. Seriously ... The guidlines to the look of Batman:

Bat ears
Cape
Chest Symbol
Utility Belt

You'd be talking about fully altering a character. This wasn't done for the Joker if he doesn't wear a purple suit. The purple suit isn't what defines Joker as a character, or even what defines his look.

Guidlines for Joker's look:
White Skin
Smile
Red Lips
Green Hair

And you could put a carpet around him, or have him run around naked and he'd be the Joker. Joker has wore things that weren't purple suits PLENTY of times.

Remembers naked Joker from "Hush Returns". Man, he was buff...

...

...

:wow:

Ummm.....I'm going to have to say that, while there is a degree of freedom when it comes to Joker's costume - you don't HAVE to have the purple suit and spatz look - The Joker should be a stylish figure, if not flamboyant. Nice suits, whether they be black, white or, yes, purple. And from there, you can put a coat, or maybe a hat on top of that.

Ideally, I'd like to see The Joker (at least once) in a purple suit, but in a modern cut. Maybe dark purple jacket and pants, with a black shirt and a purple tie underneath.

But I do agree with you that, while you can play around to an extent with the costume, its the white skin/green hair that's the visual core of the character.

[Rezzo]

And Batman has worn different variations of his costume, too. He doesn't even wear the type of costume he does in the movies.

But, that's practical.

Joker's purple suit is an expression of his flamboyancy and psyche of his character. It's outlandish and crazy just like him. It's his trademark look, and there's no reason why it can't be put on screen.

There is a reason why Batman cannot have grey spandex.

It has to work visually within the movie, just cause it´s flamboyant in the comics and all doesn´t mean it has to be flamboyant in the movie just to please the fans, it´s a matter of working well within the movie and that´s what matters the most that it works within the movie cause if it doesn´t then what´s the point

[The Joker]

It has to work visually within the movie, just cause it´s flamboyant in the comics and all doesn´t mean it has to be flamboyant in the movie just to please the fans, it´s a matter of working well within the movie and that´s what matters the most that it works within the movie cause if it doesn´t then what´s the point

Ok.

So, explain to me why it wouldn't work visually. He's got a white face, red lips, and green hair. Why wouldn't the purple suit go with this?

[Hunter Rider]

You can't piss away everything just for the movie otherwise why even bother ? just make a separate film with new characters....there is really no reason that joker can't have a modern dark purple suit

[FlawlessVictory]

I'm not against Ledger's look as the Joker. But, he'd better have the green hair and purple suit.

His performance will be the defining factor though, IMO.

From Miranda's very reliable source:

The Joker does wear purple at one point in the movie, but it's not the bright bright purple of the comic books, from what I've heard, the suit will be at its most comic book like during the scene in which the Joker is seen through the eyes of the fear toxin.

[Rezzo]

Ok.

So, explain to me why it wouldn't work visually. He's got a white face, red lips, and green hair. Why wouldn't the purple suit go with this?

Well BB has the realism factor, look at how Gotham looks in the movie and then try to picture The Joker in a bright flamboyant purple suit it just wouldn´t look good visually, he should have a purple suit but not like a bright purple it should be like a dark purple

[The Joker]

You can't piss away everything just for the movie otherwise why even bother ? just make a separate film with new characters....there is really no reason that joker can't have a modern dark purple suit

I agree.

From Miranda's very reliable source:

The Joker does wear purple at one point in the movie, but it's not the bright bright purple of the comic books, from what I've heard, the suit will be at its most comic book like during the scene in which the Joker is seen through the eyes of the fear toxin.

Fear gas? Scarecrow is back, then. Hope it's a minor role. Don't want anyone cramping Joker's style.

Well BB has the realism factor, look at how Gotham looks in the movie and then try to picture The Joker in a bright flamboyant purple suit it just wouldn´t look good visually, he should have a purple suit but not like a bright purple it should be like a dark purple

Sorry, don't buy that arguement for a second.

What is so unrealistic about a psychotic with a clown fetish dressing in flamboyant colours?

To say it wouldn't look good is just ridiculous, IMO. Joker's purple suit is fantastic. It's the staple look for the character.

[Darkest Knight]

Realism is fine to a certain extent. Too much realism is a curse.
And BEGINS never crosses the boundary of 'too much realism.' If you want excessive realism, read the Aronofsky Year One script. That's excessive realism. The movie Nolan made still had the fantastical element. It's the people who just want to bash it that say otherwise. The 'realism' or a better word 'verisimilitude' is used to ground the fantastical elements to make them plausible. I mean, is a man who dresses up as a bat, and fights a city of corrupt crime by himself, realistic? A cloak that when electricity is sent through it allows a man to glide over a city? Or how about an ex-military prototype vehicle that can manually jump over bridges, and has 'stealth modes.' This is all excessive realism? Like a fear inducing gas? A giant demon Bat seen by someone who has inhaled said poison. Or how about a microwave emiter that evaporates all water particles into gases? This is all excessive realism? I think not. It's just you were fooled, or didn't get it. See, Nolan's film has what we call balance. It isn't overly fantastical, nor is it too sober and boring. It walks the line, and uses a realistic feel to tell these stories. And judging by various reactions from the masses, that's how they like their serious Batman films played out.

Like with Scarecrow in BB. He didn't feel like a comic book villain. Just some nutty suit with a potato sack on his head.
Wait, did Ras feel like a comic book villian? He was in the comics, but oh wait yeah ... he was actually based off real world villians. How does Scarecrow not feel like his comic book counterpart? I mean really, do explain. Is it because he isn't overly-flamboyant? Is this what every character has to be in order to 'feel like a comic book villian' to you? I for one thought Scarecrow was spot on, and one of the better and more interesting performances during the movie. But you also have to see that this was also the origin of the Scarecrow. He is mainly Johnothan Crane, up until roughly the final act of the movie ... where he actually goes crazy like his comic book counter part. See, you're not taking into account the context when judging this. If he doesn't wear a sack on his head the entire time, with a scarecrow outfit, and a huge hat ... it just isn't the Scarecrow. You already had the character written off, didn't you?

These are fictional characters come from a fictional world of fantasy. Lets not go overboard on the realism so much that it makes them a pale shadow of their comic book counterparts.
And we already went over this. Look up the word 'verisimilitude', and you'll have your answer. Get back to me after that. None of these characters became pale imitations or shadows of themselves. In some cases they had even more meat and depth to them. Batman was Batman, as were all the other characters. Hell, Morgan Freeman's character alone is worlds better.

[Rezzo]

Sorry, don't buy that arguement for a second.

What is so unrealistic about a psychotic with a clown fetish dressing in flamboyant colours?

To say it wouldn't look good is just ridiculous, IMO. Joker's purple suit is fantastic. It's the staple look for the character.

I doubt he would have a bright purple suit, everyone in BB had a modern realistic look and I don´t think purple is very popular in a man´s clothing store, more specially a man´s store for suits

[Boom]

Well BB has the realism factor, look at how Gotham looks in the movie and then try to picture The Joker in a bright flamboyant purple suit it just wouldn´t look good visually, he should have a purple suit but not like a bright purple it should be like a dark purple
The Joker's look is meant to contradict his actions. His colorful, flamboyant appearance clashes with his ruthless psychotic personality. His look also contradicts his surroundings. Gotham is dark and gritty. Batman is dark and gritty. The Joker is not.

[The Joker]

I doubt he would have a bright purple suit, everyone in BB had a modern realistic look and I don´t think purple is very popular in a man´s clothing store, more specially a store for suits

I'm not talking bright. I'm talking the dark purple he wears in the modern comics:


http://graffiti.tscpl.org/MikeDeodatoJoker.jpg


And Darkest Knight, if that was a post aimed at me, forget it. You're on my ignore list. I don't debate with insulting trolls. Find someone else to take your verbal BS.

[Crook]

I doubt he would have a bright purple suit, everyone in BB had a modern realistic look and I don´t think purple is very popular in a man´s clothing store, more specially a man´s store for suits
Why exactly are we trying to justify Joker's reasons for NOT wearing a purple suit? Seriously people, it's a color. And it's been part of his look since his inception. Deal with it. :dry:

[Darkest Knight]

You can't piss away everything just for the movie otherwise why even bother ? just make a separate film with new characters....there is really no reason that joker can't have a modern dark purple suit
But why would he be a seperate character if he doesn't have a purple suit? haha

Jesus, you people. :whatever:

"Pissing away everything" ... you mean that would be pissing away if he doesn't have a purple suit? Nothing like going to extremes when you have NO point. It's called an adaptation for a reason, bro. Joker himself hasn't wore a purple suit in every story he's in. What's your beef then? Is he not the Joker is he's clearly the Joker in his actions and he has a white face, red lips, green hair, smiles, and lets say wears a black trenchcoat instead of a purple suit?

[Keyser Soze]

I think people get too caught up with the whole notion of realism. Was "Batman Begins" more grounded in reality than previous Batman films? Yes. But it was still a comic book movie. It was still about a bilionaire who dresses up as a bat to fight crime.

I don't like Ledger's Joker because it's "realistic". Let's face it, it's not. A cut-smile, if anything, is a lot less realistic than a guy who just has a big grin. I like Ledger's Joker - and the cut-smile - because it's a striking visual, and an interesting take on the character that I'm anxious to find out more about.

[Darkest Knight]

And Darkest Knight, if that was a post aimed at me, forget it. You're on my ignore list. I don't debate with insulting trolls. Find someone else to take your verbal BS.
Obviously I'm not on ignore if you read the post. And if you mean you're not going to respond because I'm a 'troll' which really means 'I don't have an argument against yours' then yeah, I didn't expect you to debate, because you have no legs to stand on.

[Darkest Knight]

I think people get too caught up with the whole notion of realism. Was "Batman Begins" more grounded in reality than previous Batman films? Yes. But it was still a comic book movie. It was still about a bilionaire who dresses up as a bat to fight crime.
Thank You Lord JESUS Tap-Dancing Christ. This guy actually gets this stuff.

I don't like Ledger's Joker because it's "realistic". Let's face it, it's not. A cut-smile, if anything, is a lot less realistic than a guy who just has a big grin. I like Ledger's Joker - and the cut-smile - because it's a striking visual, and an interesting take on the character that I'm anxious to find out more about.
Well said.

[Rezzo]

I'm not talking bright. I'm talking the dark purple he wears in the modern comics:


http://graffiti.tscpl.org/MikeDeodatoJoker.jpg



Ok now we are talking, you didn´t specify what type of purple I thought you were talking about a bright purple but yea he will probably have a dark purple suit and that would work well

[Boom]

Here's a realistic batsuit:

http://www.cloudchasershaconage.furtopia.org/ac0302.jpg

It has the ears, it's black, and it has the cape that looks like wings!!

Realistically Batman wouldn't need a bat emblem on his chest, so we can do without that. Personally, I think this look is perfect.

[Hunter Rider]

But why would he be a seperate character if he doesn't have a purple suit? haha

Jesus, you people. :whatever:

"Pissing away everything" ... you mean that would be pissing away if he doesn't have a purple suit? Nothing like going to extremes when you have NO point. It's called an adaptation for a reason, bro. Joker himself hasn't wore a purple suit in every story he's in. What's your beef then? Is he not the Joker is he's clearly the Joker in his actions and he has a white face, red lips, green hair, smiles, and lets say wears a black trenchcoat instead of a purple suit?

Actually your purple suit debate is with someone else,i was referring to the general idea that it's fine to change every piece of classic imagery just for the sake of the movie,that is just as bad as not taking some liberties to make outdated concepts work.

As for the purple suit i never said it was what made him and you misread me completely BUT it is by far the most iconic of any outfit Joker has worn,yes there are others but they are few and far between and i do not see any reason a dark purple suit can't be worn by The Joker in the movie,that would be an unnecessary change

You could do with watching your attitude,i am not easily phased by anyone on here but i'm getting complaints about your abrasive style.

[Keyser Soze]

Obviously I'm not on ignore if you read the post. And if you mean you're not going to respond because I'm a 'troll' which really means 'I don't have an argument against yours' then yeah, I didn't expect you to debate, because you have no legs to stand on.

Darkest Knight, you're taking things too far. Calm down, and reread the posts you've been making. Ask yourself if it's really worth getting so worked up and angry over some text on a message board. Maybe take a break for a bit until you can approach discussion with a cooler head.

Sorry if I sound like I'm attacking you. I like you, and I don't want to see you get into trouble.

[The Joker]

Ok now we are talking, you didn´t specify what type of purple I thought you were talking about a bright purple but yea he will probably have a dark purple suit and that would work well

He really hasn't been wearing a bright purple since they reinvented Batman with a more serious tone in the 70's:


http://www.tomheroes.com/images/COMIC%20batman%20251.bmp


This has been his look all thru the years. And, I believe it would look superb on screen.

[Darkest Knight]

Oh ok, my bad then hunter rider. Miss-communication. However this isn't to say I'd hate it if he wore a purple suit. I could dig that, just as well as I could if he wore a trench coat, black gloves.

So I'm abrasive, if you felt the need to talk to me on a personal level ... you could've sent me a pm. But what's wrong with abrasive? I'm not making anything truly personal.

[Hunter Rider]

Obviously I'm not on ignore if you read the post. And if you mean you're not going to respond because I'm a 'troll' which really means 'I don't have an argument against yours' then yeah, I didn't expect you to debate, because you have no legs to stand on.

He can see you have posted just not what you have posted

[Darkest Knight]

I'm good, not mad at all ... People misconsture me attacking an argument, with me attacking a person.

[The Joker]

Darkest Knight, you're taking things too far. Calm down, and reread the posts you've been making. Ask yourself if it's really worth getting so worked up and angry over some text on a message board. Maybe take a break for a bit until you can approach discussion with a cooler head.

Sorry if I sound like I'm attacking you. I like you, and I don't want to see you get into trouble.

Aha, I can see his post in your quote.

He obviously doesn't know that people's names on ignore show up in a thread, but the actual content of their posts are blocked. I guess your post was aimed at me after all.

Let him continue with his Hitler attitude. Might finally get him banned from here.

[Keyser Soze]

He really hasn't been wearing a bright purple since they reinvented Batman with a more serious tone in the 70's:


http://www.tomheroes.com/images/COMIC%20batman%20251.bmp


This has been his look all thru the years. And, I believe it would look superb on screen.

Speaking of The Joker's Five-Way Revenge...

Did anyone who's seen "Brokeback Mountain" notice that, in the scene where Heath Ledger KOs that biker guy for insulting his family, he takes him out with the EXACT same kick The Joker uses to KO Batman in that story?

[Hunter Rider]

Oh ok, my bad then hunter rider. Miss-communication. However this isn't to say I'd hate it if he wore a purple suit. I could dig that, just as well as I could if he wore a trench coat, black gloves.

So I'm abrasive, if you felt the need to talk to me on a personal level ... you could've sent me a pm. But what's wrong with abrasive? I'm not making anything truly personal.

I could have sent you a PM but then i'd no doubt get into a long debate over it with you,i already asked you earlier to clam down and you still seem very het up.as for what is wrong with abrasive,well lots of posters don't like being talked down to and having the feeling of being attacked.......Ive been here a long time and seen them come and go,from heavy debaters to intellectuals to comedians etc...i am used to it all but you have to remember that we have all ages and nationalities here,some posters you deem as "Stupid" may be young and some may not have English as their first language so they struggle to get their point over and it's made hard for them when they are being somewhat accosted.

I'm simply saying take it down a notch or two,debate the point not the person

[Keyser Soze]

Aha, I can see his post in your quote.

He obviously doesn't know that people's names on ignore show up in a thread, but the actual content of their posts are blocked. I guess your post was aimed at me after all.

Let him continue with his Hitler attitude. Might finally get him banned from here.

And you know what, Joker? You back off as well. It's hard enough trying to talk Darkest Knight into being civil without you baiting him.

[The Joker]

And you know what, Joker? You back off as well. It's hard enough trying to talk Darkest Knight into being civil without you baiting him.

I've done nothing wrong. He doesn't need anyone baiting him to be rude. That should be obvious.

But, you're right. Moving on....

[Hunter Rider]

He really hasn't been wearing a bright purple since they reinvented Batman with a more serious tone in the 70's:


http://www.tomheroes.com/images/COMIC%20batman%20251.bmp


This has been his look all thru the years. And, I believe it would look superb on screen.

You should put that in the iconic Image thread:up:

[Darkest Knight]

He obviously doesn't know that people's names on ignore show up in a thread, but the actual content of their posts are blocked. I guess your post was aimed at me after all.
No, I didn't. I'm not cowardly enough to ignore people. I deal with problems, not run in the opposite direction.

Let him continue with his Hitler attitude. Might finally get him banned from here.
Listen bro, if you want to address me ... grow a sack and address me. Don't refer to me in posts to other people. Don't act like a female. If you want confrontation, and to call me Hitler like (where that came from, I have no idea) ... then like I said, grab your raisins and talk to me like a man. It's not that hard.

P.S. hunter rider? No acknowledgement of these statements via 'Joker'? How I act on here is in anyway shape or form relatable to Hitler of all people, I have no idea. Because I shot down his argument about a purple suit, and realism? That compares to genocide? Yeah ...

:dry:

[Keyser Soze]

You should put that in the iconic Image thread:up:

That and that disturbing full-page opening panel, with the close-up of Joker's face accompanied by HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA filling the background.

I'm not too keen on the art in the rest of that particular story (The Joker looks a bit too cherubic in parts), but this cover and that first page really are iconic Joker.

[Hunter Rider]

Aha, I can see his post in your quote.

He obviously doesn't know that people's names on ignore show up in a thread, but the actual content of their posts are blocked. I guess your post was aimed at me after all.

Let him continue with his Hitler attitude. Might finally get him banned from here.


That is also uncalled for,you two would be best simply not communicating at all

[Mr. Socko]

http://www.drizzle.com/~lostboy/images/SJackson.gif
CALM DA **** DOWN!

A giant demon Bat seen by someone who has inhaled said poison.

That happens quite a lot when you puff too much MJ. :cwink:

Here's a realistic batsuit:

http://www.cloudchasershaconage.furtopia.org/ac0302.jpg

It has the ears, it's black, and it has the cape that looks like wings!!

Realistically Batman wouldn't need a bat emblem on his chest, so we can do without that. Personally, I think this look is perfect.

MUHAHAHAHAHA! Damn Nolan for not going the realistic route and choosing a closer bat-suit.

[The Joker]

You should put that in the iconic Image thread:up:

Done.

Ever read that actual story yourself?

[The Joker]

That is also uncalled for,you two would be best simply not communicating at all

Not a problem.

[Hunter Rider]

P.S. hunter rider? No acknowledgement of these statements via 'Joker'? How I act on here is in anyway shape or form relatable to Hitler of all people, I have no idea. Because I shot down his argument about a purple suit, and realism? That compares to genocide? Yeah ...

:dry:

I am modding several threads and forums at once,i had the post open and was replying to it as you replied here,you have to realise this is not the only thread i am being asked to look at or participating in

[Keyser Soze]

Darkest Knight, if you want to know the proper way to deal with this, be the bigger man and just ignore Joker. It takes two people for an argument to continue, and Joker has already agreed the two of you should move on.

If things are getting too heated with Joker, try joining some of the other discussions going on here.

[Boom]

grow a sack and address me.
Don't act like a female.
grab your raisins and talk to me like a man
This is the kind of **** Hunter is talking about.