The man who laughs: The Joker thread

[I am Batman]

How do you think they should make Joker's smile?

They could just have the actor pull as big a grin as he can or they could go with makeup like they did in B89:

http://www.dfi.dk/dfi/undervisning/fatomfilm/grafik/joker.jpg http://www.kirstenp.claranet.de/comicmovies/pictures/batman04.jpg

Or they could use computers to enlarge the smile like what was done to the character Phlox in the show Enterprise:

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/shipkeeper/brokenbow/62.jpg

I think they shoud cg it. Itcan really make Joker creepy, and it can not only be done on his smile but on other facial expressions such as frowns. But Nolan has stated that he wants his Batman movies to be as realistic as possible so he may just go with makeup. What do you think?

[Boom]

Option B.

[The Kid]

can't see the second

[DOO BEE]

or how about just an actor who has a normal smile and not some fake effect, i love the realisic gritty batman of today, so lets keep it that way.



that rhymes...

[Cats]

I'd prefer if he had a naturally creepy smile like the guy who played a younger Jack Napier in B'89 (in the flashback scene) than a costumed one like the one Jack Nicholson had.

[DeFett]

Like this

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

[Spider Ham]

No silly enhancements.

His smile needs to be all natural.

[Punch]

like I said in another thread we have to be carful with these movies. It's a slippery slope once they start with the CGI

[SatanBurger]

On one hand, I think a CGI enhancement could look creepy if it followed something close to the Mouth of Sauron on Return of the King (a scene deleted fromt he theatrical release). But it is a slippery slope, and in the end it's just unecessary. Might compromise whatever subtleties a talented actor brings to the performance.

[The Kid]

just find someone like willem dafoe or jim carrey who has a rubbery kind of face they can transform themselves, then add a prosthetic teeth in.

LIke this http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/pages/eiga/MA/Previews/Plans-15811.jpg

[Shoemeister]

No constant, forced prosthetic smile. Worked for 89, but I want to see the new Joker smile naturally, because of his sheer insanity.

[Spider Ham]

The bottom line is that The Joker needs to be able to display other emotions. He can't just be grinning all the time.

[The Kid]

sorry, but I swear, every suggestion for the new batman movie villians seems to base their ideas off of the 60s batman show..

Penguin just some crimminal guy with a big nose.

and now Joker just some dude who's so insane he smiles a lot.

not the way I'd do it...http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/9710/bscap0149ot.jpg

[Spider Ham]

sorry, but I swear, every suggestion for the new batman movie villians seems to base their ideas off of the 60s batman show..

Penguin just some crimminal guy with a big nose.

and now Joker just some dude who's so insane he smiles a lot.


Except that is who those two characters are.

The Penguin isn't some mutant freak. He isn't even crazy.

The Joker's smile isn't a perminant deformity. He can make other expressions.

[The Kid]

hold on... wha... wh.. what?

[Punch]

Except that is who those two characters are.

The Penguin isn't some mutant freak. He isn't even crazy.

The Joker's smile is a perminant deformity. He can make other expressions.

his smile isn't a deformity

[Spider Ham]

What? Never read a comic before?

[Spider Ham]

his smile isn't a deformity

Sorry, that was supposed to say "isn't".

[Comic Book Boy]

How do you think they should make Joker's smile?

They could just have the actor pull as big a grin as he can or they could go with makeup like they did in B89:

http://www.dfi.dk/dfi/undervisning/fatomfilm/grafik/joker.jpg http://www.kirstenp.claranet.de/comicmovies/pictures/batman04.jpg

Or they could use computers to enlarge the smile like what was done to the character Phlox in the show Enterprise:

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/shipkeeper/brokenbow/62.jpg

I think they shoud cg it. Itcan really make Joker creepy, and it can not only be done on his smile but on other facial expressions such as frowns. But Nolan has stated that he wants his Batman movies to be as realistic as possible so he may just go with makeup. What do you think?
That star trek pic looks lame. The B89 look is best. No CGI.

[Timstuff]

The smile should not be fixed, that's my opinion. The actor needs to be able to act through the makeup, and I don't know where people got the notion that the Joker is incapable of not smiling. Maybe they could have a few shots in the movie where the actor's smile is "assisted" by a prosthetic aparatus to creep people out, but he should not have a fixed grin.

Oh yeah, and prosthetic teeth wouldn't be a bad idea. It would give him a fuller grin and make him seem creepier. :up:

[DavidTyler]

I agree. Natural smile.

I did an amatuer Batman film and my actor playing the Joker had a technique for getting that grin naturally. I enhanced it by taking the red line of his lips and making it as thin as possible while still being visible. This had the effect of making his smile seem larger.

As to Nicholson's prosthetic. I actually hate that thing. I had to sit through the film a few times before I finally stopped staring at the rubber on the lower half of his face. Very distracting.

If they must do a prosthetic, please do it a little more natural looking and have it allow for other expressions.

[lujho]

I hate Jack's prosthetic too. It didn't really reflect the visual of the comic all that well. Certainly no more than a natural smile would have. It just looked fake. It didn't look like a guy who had a permanent smile, it looked like a guy with a rubber smile stuck around his mouth.

You need a guy with a great smile first. And yeah, prosthetic teeth would be a great idea as long as they're still believably big and not stupidly huge. They shouldn't be obvious. Remember, the chemical bath didn't MUTATE the joker - there's no reason he'd have stupidly big teeth (or chin or nose for that matter).

Then paint the lips (I'd like to see them try a darker red), and extend the painted parts at the corners just a bit. Like the Gotham Public Works joker. Just to widen up the smile a tad.

http://www.gothampublicworks.com/joker.htm

THEN... if you need to do anything regarding Joker having actually damaged his nerves/muscles (which isn't really neccessary IMO), but IF you do, do it like this:

By acting. Just have the actor's "neutral" mouth expression be a slight smile... as if when he's totally relaxing his mouth it doesn't close properly. He CAN close it and make any expression he wants and talk properly, it's just that when he's not doing anything with his mouth, it'll be slightly open in a slight smile, whereas a normal person would just have a straight closed mouth.

I'm not sure how that would work, and it'd probably depend on the actor anyway, but I think it's as far as they should go.

Anyone who brings up Conrad Veidt's prosthesis in The Man Who Laughs gets a whack on the head.

[The Chairman]

The smile for Jack's Joker was perfect. It looked very natural. They should just keep it that way. Maybe hire the same makeup guys.

[Robin91939]

The smile for Jack's Joker was perfect. It looked very natural. They should just keep it that way. Maybe hire the same makeup guys.
NATURAL?!

It was so forced and fake. I realize that it was 1989, but I want better for this movie, its gonna be 2006 when it's made for God sake.

-R

[Gamma Ray]

The smile for Jack's Joker was perfect. It looked very natural. They should just keep it that way. Maybe hire the same makeup guys.

Oh yes... Reeeeaaaally natural looking. :rolleyes:

[I am Batman]

Dammit, I can't get back my pic. Oh well. A natural smile is good, but I don't think it can pull of a creepy look. CGing not only the smile but all Joker's facial expressions can make him look really insane. Now I'm not saying that they should cg joker's mouth in every single scene, but it should be used at key points. When I saw that Enterprise episode and saw Phlox smile I was a little creeped out because I knew noone can smile that wide. I'm telling you it can work.

[Timstuff]

The smile for Jack's Joker was perfect. It looked very natural. They should just keep it that way. Maybe hire the same makeup guys.

No, it looked terrible. It didn't even properly convey the way he looked in the comics. It looked like he had rubber cheeks stuck to his face. It didn't look like he had a permanent grin, and Joker's not even supposed to have a perminant grin. He's just a crazy man with dis-colored skin and hair who likes to smile and laugh alot.

[The Senator]

If they were to do any sort of "smile enhancement," I hope it's one that gives an extra gritty feel to the Joker's image.

Though, if Crispin Glover played the Joker, they wouldn't really need any prosthetics.

[Bat Attack]

I think they should use prosthetics to maybe enhance the smile a little bit.

[I7eIVIoNBoY]

anyone see the grinch?? they should do what they did in that movie!

[gothamsterror]

I hope they make the smile non-permanent this time. I had an idea that maybe Joker gets his giant smile whenever he's doing something he likes. Let's say his chasing someone through a carnival or something, the knowledge that this person's so scared gives him massive amounts of pleasure and whenever he gets this kind of pleasure his smile becomes huge and he begins laughing like a madman.

[neobido9999]

wow, maybe i'm a complete noob, but i always thought in the original comics that joker could ONLY smile.......

[Timstuff]

Nope. Some artists draw him smiling more than they should, but he's not supposed to be incapable of not smiling. If you watch The Animated Series you see that he only smiles when he's in a good mood (which he often is, since he's a very self-confident fellow). Even in the new "The Batman" cartoon where they completely changed his look and turned him into some kind of rustifarian warrior, he does not always smile.

[lujho]

anyone see the grinch?? they should do what they did in that movie!

Cast Jim Carrey, you mean? That smile was all his. The make-up didn't make it any bigger.

[xfan320]

^lujho, he meant that one scene where the grinch looks back at the camera and his smile reaches nearly up to his eyes in a nice little CG shot. go back and watch it again.

i personally want a real smile, enhanced by maybe only prosthetic teeth.

jack's joker had a good smile prosthetic, but whenever he wasn't smiling, it looked like an obvious rubber prosthetic.

[lujho]

^lujho, he meant that one scene where the grinch looks back at the camera and his smile reaches nearly up to his eyes in a nice little CG shot. go back and watch it again.

Actually, I've only seen it once and can't remember anything about it (certainly not the scene you're talking about, so I probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. :)

Personally I think such CGI enhancement for Joker will just look fake and cartoonish.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well........something that sometimes gets forgotten is that the Joker DOES have a permanent smile on his face.

It looked extremely creepy with Nicholson........really creepy.

[Spider Ham]

Except, you know, he doesn't.

[BK]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/Dex4788/Smilies/Laughing/004.gif

[The Kid]

joker's joker gas won't give people permanent smiles either then. I really like the idea of his victims having to share his pain or something like that. Boooooooooo

[AJGoodfella7]

http://photos.imageevent.com/batmanonfilm/bofimagesbofimages/bermejo_joker1.jpg

From BOF, I thought this was an interesting take on the character. I think if it was a little less over the top it could work.

[routhman]

Those lips just totally gross me out

[routhman]

I HATED the '89 joker altogether:

1) Stupid-looking smile
2) He was overweight and short(should be skinny and tall)
3) He was dancing around...We shouldnt see Joker unless he is killing or doing something pyschotic; but dancing? Throwing paint on paintings? ridiculous
4) Voice was awful
5) Didnt like his laugh

I just altogether hated Nicholson's joker
but thats just my opinion

[Spider Ham]

joker's joker gas won't give people permanent smiles either then. I really like the idea of his victims having to share his pain or something like that. Boooooooooo

There is no logic in this statement.

He uses the Joker gas in the comics, where his smile is not perminant.

[Cats]

I HATED the '89 joker altogether:

1) Stupid-looking smile
2) He was overweight and short(should be skinny and tall)
3) He was dancing around...We shouldnt see Joker unless he is killing or doing something pyschotic; but dancing? Throwing paint on paintings? ridiculous
4) Voice was awful
5) Didnt like his laugh

I just altogether hated Nicholson's joker
but thats just my opinion
I agree, he wasn't quite funny nor psychotic, spent too much time dancing and heavy breathing. Plus it just looked wrong when Nicholson didn't spend nearly enough time smiling yet the prosthetic was forcing his face that way.

[Orko Is King]

I DON'T want a permanent grin like in '89 and I DON'T want it CGI. Just let whoever is playing him do a natural smile.

[The Kid]

There is no logic in this statement.

He uses the Joker gas in the comics, where his smile is not perminant.

Wasn't it though? the hair, the face, and the smile I thought all came from the chemical dipping.

the joker in 89's smile was caused by botched plastic surgery.

the joker in the comics, to me, always seemed to smile because he's ****ed up by those chemicals. He can not smile if he wants too, but the chemicals always make him find stuff funny and that's why he smiles so much. clear this up for me.

[Compi716]

Natural smile. After all, in TAS he wasn't smiling all the time. And the TAS Joker was PERFECT.

[The Question]

Wasn't it though? the hair, the face, and the smile I thought all came from the chemical dipping.

the joker in 89's smile was caused by botched plastic surgery.

the joker in the comics, to me, always seemed to smile because he's ****ed up by those chemicals. He can not smile if he wants too, but the chemicals always make him find stuff funny and that's why he smiles so much. clear this up for me.


It's not the chemicals. It's the fact that hes a frigin soceopath. He had serious psychological bagage befor he ever steped near Axis Chemicals. The experiance of falling into the chemicals was just the straw that broke the cammel's back.

[Katsuro]

I HATED the '89 joker altogether:

1) Stupid-looking smile
2) He was overweight and short(should be skinny and tall)
3) He was dancing around...We shouldnt see Joker unless he is killing or doing something pyschotic; but dancing? Throwing paint on paintings? ridiculous
4) Voice was awful
5) Didnt like his laugh

I just altogether hated Nicholson's joker
but thats just my opinion

Here here! Amen to that! I honsetly hated Nicholson's Joker, and yet people are always complementing it, saying how great it was. It was really just plain crap, and absolutley nothing like the real Joker. The fake smile lookd ridiulous, he was far too old, and too short and fat. We need a tall, lanky young actor, around Bale's age, with a huge, yet completely natural smile

[lujho]

joker's joker gas won't give people permanent smiles either then. I really like the idea of his victims having to share his pain or something like that. Boooooooooo

Joker's smilex gas doesn't have anything to do with the chemicals he fell into. It's not the same stuff.

[The Kid]

curious...

forgive my ignorance. I'm so dumb about all this batman stuff.

[Spider Ham]

And yeah, The Penguin is just a criminal with a pointy nose. He's not a mutant. He doesn't live in the sewer. And he isn't crazy.

[The Question]

Well, he is a little messed up but no more than most mob bosses.

[Bat Attack]

http://photos.imageevent.com/batmanonfilm/bofimagesbofimages/bermejo_joker1.jpg

From BOF, I thought this was an interesting take on the character. I think if it was a little less over the top it could work.

That looks retarded. WAY over the top. To me, that dosn't even look like the Joker.

[TheJuice]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/OJSimpson2u/36.jpg

By the way, this is not a "fixed" smile like Nicholson had in B89.

[Saint]

I hate Jack's prosthetic too. It didn't really reflect the visual of the comic all that well. Certainly no more than a natural smile would have. It just looked fake. It didn't look like a guy who had a permanent smile, it looked like a guy with a rubber smile stuck around his mouth.

You need a guy with a great smile first. And yeah, prosthetic teeth would be a great idea as long as they're still believably big and not stupidly huge. They shouldn't be obvious. Remember, the chemical bath didn't MUTATE the joker - there's no reason he'd have stupidly big teeth (or chin or nose for that matter).

Then paint the lips (I'd like to see them try a darker red), and extend the painted parts at the corners just a bit. Like the Gotham Public Works joker. Just to widen up the smile a tad.

http://www.gothampublicworks.com/joker.htm

THEN... if you need to do anything regarding Joker having actually damaged his nerves/muscles (which isn't really neccessary IMO), but IF you do, do it like this:

By acting. Just have the actor's "neutral" mouth expression be a slight smile... as if when he's totally relaxing his mouth it doesn't close properly. He CAN close it and make any expression he wants and talk properly, it's just that when he's not doing anything with his mouth, it'll be slightly open in a slight smile, whereas a normal person would just have a straight closed mouth.

I'm not sure how that would work, and it'd probably depend on the actor anyway, but I think it's as far as they should go.

Anyone who brings up Conrad Veidt's prosthesis in The Man Who Laughs gets a whack on the head.


Lujho is absolutely correct.

[Dr.Dude]

Natural smile - while I like the idea of a permanent smile, having goofy prosthetics like Nicholson looks awkward and limits the Joker's facial expressions.

They could maybe do something sort of Ichi the Killer-esque and make the "permanent smile" just carves in the side of his mouth pointing upward in a smiling position, but that's the farthest they should possibly go in that direction.

[raybia]

Interesting read.


http://www.sequart.com/articles/?article=1149

[Leon the Professional]

Most people here seem to be against the idea of Joker having a self-carved smile, but I think it's a great idea. :up:

[Crooklyn]

Well-written article, but I disagree with a whole lot. Keep the Joker as is, as long as he is taken seriously when being translated to film, the character writes itself.

[Hades]

I kind of agree, but only if he's done more like a realistic serial killer.

Not some silly campy one from horror movies like, Jason, or Freddie.

And the face is a little too over the top. I love the idea of him dressing like Tyler Durden, though.

[Cinemaman]

Intersting read.

But I think nolan should keep Joker's real look. i don't want to see totaly changed Joker (though i wouldn't mind if some not so necessary details were changed).

But I think the idea of Joker as a domestic terrorist sounds great and it ought to be used in the movie.

[chosen1]

So is the joker going to fall into the chemical pit?

[superkong 500]

Interesting read, however I dont think the joker should look anything like bermejo is portraying him. I think the second post on those forums says almost exactly what I think. Oh and no street clothes on joker please that is a no no, his outfit is iconic and part of who the character is. They should not mess with that.

[astheniac]

i've always been behind the joker cutting the smile into his own face, great article and i can't wait to see what nolan and co come up with.

[LadyMoira]

Thanks for posting this. I prefer a "classic" joker look myself with hints to Mr. J's vanity but I think the idea of making him more a domestic style terrorist is a good one indeed. The carved smile is disturbing all right but it just doesn't feel like the Joker to me. However, I trust Nolan to come up with a good style.

[Nepenthes]

I fear that that version of the Joker will make the character more about the face and less about the madness.

That's ^ why the carved smile isn't a good idea for the Joker. He's not a visual horror show, he's pyschological. And yeah outright disfigurment is Two-Faces bag.

Anyone who argues differently is a timewasting ***** talking grub.

["V"]

Joker has never been into self mutilation, in fact he's rather vain! Styled hair, dapper suits, bow ties, ribbons, handerchief, spats - Hell, he's flamboyant even!

He embraces becoming the Joker, he doesn't wallow in self pity listening to Marylin Manson and cutting himself in the bathroom. Making him a character who self mutilates changes the whole aspect of the character, somebody who dislikes what he's become, he's not like that.

Why would he start going around carving himself with a great big hunting knife (or bread knife, whatever)? Self mutilating his victims would be a different matter, but still not something i'd be interested in.

Oh, and this article is half a year old from when the carved smile was being banded about. I really can't see Nolan going this drastic with the character, especially with hardcore fans like Jonah and Goyer.

[The Sage]

Umm...no thanks.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

not my personal look for the joker...

[kenellard]

Joker has never been into self mutilation, in fact he's rather vain! Styled hair, dapper suits, bow ties, ribbons, handerchief, spats - Hell, he's flamboyant even!

He embraces becoming the Joker, he doesn't wallow in self pity listening to Marylin Manson and cutting himself in the bathroom. Making him a character who self mutilates changes the whole aspect of the character, somebody who dislikes what he's become, he's not like that.

Why would he start going around carving himself with a great big hunting knife (or bread knife, whatever)? Self mutilating his victims would be a different matter, but still not something i'd be interested in.

Oh, and this article is half a year old from when the carved smile was being banded about. I really can't see Nolan going this drastic with the character, especially with hardcore fans like Jonah and Goyer.

well said, I completely agree, the only reason I could see the joker want to mutilate his victims would be that in his twisted mind it'd be an improvement, to look more like him. the joker's vanity is one of the core aspects to his character, so I'm not to hot on this whole "scruffy, dirty overcoat tyler durden idea". IMO The joker should be pretty much comic accurate because he shouldn't "fit" in Nolans world, that's the whole point!

[Two-Face]

Joker is also something of a domestic terrorist in regards to his frequent poisoning of Gotham's citizens with his deadly laughing gas.


In BB Gotham's citizens is already poisoned so why Joker would do what Ra's Al Ghul did? Nice read BTW.

[Miranda Fox]

well said, I completely agree, the only reason I could see the joker want to mutilate his victims would be that in his twisted mind it'd be an improvement, to look more like him. the joker's vanity is one of the core aspects to his character, so I'm not to hot on this whole "scruffy, dirty overcoat tyler durden idea". IMO The joker should be pretty much comic accurate because he shouldn't "fit" in Nolans world, that's the whole point!

For the first time in ages - I completely agree with you. :)

[Leon the Professional]

I just could totally see Joker carving a smile in his face while laughing maniacally. Kind of like the scene in Hannibal, where he convinces a drugged-up laughing Gary Oldman to mutilate his own face.

As for Joker being too vain to do it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in his sick twisted mind he coukld think he's making himself look better.

It doesn't even have to be an over-the top carving that tears straight thru to the inside of his mouth, just a skin-deep one enough to leave a smile scar.

And the crazed serial killer angle is much better than having him be an an ex-mob guy out for revenege like in B89.

Oh and he should use syringes instead of gas to poison his victims. Laughing gas would be too much like the fear gas in Begins.

[Crooklyn]

That's just not the Joker though. He's completely psychotic, but he does things to OTHERS, not himself.

[Nepenthes]

There was a guy a few weeks ago who suggested that Joker should 'never change his pants'. He was funny. Who was that?

["V"]

I just could totally see Joker carving a smile in his face while laughing maniacally. Kind of like the scene in Hannibal, where he convinces a drugged-up laughing Gary Oldman to mutilate his own face.

As for Joker being too vain to do it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in his sick twisted mind he coukld think he's making himself look better.

It doesn't even have to be an over-the top carving that tears straight thru to the inside of his mouth, just a skin-deep one enough to leave a smile scar.

And the crazed serial killer angle is much better than having him be an an ex-mob guy out for revenege like in B89.

What in the Joker's history has shown you that he'd start inflicting pain on himself? I can't think of any. I can think of plenty of times where he's wanted to inflict pain on others, both physical and mental.

Interesting point about him trying to improve himself, but it's never been in the character's nature. In any Joker origin he's at first shocked by his new appearance but then completely embraces it with a fit of insane laughter.

Mob guy fits in better with the past of the Joker, as he was a crook in the form of the Red Hood (albiet, maybe a patsy if we go with Moore), but I don't want to see the Napier arc regurgitated. But he's never been some Buffallo Bill type serial killer trying to improve himself.

[Leon the Professional]

If in his mind carving a smile into his face will make him look more like he wants to, then it fits with the mindset he has that compels him to dress the way he does. In his mind, he's not hurting himself. He's improving himself.

[The Sage]

Oh and he should use syringes instead of gas to poison his victims. Laughing gas would be too much like the fear gas in Begins.

What? No patented Joker laughing gas? Gotta have that. He should use syringes and gas, but mainly gas. With syringes you can only get one person at a time. Laughing gas can intoxicate an entire room. And no big deal with the similarities, as one could say the fear gas in BB was too much like the laughing gas in B89.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

lets just hope he doesn't try to gas the city..been done in begins. :)

[Leon the Professional]

What in the Joker's history has shown you that he'd start inflicting pain on himself? I can't think of any. I can think of plenty of times where he's wanted to inflict pain on others, both physical and mental.

Interesting point about him trying to improve himself, but it's never been in the character's nature. In any Joker origin he's at first shocked by his new appearance but then completely embraces it with a fit of insane laughter.

Mob guy fits in better with the past of the Joker, as he was a crook in the form of the Red Hood (albiet, maybe a patsy if we go with Moore), but I don't want to see the Napier arc regurgitated. But he's never been some Buffallo Bill type serial killer trying to improve himself.


In my opinion on these types of things, I'm up for changes to comicbook characters and their backstories in the movies, as long as these changes improve upon the character and serve the story well. A couple of good examples are Ra's training and mentoring a pre-Batman Bruce in Begins, and making Crane the head of Arkham Asylum.

When he embraces his appearance with a fit of laughter, would be a good moment for him to carve the smile, by the way.

["V"]

What? No patented Joker laughing gas? Gotta have that. He should use syringes and gas, but mainly gas. With syringes you can only get one person at a time. Laughing gas can intoxicate an entire room. And no big deal with the similarities, as one could say the fear gas in BB was too much like the laughing gas in B89.

Joker has used lots of ways to poison his victims. I'm a fan of the needle ring in The Killing Joke. In the laughing fish he poisons his victims in subtle ways, long before they get police protection. I think if he's going to be a shadow for the first part of the film, striking from the shadows, this could be a great way for him to hit his targets.

But I agree, they could use the gas again as long as it's presented in a new way.

[Two-Face]

lets just hope he doesn't try to gas the city..been done in begins. :)


And I said "In BB Gotham's citizens is already poisoned so why Joker would do what Ra's Al Ghul did? Nice read BTW."

I agree.

[Leon the Professional]

What? No patented Joker laughing gas? Gotta have that. He should use syringes and gas, but mainly gas. With syringes you can only get one person at a time. Laughing gas can intoxicate an entire room. And no big deal with the similarities, as one could say the fear gas in BB was too much like the laughing gas in B89.

B89 is fifteen years apart from Begins, though, whereas The Dark Knight is a direct sequel two years later.

But okay, I'm cool with the laughing gas, as long as he doesn't rely on it too much and it's not part of his master scheme to gas the city. Mix it up with the syringes.

["V"]

In my opinion on these types of things, I'm up for changes to comicbook characters and their backstories in the movies, as long as these changes improve upon the character and serve the story well. A couple of good examples are Ra's training and mentoring a pre-Batman Bruce in Begins, and making Crane the head of Arkham Asylum.

When he embraces his appearance with a fit of laughter, would be a good moment for him to carve the smile, by the way.

Oh, I agree that some changes and alterations and necessary to characters, and can benefit the story.

However, this is not one of them. This is like having Scarcrow sew his mask into his face. How would carving a huge cut into his face be embracing his new appearence, it would be the opposite surely? Showing that he didn't like his new look, and wants to disfigure that as well.

[Nepenthes]

I want the movie to open like the Seinfeld episodes. With the Joker guy doing his routine interspersed with the credits, and no one is laughing.

Later on he does the same exact same routine in front of mob guys and they're all cracking up, he hasn't killed anyone yet. But one guy dosn't laugh, or he makes a quip bout Jokers clown face and then he gets it. The poison in his drink.

[Crooklyn]

Joker doing stand-up is just plain corny.

[Leon the Professional]

Oh, I agree that some changes and alterations and necessary to characters, and can benefit the story.

However, this is not one of them. This is like having Scarcrow sew his mask into his face. How would carving a huge cut into his face be embracing his new appearence, it would be the opposite surely? Showing that he didn't like his new look, and wants to disfigure that as well.


Eh I don't think it's like the same thing.

It's enhancing his new look. He sees the clown resemblance, and embraces it with a wide bleeding red grin. Remember, this wouldn't be premeditated, but a spontaneous act at the moment he collapses into insanity.

[Crooklyn]

...or you know, he could just give a nice big grin. Works just as well..

["V"]

Eh I don't think it's like the same thing.

It's enhancing his new look. He sees the clown resemblance, and embraces it with a wide bleeding red grin. Remember, this wouldn't be premeditated, but a spontaneous act at the moment he collapses into insanity.

Well it's two characters self mutilating themselves and being completely out of character.

How does it enhance his new look? He already had ruby red lips, he doesn't need a "bleeding red grin". Having him cut his face is total unecessary and over the top. It would also probably impair his speech.

Ledger has a fantastic grin, I don't want them to lose that by going overkill with huge, scarred prosthetics.

[kenellard]

For the first time in ages - I completely agree with you. :)

why thank you! :woot:

Another point about the whole "self mutilation" angle would be that it doesn't really make sense that he'd think by cutting himself he made himself look better. I've always liked the vain joker character, he truly believes he's a hot guy, and we should remember that Joker isn't any ordinary psychopath, the idea of "hyper-sanity" that's been brought up in the comics could be a great way to explain his personality, he's not just some nut-job, ie, he's sane enough to not slice up his own face, but insane enough to commit all his twisted crimes. I think that'd be a good thing to touch on in TDK

[JosephKerr]

Sadly I think Nolan will take the approach the article speaks of. We all know that the Joker's vanity and flamboyance are essential to his character, but I doubt the green hair and purple suit will even happen. Ever since reading that Nolan originally wanted Scarecrow's character without the mask, I knew we were in for trouble. I've mentioned it before, but Nolan's take on everything is almost TOO real. For example, if he had Poison Ivy as a character, he'd probably take out the fact that her lips contained venom and replace the story with her having an STD or something.

[The Sage]

lets just hope he doesn't try to gas the city..been done in begins. :)

As well as B89. :yay:

["V"]

Sadly I think Nolan will take the approach the article speaks of. We all know that the Joker's vanity and flamboyance are essential to his character, but I doubt the green hair and purple suit will even happen. Ever since reading that Nolan originally wanted Scarecrow's character without the mask, I knew we were in for trouble. I've mentioned it before, but Nolan's take on everything is almost TOO real. For example, if he had Poison Ivy as a character, he'd probably take out the fact that her lips contained venom and replace the story with her having an STD or something.

This is something i've heard so often on this board but have never seen any evidence, can you give me a link? It's disappointing if he thought that, but on the other hand he was humble enough to listen to advice and go with the mask. It shows that if somebody can give him a justified reason he'll go with it. Hopefully Goyer and Jonah will push forward the true essence of the Joker and not some whiny clown who's parents didn't buy him that magic set on his seventh birthday.

I think Nolan has the realistic element balanced perfectly. He takes unlikely elements (Memory cloth) and presents them in a way that feels real and right. He also gave us some of the most "unrealistic" visuals in any Batman film with the fear gas. We had Bale dressed as a gooey, six foot man-bat for crying out loud!!!

[kenellard]

Sadly I think Nolan will take the approach the article speaks of. We all know that the Joker's vanity and flamboyance are essential to his character, but I doubt the green hair and purple suit will even happen. Ever since reading that Nolan originally wanted Scarecrow's character without the mask, I knew we were in for trouble. I've mentioned it before, but Nolan's take on everything is almost TOO real. For example, if he had Poison Ivy as a character, he'd probably take out the fact that her lips contained venom and replace the story with her having an STD or something.

Mr. Freeze as a disgruntled ice-cream van driver?

[The Sage]

Mr. Freeze as a disgruntled ice-cream van driver?

Classic!! :woot:

[david icke]

quote=kenellard]Mr. Freeze as a disgruntled ice-cream van driver?[/quote]
LOL.Maybe have steve buscemi playin him within the same continuity as trees lounge eh?

[Nepenthes]

Mr. Freeze as a disgruntled ice-cream van driver?
A bald guy from Canada who becomes mayor and wants to destroy the American way of life.

(I forget who first posted that - but damn it's great)

(no seriously there was a mob killer called Kruselnicki or something who froze victims alive and kept them in an icecream van to confuse police about time of death. killed over a hundred people)


Joker doing stand-up is just plain corny
He can do it sitting down. I imagine he's playing poker.

All that matters is that it opens like Seinfeld.

[Leon the Professional]

Well it's two characters self mutilating themselves and being completely out of character.

How does it enhance his new look? He already had ruby red lips, he doesn't need a "bleeding red grin". Having him cut his face is total unecessary and over the top. It would also probably impair his speech.

Ledger has a fantastic grin, I don't want them to lose that by going overkill with huge, scarred prosthetics.


It's different because Crane (at least in the movie) was corrupt and somewhat sadistic but sane, at least until he gets gased with his own fear gas and tasered in the face. What he does to himself after that in the sequels, if anything, is debatable. But even then, there's a big difference between quickly cutting one's cheeks and sewing a mask to one's face with dozens of stitches.

I've explained the twisted logic behind him scarring himself, I don't think there's anything more to add. You just don't like the idea, and that's completely fine.

[El Payaso]

He can do it sitting down. I imagine he's playing poker.

All that matters is that it opens like Seinfeld.

That and Joker popping up into the Wayne manor's kitchen and stealing food from Bruce's refrigerator.

[david icke]

A bald guy from Canada who becomes mayor and wants to destroy the American way of life.

(I forget who first posted that - but damn it's great)

(no seriously there was a mob killer called Kruselnicki or something who froze victims alive and kept them in an icecream van to confuse police about time of death. killed over a hundred people)




Napenthes , it was RichardKaplinski i think 'the ice man'. Saw the two hbo interview sessions with him.Interestin interview scary guy.Said he didnt feel any emotion either.Beaten out of him by his sadistic father.

[Cosmic]

I think this article puts too much emphasis on plausibility and realism. Just tell good stories! Make it plausible enough to keep viewers from disconnecting, but the focus should be on making a great Batman movie, while respecting the source material.

And, as much as I love Bermejo's stuff, that look for Joker is just wrong. It's sure not the Joker I know, and I would not like to see that done in a Batman movie. I can't believe that Nolan & Co. would not make such a drastic change for the Joker, after being so faithful in their portrayals of Ra's and Scarecrow.

[Miranda Fox]

Sadly I think Nolan will take the approach the article speaks of. We all know that the Joker's vanity and flamboyance are essential to his character, but I doubt the green hair and purple suit will even happen. Ever since reading that Nolan originally wanted Scarecrow's character without the mask, I knew we were in for trouble. I've mentioned it before, but Nolan's take on everything is almost TOO real. For example, if he had Poison Ivy as a character, he'd probably take out the fact that her lips contained venom and replace the story with her having an STD or something.
That ****ty attempt at humour wasn't funny the first time.

Also, it's funny how people will ignore anything that disproves their point. Like, say, this from Heath Ledger:

ive been told it will be the joker and that the iconic look will be true, i hope it is...
http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2006/09/more_heath_ledger_on_the_joker.html

Your argument?

FAIL!

Good day.

[Two-Face]

That ****ty attempt at humour wasn't funny the first time.

Also, it's funny how people will ignore anything that disproves their point. Like, say, this from Heath Ledger:


http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2006/09/more_heath_ledger_on_the_joker.html

Your argument?

FAIL!

Good day.


It seems I must have missed this interviw in September 2006 anyway thanks for post it.

"After viewing Batman Begins I was interested in working with Nolan."

I'm gonna put that quotein my sig.

[Miranda Fox]

It seems I must have missed this interviw in September 2006 anyway thanks for post it.

"After viewing Batman Begins I was interested in working with Nolan."

I'm gonna put that quotein my sig.

No probs! It was a good interview. :)

[El Payaso]

Ledger has some cool quotes for signatures.

[Nepenthes]

"This guy is a shark, a fearless shark"

"The Joker is a pure anarchist"

[raybia]

"Cannot wait to try on the Joker mask."

[JosephKerr]

That ****ty attempt at humour wasn't funny the first time.

Also, it's funny how people will ignore anything that disproves their point. Like, say, this from Heath Ledger:


http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2006/09/more_heath_ledger_on_the_joker.html

Your argument?

FAIL!

Good day.

Whatever. You don't have to be such a jerk about it. All I was saying is in spite of a promising performance from Ledger and brilliant directing from Nolan, I still don't see how the Joker we've come to know and love can fit in Nolan's world. If he does, it will probably be a watered down version. But hey, we can merely speculate at this point. I just don't want to get my hopes up. That way in the end, I won't be disappointed OR I'll be very pleased and eating my share of crow.

[El Payaso]

"I *****ing hate comic book movies"

[Agentsands77]

Can I say that I hope THE DARK KNIGHT's Joker is *nothing* like that Bermejo drawing?

[Agentsands77]

All I was saying is in spite of a promising performance from Ledger and brilliant directing from Nolan, I still don't see how the Joker we've come to know and love can fit in Nolan's world. If he does, it will probably be a watered down version.
Really? I can see the Joker from BATMAN NO. 1 appear without much alteration (their cited inspiration). In fact, I can't think of any particular aspect of the character "we know and love" that would have to be left behind, aside from his exceedingly comic-booky appearance (but that's to be expected, since Batman and Scarecrow and Ra's featured "cinematic" revisionings of their outfits).

[Leon the Professional]

This is what'll it'd look like when Joker carves the smile (except he'd look more happy about it than this guy):

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/271/pdvd4393vn.jpg

http://www.fxnetworks.com/press/shows/niptuck/season3/preview/217.jpg


And this is what it would look like once it's healed:

http://www.extraordinaryjulian.com/gallery/albums/screen/niptuck/315/210.jpg

http://blogs.indiewire.com/mattdentler/archives/nip4.jpg

So once it heals up, it doesn't have to look nearly as excessive as Bermejo makes it out to be. I actually do think he goes a bit overbaord with his depiciton of it. I'd just have Joker's heal up with more visible scarring, since the guy from the screencaps had his carvings closed up by plastic surgeons.

[Agentsands77]

I just don't like the idea of self-disfiguration for the Joker. It doesn't fit my concept of who he is - it seems right for some other kind of psycho, but the Joker isn't really ordinary in any sense of the world. He's like Hannibal Lecter in that he defies the profile and characteristics of other madmen and thus defies analysis (one of my favorite traits of the Joker in the comics is that nobody can pin him down).

That said, those pics are much more bearable than Bermejo's overdone rendition.

[Silver Souper]

Joker has never been into self mutilation, in fact he's rather vain! Styled hair, dapper suits, bow ties, ribbons, handerchief, spats - Hell, he's flamboyant even!

He embraces becoming the Joker, he doesn't wallow in self pity listening to Marylin Manson and cutting himself in the bathroom. Making him a character who self mutilates changes the whole aspect of the character, somebody who dislikes what he's become, he's not like that.

Why would he start going around carving himself with a great big hunting knife (or bread knife, whatever)? Self mutilating his victims would be a different matter, but still not something i'd be interested in.

Oh, and this article is half a year old from when the carved smile was being banded about. I really can't see Nolan going this drastic with the character, especially with hardcore fans like Jonah and Goyer.

perfectly said. it's against the essense of the joker to mutilate himself and dress in worn out, outdated clothes. his vanity and flamboyance are in stark contrast to his viciousness. he's not vicious and also- grungy, that's a cliched combination and it fits every b-movie villain we've seen 1000 times.

i personally hate it when all these fans get excited to see some bizarre interpretation of the joker on screen. if you love the character, why are you so itching to see him altered into something he's not?

[Leon the Professional]

I have a feeling that if Joker were portrayed with a self-carved smile in the comics and now they wanted to get rid of it for the movies, most people who are against the idea now would be defending it.

But, anyway, you guys don't like the idea, I respect that. I can go for a Joker without a carved smile, I just personally think it would be a nice take on him that fits with his character, especially if they're going for the psychotic serial killer angle. It's not like Joker has to be all emo just because he cut himself.

[Agentsands77]

I have a feeling that if Joker were portrayed with a self-carved smile in the comics and now they wanted to get rid of it for the movies, most people who are against the idea now would be defending it.
From this quarter, probably not. I'm hardly someone who loves all the ways the Joker has been treated through the years in the comics, and think a number of interpretations have been big missteps. I love a few interpretations and am often very critical of the rest (for one thing, I really dislike much of the Miller interpretation for THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS).

But, anyway, you guys don't like the idea, I respect that.
Well thank you. I can respect you're backing of the idea too, but it's just not compatible with who I like the Joker to be.

I can go for a Joker without a carved smile, I just personally think it would be a nice take on him that fits with his character, especially if they're going for the psychotic serial killer angle.
I know they're going for a killer angle, ala BATMAN NO. 1, but I think they need to keep his very unique identity along with that. The Joker isn't like any other psychotic out there - he has to be very unique, and bring a very unique brand of insanity to the table (as well as a brilliance). I feel that giving him a trait that's seems so generic lessens his status. If they don't keep that, I'll be very disappointed. Still, I have faith in the Nolan team.

[Nepenthes]

No if the Joker showed up with a carved smile in the main line ^ we'd say wtf is this shiiit.

It's interesting idea worth exploring in alternate take but it does not fit the original character AT ALL. Being the one we expect in the movie.

"If there going with the psychotic serial killer angle"...well yeah I hope so. That's what he is.

EDIT: Leon I didn't mean to gang up on your or repeat Agentsands - we posted same time:whatever:

[Silver Souper]

I have a feeling that if Joker were portrayed with a self-carved smile in the comics and now they wanted to get rid of it for the movies, most people who are against the idea now would be defending it.

But, anyway, you guys don't like the idea, I respect that. I can go for a Joker without a carved smile, I just personally think it would be a nice take on him that fits with his character, especially if they're going for the psychotic serial killer angle. It's not like Joker has to be all emo just because he cut himself.

exactly- if the carved-smile joker idea was based on his comic origin, the majority of us would be wanting a faithful adaptation just as we are in this case. you actually proved my point for me.

Second, and again- it DOESN'T fit his character. When have we read of him hurting himself and compromising his own vanity and flamboyance? it flies in the face of who he is to suggest a self mutilating joker. i don't want them to go for the typical "psychotic serial killer angle," I want them to go for the joker angle. We love the character because he is UNLIKE the rest of psychotic killers that we've seen. why water him down by conforming him to their traits?

[Nepenthes]

...a number of interpretations have been big missteps. I love a few interpretations and am often very critical of the rest (for one thing, I really dislike much of the Miller interpretation for THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS).

Which interpretations? Why do you dislike Millers TDK one?

Personally I didn't like the Long Halloween Joker. It read like he'd come crashing in from BTAS. On the other hand Dini's recent Detective story is an instant classic imo.

[Infinity9999x]

That's ^ why the carved smile isn't a good idea for the Joker. He's not a visual horror show, he's pyschological. And yeah outright disfigurment is Two-Faces bag.



Exactaly, the Joker doesn't disfigure himself, in fact, when it comes to looks, he's usualy very picky about appearing well dressed, though flamboyantly. Like stated above, having him scar himself (or even worse, having someone else scar him) makes him far too simmilar to two face.

Silver Souper says it perfectly



Second, and again- it DOESN'T fit his character. When have we read of him hurting himself and compromising his own vanity and flamboyance? it flies in the face of who he is to suggest a self mutilating joker. i don't want them to go for the typical "psychotic serial killer angle," I want them to go for the joker angle. We love the character because he is UNLIKE the rest of psychotic killers that we've seen. why water him down by conforming him to their traits?

We've already had the fixed smile Joker, I want to see a more traditional look this time.

[Hunter Rider]

Since nothing is confirmed i'm just gonna wait and see what Nolan does,it's possible he may pull it off either way

[Hades]

How is dressing like Tyler Durden grungy:huh:

He was very flamboyant looking alot of the time.

I think it would fit the Joker, and fit him to change his outfit throughout the film.

[Leon the Professional]

exactly- if the carved-smile joker idea was based on his comic origin, the majority of us would be wanting a faithful adaptation just as we are in this case. you actually proved my point for me.


Well, I was trying to point out that faithfulness to the comicbooks shouldn't get in the way of character improvements. Look at how much they improved on Toad in X-MEN 1 by being unfaithful to the comics.

What I'm saying is I don't agree that the simple fact that Joker wasn't originally written as having carved himself a smile is by itself a good enough reason to not have him do so in the movies.

The reason I dislike Joker being the Wayne's murderer in B89, for example, isn't because it was unfaithful to the comics, but because it was a poor change that gave the Batman-Joker relationship a cliched personal revenge conflict, and because the notion of a random thief killing Bruce's parents is much more intriguying for his character development as Batman.


Second, and again- it DOESN'T fit his character. When have we read of him hurting himself and compromising his own vanity and flamboyance? it flies in the face of who he is to suggest a self mutilating joker. i don't want them to go for the typical "psychotic serial killer angle," I want them to go for the joker angle. We love the character because he is UNLIKE the rest of psychotic killers that we've seen. why water him down by conforming him to their traits?

I already explained how in the Joker's sick mind carving himself a smile could be a vain act. If the Joker thinks it's hilarious to kill a person with a hand buzzer, is it such a stretch for him to think that carving himself a smile is flattering? It's disfigurement to us, but remember we don't think like crazed clown killers.

Also, I'm pretty certain that it's not typical for serial killers to mutilate themselves. It happens, of course, but I'm sure it's the minority not the majority.

[Leon the Professional]

Like stated above, having him scar himself (or even worse, having someone else scar him) makes him far too simmilar to two face.


We've already had the fixed smile Joker, I want to see a more traditional look this time.

Actually, Joker's chemical bath that bleaches his face is much more similar to Two Face's situation than self-inflicted carving, since both of those incidents are involuntary accidents that drive the characters over the edge, whereas Joker carving himself a smile would be a voluntary embrace of his new appearance, something Two-Face does NOT do. So if something, Joker carving the smile would more distinguish there characters.


And carved smile does not mean fixed smile. I don't want a fixed smile either.

[Hades]

Actually, Joker's chemical bath that bleaches his face is much more similar to Two Face's situation than self-inflicted carving, since both of those incidents are involuntary accidents that drive the characters over the edge, whereas Joker carving himself a smile would be a voluntary embrace of his new appearance, something Two-Face does NOT do. So if something, Joker carving the smile would more distinguish there characters.


And carved smile does not mean fixed smile. I don't want a fixed smile either.He doesn't need the carve up his face to accept his new form.

Falling in the chemical bath was the thing that pushed him over the edge.

[The Last Meatbag]

No to carved smile

Yes to Tyler Durden wardrobe

Yes to being a serial killer.

[Rynan]

I know they're going for a killer angle, ala BATMAN NO. 1, but I think they need to keep his very unique identity along with that. The Joker isn't like any other psychotic out there - he has to be very unique, and bring a very unique brand of insanity to the table (as well as a brilliance). I feel that giving him a trait that's seems so generic lessens his status. If they don't keep that, I'll be very disappointed. Still, I have faith in the Nolan team.

Agreed. I want the grinning ghoul I've read about in the comics, no carved smile or any of that crap.

And since you brought up Batman No. 1, I guess I'll bring up the fact that I think "The Killing Joke" as a source for TDK's Joker is a red herring. Most of the evidence I've seen, like having Jerry Robinson as a consultant, and the interveiws I've read, it really does seem like they are leaning more for a first apperance Joker than TKJ.

Not that I'm complaining. I'd kill to see a classic Joker on screen.:D

[Doomed Hero Rising]

I'd say he should have the scars from mutilation, maybe from the mob. That would give him a reason to destroy the mob. Then have him wear make-up. If anyone here has watched patient J, the jokers explanation in that is really good.

[Agentsands77]

Which interpretations?
I really like BATMAN NO. 1, THE KILLING JOKE (aside from the origin, which is something I don't particularly like), ARKHAM ASYLUM. I dig the Joker in that REVENGE OF THE JOKER flashback, too. I'll probably think of more later.

Why do you dislike Millers TDK one?
IMO, he's the Joker almost in name-only. He gets a few good moments (I like the fact that he hands out poisoned cotton candy, and I dig his death scene), but for the most part, he's quiet, reserved, methodical, and doesn't really laugh or make jokes.

Personally I didn't like the Long Halloween Joker. It read like he'd come crashing in from BTAS.
I liked him a *lot* in THE LONG HALLOWEEN. I thought the interpretation worked. And I thought he seemed a lot... well... nuttier than he did in BTAS (is it just me, or does the BTAS Joker seem, well, more "sane" than a lot of Joker interpretations?).

The whole "I'm going to kill everybody in Gotham Square because Holiday *might* be in there" was inspired, and I adored his break-in into Dent's and Falcone's places. I think THE LONG HALLOWEEN showcased his "insane logic."

[Agentsands77]

And since you brought up Batman No. 1, I guess I'll bring up the fact that I think "The Killing Joke" as a source for TDK's Joker is a red herring.
I think so, too. Nolan and co. seemed to brush off THE KILLING JOKE when confronted with it in interviews.

Most of the evidence I've seen, like having Jerry Robinson as a consultant, and the interveiws I've read, it really does seem like they are leaning more for a first apperance Joker than TKJ.
Yup. Add into that the "Five Way Revenge" reference, and I think it all means we get the "target killer" Joker of old.

Not that I'm complaining. I'd kill to see a classic Joker on screen.
You and me both.

[Infinity9999x]

Actually, Joker's chemical bath that bleaches his face is much more similar to Two Face's situation than self-inflicted carving, since both of those incidents are involuntary accidents that drive the characters over the edge, whereas Joker carving himself a smile would be a voluntary embrace of his new appearance, something Two-Face does NOT do. So if something, Joker carving the smile would more distinguish there characters.


And carved smile does not mean fixed smile. I don't want a fixed smile either.

Well, if he carves a smile in his face it will be fixed, it won't change. His face will always have a smile on it. We had a fixed grinning Joker in B89, if he inflicts a carved smile on himself, he'll have the fixed smile on his face, and people may start wondering if the Joker is supposed to have a fixed smile.

Now, I do see your point of Joker's embracing himself by carving the smile, but I do think that it is a bit much to have two mutilated characters in the next batfilms. And as I've said before, the Joker is one who also seems to put some stock in his appearance, he goes out of his way to dress nicely, slick his hair back (or curl it depending on the artist) and wear nice suits. He seems to care about the way he looks. You stated above that, "is it that much of a streach for the Joker to think a carved smile is flattering?"

Well, the thing about the Joker is, it might seem like it wouldn't be a strech to us, because he seems like a nutjob that would do anything, but the Joker doesn't always act as we think he would. When he teemed up with Carnage in the Spider-man/Batman article, he didn't like Carnage's style of murdering people because he thought it was "too gruesome" and "had no class". We would have expected the Joker to not care about killing babies, yet when he killed Gordon's wife for protecting the babies, he showed no Joy in it. Despite being a nutjob, the Joker also has his own sense of class, and I just don't think a carved smile fits his character.

That said, I won't hate TDK if it features the carved smile Joker, I just wouldn't like it.

[Eros]

Maybe Joker will be like Roy from Bladerunner was. That ofcourse is Nolans favorite movie, so you never know.

[Eros]

http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Images/2612022_Roy.jpg

http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Images/2913038_Roy.jpg

http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Images/3213943_Roy.jpg


Now thats Roy form Bladerunner, but add some white skin, and green hair and red lips. He could have easily passed for a more quiet,mysterous, and more methodical version of the joker. notice how they focus on Roys eyes in one Bladerunner screen shot, another theme Ledger mentioned they wanted to do in TDK.

[Nepenthes]

What if Ledger plays the Joker almost like he's on drugs or someone who's taken too much acid. It'd be a giddy and somewhat distant state shifting between rambling and calm menace. At times he'd talk like a total goner but he's actually making a disorientating kind of sense. Not cackling wacked-out spaceball stuff but more distantly amused.

Ledger's referred a few times to a unique 'take' he envisioned right from the bat, maybe it's something like this. Considering he admittedly knew very little of the character.

[kenellard]

Well, if he carves a smile in his face it will be fixed, it won't change. His face will always have a smile on it. We had a fixed grinning Joker in B89, if he inflicts a carved smile on himself, he'll have the fixed smile on his face, and people may start wondering if the Joker is supposed to have a fixed smile.

Now, I do see your point of Joker's embracing himself by carving the smile, but I do think that it is a bit much to have two mutilated characters in the next batfilms. And as I've said before, the Joker is one who also seems to put some stock in his appearance, he goes out of his way to dress nicely, slick his hair back (or curl it depending on the artist) and wear nice suits. He seems to care about the way he looks. You stated above that, "is it that much of a streach for the Joker to think a carved smile is flattering?"

Well, the thing about the Joker is, it might seem like it wouldn't be a strech to us, because he seems like a nutjob that would do anything, but the Joker doesn't always act as we think he would. When he teemed up with Carnage in the Spider-man/Batman article, he didn't like Carnage's style of murdering people because he thought it was "too gruesome" and "had no class". We would have expected the Joker to not care about killing babies, yet when he killed Gordon's wife for protecting the babies, he showed no Joy in it. Despite being a nutjob, the Joker also has his own sense of class, and I just don't think a carved smile fits his character.

That said, I won't hate TDK if it features the carved smile Joker, I just wouldn't like it.

I agree completely. The joker should NEVER be treated like a run of the mill movie psycho, He doesn't need to cut his face up to show the audience he's crazy. Joker is less leatherface and more Patrick Bateman with a sense of humour

[Mr. Credible]

holy crap... that concept picture of the joker with the self-made smile and scars over is eyes was effing awesome. i know it's a radical change from what he's supposed to be, but damn, that was disturbing.

[Tojo]

Dont particularly like the idea of him self-mutilating himself. It would make much more sense if some tough mob guys did it to him as punishment or something.

And the Tyler Durden clothes is the worst possible idea i have seen for Joker. Ugh. He really has to have style and sense of flair, the scruffy look just makes him look like a random guy.

He doesn't need to have a bright purple suit imo, but something with style and flair.

[Miranda Fox]

For people out there who haven't seen a Clockwork Orange:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XvydYaVuSc

That's part of the infamous Singing in the Rain sequence. I can see why Heath mentioned the Joker as having that kind of feel.

[batmaluco]

For people out there who haven't seen a Clockwork Orange:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XvydYaVuSc

That's part of the infamous Singing in the Rain sequence. I can see why Heath mentioned the Joker as having that kind of feel.
Yes.
He said that "It's going to be more nuanced and dark and more along the lines of a Clockwork Orange kind of feel. Which is, I think, what the comic book was after: less about his laugh and more about his eyes."
And this quote may indicate that Nolan is not interested in this carving smile idea... I.N.W.T. :cwink:

On a side note, about this clip.
And if you watched this movie, you know what is going to happen then, and this joke can be fully enjoyed, as sick as it can be.
http://www.wildyams.com/pics/clockwork_orange_got_milk_alex.jpg

:woot:

[Tojo]

Clockwork Orange is sick, no way will TDK even get close to that level of disturbing. They said Begins was scary and gritty, it was neither. We will probably see a diluted Joker but to do him full justice you need to make an R-rated film. Arkham Asylum is what he's all about, but we will probably get TLH. Not a bad portrayal though i might add.

[batmaluco]

Clockwork Orange is sick, no way will TDK even get close to that level of disturbing. They said Begins was scary and gritty, it was neither. We will probably see a diluted Joker but to do him full justice you need to make an R-rated film. Arkham Asylum is what he's all about, but we will probably get TLH. Not a bad portrayal though i might add.
Yes, they can't do something really gore or extremely gratuitous violence, if they want a PG-13 rate, but they can suggest more than show explicitly these kind of things.
Something more like a Hitchcock's movie than a Jason's movie.

[Miranda Fox]

Yes, they can't do something really gore or extremely gratuitous violence, if they want a PG-13 rate, but they can suggest more than show explicitly these kind of things.
Something more like a Hitchcock's movie than a Jason's movie.
Personally, I've always found implied horrific violence is a heck of a lot more creepy than seeing actual violence.

In fact, the blood-splatter killing in films like Kill Bill doesn't bother me at all. Yet the meathook scene in the original Texas Chainsaw Messacre had me hiding behind a cushion. And there was no blood.

Point being? If they do this right, Joker can be hella creepy!

[batmaluco]

Personally, I've always found implied horrific violence is a heck of a lot more creepy than seeing actual violence.

In fact, the blood-splatter killing in films like Kill Bill doesn't bother me at all. Yet the meathook scene in the original Texas Chainsaw Messacre had me hiding behind a cushion. And there was no blood.

Point being? If they do this right, Joker can be hella creepy!
Exactly. :up:

[strider]

They were just making suggestions about the Joker guys, take it easy.....Nolan will use him the way HE wants....The Joker shouldnt be EMO or over the top like most of the fanboys here want. He'll fit into the movie/plot just right. I do really think he'll be some what different from what most fanboys want to see but, as long as Ledger does a good acting job and the plot is amazing then I really dont care about the Joker all that much...If Im going to pay to see TDK want to see Bruce Wayne/Batman a lot more than the Joker.

Besides if the mob is involved I want to see a dominate boss like Maroni have a decent role for example and if Bruce is going to have his own fight then I want to see Sionis. Or if not then a good written secondary villain.

[RedIsNotBlue]

People keep saying a carved smile is good for Nolan's realistic tone but once again how is a psychotic man who dresses up like a clown not?

[StorminNorman]

Clockwork Orange is sick, no way will TDK even get close to that level of disturbing. They said Begins was scary and gritty, it was neither. We will probably see a diluted Joker but to do him full justice you need to make an R-rated film. Arkham Asylum is what he's all about, but we will probably get TLH. Not a bad portrayal though i might add.

Thats right, inorder to be done correctly the Joker needs to be in a R rated movie.

Wait, nevermind, there have been maybe 3 comics/Graphic Novels he has ever been in that would be considered "rated R''.

[StorminNorman]

The Joker would never, ever, ever carve himself a smile. The sooner peopel accept that the better.

[Hades]

A creepy killer clown is creepy enough, you don't need to add a carved up face:o

Besides, the perma smiles been done.

[Jager X]

I want my Joker free of rheumetoid lips.

[Cinemaman]

Guys, guys.

If you re-watch the end scene of BB, you will find that Nolan is going to go with theatrical and artistic Joker.

What does this mean?

I guess we will see exactly that Joker from comics and there won't be any changes in his look (for example like that picture with his scarface).

So I don't see anything to worry about there :up:

[Cinemaman]

http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Images/2612022_Roy.jpg

http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Images/2913038_Roy.jpg

http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Images/3213943_Roy.jpg


Now thats Roy form Bladerunner, but add some white skin, and green hair and red lips. He could have easily passed for a more quiet,mysterous, and more methodical version of the joker. notice how they focus on Roys eyes in one Bladerunner screen shot, another theme Ledger mentioned they wanted to do in TDK.

BLADE RUNNER OWNS!!! :up:

[Spider-Who?]

i like the idea of the carved smile, and the scars over his eyes, however I think the included picture is alittle much - remember, they are going to want TDK to be somewhat kid friendly. So, i think a slightly less grotesqe version of that picture would be fine.

And whose to say we will even see the Joker like that throughout the whole movie? My guess would be that they will use little-to-no makeup for the first act of the film, and have the Joker go completely off the deep end thus disfiguring himself, for the third act.

[AidanJames]

I don't really think the Joker needs to be a self mutilating freak to be scary. especially with Heath playing him... he's going to be scary.

that said I absolutely hate the amount of disfiguration in the original post's link. That's just too over the top for the world Nolan is building.

[Infinity9999x]

When you come down to it, I really think the Joker just isn't the kind of killer that would disfigure himself.

Like I stated above, the Joker isn't a gory hack n' slash killer like Carnage, in fact when Carnage told Joker the way he liked to kill people, the Joker thought it tasteless. The Joker has his own sense of style, he has his own sense decency in a weird way. He'll kill you with an acid squirting flower or a supercharged joy buzzer, but "peeling the skin off your victim as they beg for mercy" as carnage put it, isn't his thing. He doesn't like killing babies, he was prepared to do it, but he didn't enjoy himself, as demonstrated in the comic when he kills Sarah Essen.

The Joker is about style, not gore. It's displayed in how he presents himself as well. He dresses himself in nice suits and slicks, or curls, his hair. Now the colors of his get up are a little crazy, but the cloths are always in good condition. The Joker does things his own way, and I just don't see him mutilating himself. Zsasz mutilates himself, Two Face Mutilated himself (when he re-scarred himself), I could see someone like Carnage mutilating himself, but it just doesn't fit for the Joker.

[MrZombay]

I agree, I see him as a pretty vain guy who wouldn't dare harm himself.

Besides a carved smile would ruin the possibility for a much more disturbing normal smile that he could give right when he is about to or after he has killed someone.

[vegeta21]

Looks a little too creepy. I like my Joker to be more scary psycologicaly, yet somewhat amusing looking physically. Sure hope they don't go with that version of the Joker.

[vegeta21]

Guys, guys.

If you re-watch the end scene of BB, you will find that Nolan is going to go with theatrical and artistic Joker.

What does this mean?

I guess we will see exactly that Joker from comics and there won't be any changes in his look (for example like that picture with his scarface).

So I don't see anything to worry about there :up:


I hope so, theatrics and over flamboyancy has always been a part of the Joker's character.

[Killgore]

Exactly what I was thinking.

http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/ichithekiller/ichi-106.gif

In fact the entire tone of Ichi the Killer would be a great template, along with Clockwork Orange of course, for the Joker.

[Damiean Dark]

They should use prosthetics especially if they go down the fell iin a vat of chemicals route. 1989 was a long time ago advances in makeup have advanced a thousand fold since then. Nicholsons Joker with the fixed grin was great and it added to his crazyness when he frowned in the makeup take the part when vicki vale asks if he is joking (do i look liike im joking????) the frown/smile on his face was a classic joker moment.

[Orko Is King]

No prosthetics. All the chemicals did was change his skin/hair color. They didn't give him a crazy smile or elongate his features.

[Damiean Dark]

they froze the mouth muscles in a permanent grin didnt they? and in he comics he had the same basic head shape before the accident.

[The Jengeneer]

I think they're gonna go with natural grin and not forced. Though Heath should be extra good and give a hell of a lot of practise to get a grin that just gives you the creeps somehow and uses it for about 90% of the time without looking ridiculous. This is up to the writers as well to give a grin-fitting-script.

Plus an oh-crap moment where he stops smiling for some reason, fury or fear, would be very very fitting :word:

[lujho]

they froze the mouth muscles in a permanent grin didnt they?

No, not at all. Batman '89 invented the fixed smile thing, and in that movie it was caused by being shot through the cheeks. That's what severs the nerves. I never actually realized that was what happened until I read Sam Hamm's script, but once I knew that I noticed that that's what was happening in the film.

It's a bullet that gives him the smile, not a chemical. Of course the end result doesn't look much like a guy who's been shot in the face... the script sugested twisted scars, but they obviously went with something more cosmetic and family friendly. And stupid looking.

Anyway, keep the fixed smile to Batman '89. It's not neccessary.

[The Jengeneer]

I read the ol' famous The Killing Joke today (yeh I know I'm a newb but I'm willing to learn :word: ) and The Joker's smile is there because he choses to... and that's the creepiest part...

All the chemicals did was bleach his skin and make his hair green and colour up his lips as well as any part with that kind of skin... including the edges of his eyelids [that's really creepy if you notice it]... that's pretty plausible I think and effective. No forced smile and when he's not smiling [like when he gets pissed off or sad or frightened] it gets to you, because you're used to him smiling all the time.

Nolan and Ledger did say that they're looking from The Killing Joke for inspiration for the Joker. On one hand it's cool... on the other the grin is part of Ledger's go on the role... He better start preparing :cwink:

Btw I loved the intellectual speeches he gives a la V [V for Vendetta if you know it] but with a sick humor twist. I hope they incorporate that as well in the character. But in the comic book you see the Joker's more human and softer side and however sick that was he did in the comic [I won't spoil it for those who haven't read it] you just can't hate him in the end. I personally want a Joker I'm gonna hate with all my gut and that I'll be frightened by this freakish sick twisted demented monster of a man that looks like a clown but would give a 13-year-old nightmares for a decade!

[cranston52]

I vote for no permanent smile. If the smile was permanent and fixed then as the movie progresses it would lose it's effectiveness. He should smile ONLY when necessary and even then sparingly to give the smile a very creepy appearance. And at the risk of getting a whack on the head by lujho if Conrad Veidt can do it, so can Ledger. I realize that Gwynplainne had no choice but to smile but the creepiness of Veidt's facial expression SHOULD be the smile's inspiration the same as Gwynplainne was the inspiration for the Joker in 1940.

[Killgore]

None of this makes sense. Smilex give its victims those ghastly smiles as well as the bleached white skin, green hair and red lips. Where's the need for a magic bullet?

heh heh magic bullet. NACHOS ANYONE?!?!?

[The Jengeneer]

None of this makes sense. Smilex give its victims those ghastly smiles as well as the bleached white skin, green hair and red lips. Where's the need for a magic bullet?

heh heh magic bullet. NACHOS ANYONE?!?!?

Smilex was invented by Tim Burton for Batman 89, as well as the Joker's fixed prosthetics smile. In the first couple of appearances the Joker had nothing like a fixed smile, he was just a green haired extremely white dude with an attitude. He was prone at chemistry and had a basement slum as a residence and lab where he manufactured a poison that gave his victims a creepy posthumous grin.. and only that, they didn't get bleached or got their hair green. He was a terrorist, a jewel thief and collector and wouldn't hesitate the least bit to kill anyone standing in his way. He also had no henchmen, a loner if u prefer. Expect something like that TDK from all the clues we got from Nolan and Ledger

[cryptic name]

None of this makes sense. Smilex give its victims those ghastly smiles as well as the bleached white skin, green hair and red lips. Where's the need for a magic bullet?

heh heh magic bullet. NACHOS ANYONE?!?!?

no, smilex is the nerve toxin joker uses on his victims, all it does is cause people to laugh themselves to death and leaves hideous death grins. the chemicals he fell into (not smilex) only died his skin and hair. the reason his nerves were severed was the bullet Batman deflected back at him went straight through his cheeks. smilex ahs nothing to do with skin changing color or the joker's deformity.

[Killgore]

Nope. Joker's always had his Joker Venom, Burton just renamed it.

[The Jengeneer]

Nope. Joker's always had his Joker Venom, Burton just renamed it.

Again, Burton's smilex changed their appearance further than just a grin [they were jokerized if u want], whereas in the comics they laughed themselves to death and were left with a just a hideous grin and where TDK might be heading

[cranston52]

~ Lon Chaney, Sr. once said that there is nothing more disturbing than a clown at midnight. ~

When the Joker debuted in 1940 he didn't have a permanent smile, only a clown white face, green hair and red lips. He had no goons, only his Joker venom. To a reader of that time this was a frightening vision and a disturbing character. And remember comics are a 2 dimensional medium. The reader surrenders themselves to the artists visual form and relies heavily on his (or her) imagination.

Today's more sophisticated audience, especially when watching a moving picture, will expect more from the portrayal of such a fantastic character.
Too cartoonish or too realistic, no sense of dread or mystery.

I still believe that if Ledger can "borrow" from Conrad Veidt's leer when the occasion calls for it his portrayal will be that happy medium.

[Kritish]

Joker has never been into self mutilation, in fact he's rather vain! Styled hair, dapper suits, bow ties, ribbons, handerchief, spats - Hell, he's flamboyant even!

He embraces becoming the Joker, he doesn't wallow in self pity listening to Marylin Manson and cutting himself in the bathroom. Making him a character who self mutilates changes the whole aspect of the character, somebody who dislikes what he's become, he's not like that.

Why would he start going around carving himself with a great big hunting knife (or bread knife, whatever)? Self mutilating his victims would be a different matter, but still not something i'd be interested in.

Oh, and this article is half a year old from when the carved smile was being banded about. I really can't see Nolan going this drastic with the character, especially with hardcore fans like Jonah and Goyer.

Sireal killers don't need to use logic for their actions. Did it make any sense that Ted Bundy raped and killed women with straight black hair that looked like his ex-girlfriend?

Perhaps he feels the need to make others "happy".

[Superman4ever]

Joker has never been into self mutilation, in fact he's rather vain! Styled hair, dapper suits, bow ties, ribbons, handerchief, spats - Hell, he's flamboyant even!

He embraces becoming the Joker, he doesn't wallow in self pity listening to Marylin Manson and cutting himself in the bathroom. Making him a character who self mutilates changes the whole aspect of the character, somebody who dislikes what he's become, he's not like that.

Why would he start going around carving himself with a great big hunting knife (or bread knife, whatever)? Self mutilating his victims would be a different matter, but still not something i'd be interested in.

Oh, and this article is half a year old from when the carved smile was being banded about. I really can't see Nolan going this drastic with the character, especially with hardcore fans like Jonah and Goyer.

:up: :up: :up:

[Nepenthes]

:dry:

die thread. die

[BatFlash]

Others have said it, very well written, and it poses a good argument. But I'm not sucked in. Bermejo is a great artist and he proved it with those Joker and Two-Face pictures, but the look for Joker with the self-mutilation just doesn't sit with me. The clothing of Tyler Durden I can like and I think that's a good comparison, but for his over all look I want Alex Ross' Joker mixed in with a bit of Tyler Durden. Alex Ross for Joker's formal wear and perhaps a vaudevillian (spelling?) type suit but the Tyler Durden appearance for his "casual" wear. Face should be same old Joker. Say NO to self-mutilation.

[Nepenthes]

edit: wrong thread

edit: DIE!

[Retroman]

Interesting read.


http://www.sequart.com/articles/?article=1149

:up: Lately i've been flipping through Les Daniels Batman history book to get a feel of what Nolan is aiming for.

[Retroman]

BLADE RUNNER OWNS!!! :up:

Indeed and its one of if not the favorite movie of Nolan.Why do you think Rutger Hauer was cast?:yay:

[El Payaso]

:dry:

die thread. die
edit: wrong thread

LOL

[MechaOrga]

I think to expect something very close to the comics version of the joker is getting our hopes up

Case in point Batman begins rocked and contained a few baddies, 2 of them supervillians from the rogues gallery : Ras and ScareCrow.

Now I LOVE the way they both were represented in the film but neither of them looked exactly like their comic counterparts. I mean Scarecrow only had a burlap sack over his head and a strait jacket towards the end of the pic.

Ras switched from an asian man(i know he was just the double) to a nice green tinted nicely cut suit as opposed to the bare chested high haired version from the comics.

My point? I wouldn't suspect anything more than an albino white Joker, Dark green tinited Black Hair, Ruby lips and a slight Grin from Nolans Joker.....And you know what? It'll rock and work! We wont care about the lack of fedora or purple suit. This Joker will be in the shadows and will have the best lines in the flick.

[MechaOrga]

I hope nolan uses the needles from Batman # 1 for jokers toxin....something very wrong about a clown with a needle killing people lol....

I Personally want a non- fixed smile, which would make him more creepy when he does smile. Nolan said Batman #1 (jokers first appearence) is a big jumping off point for them, and the joker is actually not smiling in some panels.

Alex from A clockwork Orange is the best way to portray the joker

[lujho]

And at the risk of getting a whack on the head by lujho if Conrad Veidt can do it, so can Ledger. I realize that Gwynplainne had no choice but to smile but the creepiness of Veidt's facial expression SHOULD be the smile's inspiration the same as Gwynplainne was the inspiration for the Joker in 1940.

Huh? You say no to a permanent smile but the defend Veidt's prosthesis? My point was that to use that technique would remove Ledger's ability to speak or change his mouth at all.

Maybe the Gwynplainne smile should be "inspiration" but it can't be as exaggerated and it certainly can't be done with the same technique.

[Morgoth]

No cut, he got it from the chemicals, end of story. Don't add, just do what is in the comic. If it aint broke don't fix it.:whatever:

[Saint]

Ras switched from an asian man(i know he was just the double) to a nice green tinted nicely cut suit as opposed to the bare chested high haired version from the comics.

Not accurate. Ra's often wears full business-type suits under his cloak in the comics.

[MechaOrga]

Not accurate. Ra's often wears full business-type suits under his cloak in the comics.

True True, but the iconic Ras in my head is always wearing a cape and like this bare chested weird shirt thing....well anyway.....:whatever:

The point I'm making is we shouldnt expect bruce timms joker.

My money is on something that looks kinda like the newest Barmejo drawing but without the cut mouth(too "itchi the killer" and that movie sucked all kinds of ass)

remember, scarecrow had a burlap sack and a straight jacket(most of the time just a suit)

Nolan knows that he shouldn't mess too much with the Joker's look. This is THE villian of Batman and he needs to get it right especially if he is gonna bring him back in another sequel:woot:

[MechaOrga]

Double post

[Nepenthes]

I think to expect something very close to the comics version of the joker is getting our hopes up

Case in point Batman begins rocked and contained a few baddies, 2 of them supervillians from the rogues gallery : Ras and ScareCrow.

Now I LOVE the way they both were represented in the film but neither of them looked exactly like their comic counterparts. I mean Scarecrow only had a burlap sack over his head and a strait jacket towards the end of the pic.

Ras switched from an asian man(i know he was just the double) to a nice green tinted nicely cut suit as opposed to the bare chested high haired version from the comics.

My point? I wouldn't suspect anything more than an albino white Joker, Dark green tinited Black Hair, Ruby lips and a slight Grin from Nolans Joker.....And you know what? It'll rock and work! We wont care about the lack of fedora or purple suit. This Joker will be in the shadows and will have the best lines in the flick.


Excellent post, you deserve cake.

http://www.annettescakes.com/images/cakes/birthday/small/birthday_016.jpg


But honestly I can see it going either way. The Joker is one villain that can work with a more theatrical edge, but if not, okay, it'll still be great. It's just a choice of which type of adaption to go. That said, they're not mutually exclusive.

[Cinemaman]

I think to expect something very close to the comics version of the joker is getting our hopes up

Case in point Batman begins rocked and contained a few baddies, 2 of them supervillians from the rogues gallery : Ras and ScareCrow.

Now I LOVE the way they both were represented in the film but neither of them looked exactly like their comic counterparts. I mean Scarecrow only had a burlap sack over his head and a strait jacket towards the end of the pic.

Ras switched from an asian man(i know he was just the double) to a nice green tinted nicely cut suit as opposed to the bare chested high haired version from the comics.

My point? I wouldn't suspect anything more than an albino white Joker, Dark green tinited Black Hair, Ruby lips and a slight Grin from Nolans Joker.....And you know what? It'll rock and work! We wont care about the lack of fedora or purple suit. This Joker will be in the shadows and will have the best lines in the flick.

Damn, you're totaly right :mad: :up:

[BatFlash]

I recently watched Face/Off for the first time in ages, hopefully you've all seen it, because i think the character Castor Troy is a perfect Joker, especially when he tells the main character "You're still not having any FUN!"

[Jager X]

nicholas cage's castor troy was better :o

[Cinemaman]

^^^

Yeah, he was a great villian :up:

[Jager X]

^^^
nicholas cage shall be forever known for possessing the most wicked and demonic laughter in cinema history. and if you know what scene i'm talking about then you will understand how much of a god he is when he play bad guys. hopefully heath ledger will share some his traits as the joker.

[The Sage]

nicholas cage's castor troy was better :o

Or do you mean John Travolta's :cwink:

[Jager X]

nah, i mean nicholas cage's :oldrazz:

[saint sinner x]

Me and a couple of million people are expecting the joker to be done right and to be as bad ass and frieghtnening as possible. Jonathan Nolan and Co are stating that this joker will be "grim reaper" status and more of a don't mess with that guy or he'll kill you and your family attitude. He better live up to the hype otherwise I will be super dissapointed, It's been a while since I last posted here but I always come and keep tabs on the board. Comic Con 2007 is this year so everyone relax we will have some news some exciting news by that time, after all the dark knight comes out next year. The joker better brutaly beat, kill and do all 7sins and every single crime there is outthere in order to crave my satisfaction. He better be done right or better be done with no holds barred....

[Kevin Roegele]

Me and a couple of million people are expecting the joker to be done right and to be as bad ass and frieghtnening as possible. Jonathan Nolan and Co are stating that this joker will be "grim reaper" status and more of a don't mess with that guy or he'll kill you and your family attitude. He better live up to the hype otherwise I will be super dissapointed, It's been a while since I last posted here but I always come and keep tabs on the board. Comic Con 2007 is this year so everyone relax we will have some news some exciting news by that time, after all the dark knight comes out next year. The joker better brutaly beat, kill and do all 7sins and every single crime there is outthere in order to crave my satisfaction. He better be done right or better be done with no holds barred....

To be fair, there has been no hype from either the people involved, Nolan or Ledger, or the studio. All hype has come from the fans themselves (or ourselves).

Without wishing to sound patronising, never, ever believe any hype. I've heard many people say a film was disapointing because, "the studio hyped it to much." Well, of course the studios hype their movies to the max, they want people to go see them.

[Miranda Fox]

To be fair, there has been no hype from either the people involved, Nolan or Ledger, or the studio. All hype has come from the fans themselves (or ourselves).

Without wishing to sound patronising, never, ever believe any hype. I've heard many people say a film was disapointing because, "the studio hyped it to much." Well, of course the studios hype their movies to the max, they want people to go see them.

Damn, you beat me to it. ;)

I wouldn't say there has been a massive amount of hype here, either. Cautious optimism? Yes, but not hype.

[Mister J]

Comic Con 2007 is this year
To hell with any hype. I'm astounded by the fact that Comic Con 2007 will actually happen in ...2007! :eek: :dry:

[Miranda Fox]

To hell with any hype. I'm astounded by the fact that Comic Con 2007 will actually happen in ...2007! :eek: :dry:

O RLY?



;) :woot:

[Cinemaman]

When will come 2007? *trying to make myself looking thoughtful* :D

[Rockbottom]

Comic Con 2007 is this year .
Yeah i cant wait for the launch of that new superhero, i think he is called Captain Obvious.

[Miranda Fox]

Yeah i cant wait for the launch of that new superhero, i think he is called Captain Obvious.

FTW!

[chosen1]

I remember someone saying that's the danger. people expecting too much from this movie.







"You cannot lose, if you do not play." -- Marla Daniels

[Miranda Fox]

I remember someone saying that's the danger. people expecting too much from this movie.

True. All I'm expecting is a good film. If it ends up being better than BB, that's a huge bonus. ;)

[Two-Face]

I'm lookingforward to Batman, Joker, Gordon and Dent to kick ass and I will be happy if the TDK is good that's all.

[Crooklyn]

True. All I'm expecting is a good film. If it ends up being better than BB, that's a huge bonus. ;)
If it ends up not being better than BB, can't say I wouldn't be disappointed. :o

[yankee]

Its ridiculous that some fans think this movie is beyond perfect so I wish those a lot of luck. I for one just remain cautiously optimistic.
I was doubtful about BB but I ended up loving it.
I was so fired up about SR but what a letdown.

[Castlewood]

First of all, I wouldn't compare Superman Returns to The Dark Knight. One was a piece of crap, and the other is bound to be a cinematic masterpiece. I think it's perfectly fine to be "hyped" about this movie, because I DO believe it will deliver.

However, if I could make one suggestion, it's this: Don't show too much of the Joker. Keep Ledger in the shadows. Make the audience CRAVING more. If they do that, then the Joker will be PERFECT. He needs to be someone that we never see in perfect light. He needs to be behind smoke... be a sillouette, if you will. The only scenes where we really SEE him, should be Joker/Batman "showdowns." Other than that, make him a SMALL PART of the movie.

I don't want any back stories... I don't want any reasons for why he's in Gotham... I just want him to be "THERE", and that's it. The LESS we know about him, the more SCARY he is. I don't want some cheesy "feel-good-Doc-Ock-Spider-Man-2" villian. I want to know NOTHING about the Joker, and I want to HATE him for two hours in the theatre.

Nolan has the opportunity to literally create the scariest, most grotesque character in ALL of motion picture history... beating Freddy, and beating Leatherface. He BETTER make Ledger a freakin' spook-story for little kids, Keyser Soze style.

[Castlewood]

^The Keyser Soze approach is lame.
Joker is not one to hide during his spree's. He's proud of them, and he wants credit for them.

I meant the idea of there being little information about him. The little "story" that Kevin Spacey gave about his origin wasn't necessarily TRUE, and that's what I like about it.
My point is... I don't want to know ANYTHING about Joker. He should just be THERE, without much reason. I don't want his name, his birthday, his dental records, NOTHING. He almost needs to be a ghost.

[Keyser Sushi]

I sometimes think that people misunderstand who and what the Joker really is. Is he scary? Sure. Is he nuts? Absolutely. Is he a killer? You better believe it.

But a lot of people here seem to think that he needs to do every horrible thing one can imagine, without rhyme or reason. In truth he generally has a reason for everything he does. And, the movie is probably going to be a PG-13.

So... some of the things people want from Joker are, to me, like expecting Spider-Man to be an anti-hero or thinking that Batman should wear assless chaps and be seen in the daytime directing traffic in front of schools.

... :dry: ...

[chosen1]

Do you think we'll ever see batman in the daytime?

[Keyser Sushi]

Do you think we'll ever see batman in the daytime?

No. It's a little known fact that the sun is terrified of Batman. This is why, whenever Batman appears, it is instantly night.

[Crooklyn]

But a lot of people here seem to think that he needs to do every horrible thing one can imagine, without rhyme or reason. In truth he generally has a reason for everything he does.
...:huh:

[Keyser Sushi]

...:huh:

He's the Joker, not Captain Random.

[Crooklyn]

He's the Joker, not Captain Random.
You're right...but he's still a random guy plenty of times.

[bunk]

Anyone here ever watch Criminal Minds on CBS? For anyone who doesn't know, it's about a criminal profile unit of the FBI who bring down the worst killers. You can watch the show and totally imagine Batman doing all the same things to track down and eventually stop the Joker. Not only should Batman be a master detective but also a master criminal profiler.

[Castlewood]

I sometimes think that people misunderstand who and what the Joker really is. Is he scary? Sure. Is he nuts? Absolutely. Is he a killer? You better believe it.

But a lot of people here seem to think that he needs to do every horrible thing one can imagine, without rhyme or reason. In truth he generally has a reason for everything he does. And, the movie is probably going to be a PG-13.

So... some of the things people want from Joker are, to me, like expecting Spider-Man to be an anti-hero or thinking that Batman should wear assless chaps and be seen in the daytime directing traffic in front of schools.

... :dry: ...

Okay. Here we go.

While I totally agree with you that he shouldn't do "terrible" things (i.e. the "SAW" movies)... I do think it's essential that he's completely "random". In other words, he is a "serial killer who doesn't show any signs of a pattern". And in essence, the pattern is that he has NO pattern. He should be unexpected, which is not to say that he should be-head someone... it just means that he should do things that we aren't expecting, and therefore it makes him more "evil". For example...

The Joker has a gun, and he's about to shoot someone in the head, and when he pulls the trigger, a flag comes out that says "BANG!" and the victim gets this look of relief because he's not going to die. The Joker then makes a frown and says "Oops..wrong one", and then pulls another gun out of his jacket and literally shoots the man, for real. The Joker then laughs hysterically. "HAHAHAHA."

^^^ That to me, is the Joker. The idea of teasing you... giving you false hope... making you think that everything is okay, and that he was just "clowning around", only to shoot you after you get that "good feeling inside". That to me, is WAAAAY better than watching the Joker chop someone's head off for no reason, or stab someone with a long knife. The psychology of him is scarier than his actions. The fact that you don't know anything about him... the fact that you can't find a pattern, and that he's always unpredictable without being too gory. That is a lot scarier than any SAW movie, in my opinion.

[Keyser Sushi]

Okay. Here we go.

While I totally agree with you that he shouldn't do "terrible" things (i.e. the "SAW" movies)... I do think it's essential that he's completely "random". In other words, he is a "serial killer who doesn't show any signs of a pattern". And in essence, the pattern is that he has NO pattern. He should be unexpected, which is not to say that he should be-head someone... it just means that he should do things that we aren't expecting, and therefore it makes him more "evil". For example...

The Joker has a gun, and he's about to shoot someone in the head, and when he pulls the trigger, a flag comes out that says "BANG!" and the victim gets this look of relief because he's not going to die. The Joker then makes a frown and says "Oops..wrong one", and then pulls another gun out of his jacket and literally shoots the man, for real. The Joker then laughs hysterically. "HAHAHAHA."

^^^ That to me, is the Joker. The idea of teasing you... giving you false hope... making you think that everything is okay, and that he was just "clowning around", only to shoot you after you get that "good feeling inside". That to me, is WAAAAY better than watching the Joker chop someone's head off for no reason, or stab someone with a long knife. The psychology of him is scarier than his actions. The fact that you don't know anything about him... the fact that you can't find a pattern, and that he's always unpredictable without being too gory. That is a lot scarier than any SAW movie, in my opinion.

Oh yeah, absolutely that's Joker.

But the thing is, the guy he's shooting? He has a reason for shooting him. It isn't because he felt like it. It's because the guy irritated him, or because he's taunting Batman, or because killing that guy proves his point about Joker. Of course he's full of gags, he's the JOKER... but like any good comedian, the jokes - or in this case the crimes - are not random. There is ALWAYS a point. He just has fun getting there.

[Jack Napier]

However, if I could make one suggestion, it's this: Don't show too much of the Joker. Keep Ledger in the shadows. Make the audience CRAVING more. If they do that, then the Joker will be PERFECT. He needs to be someone that we never see in perfect light. He needs to be behind smoke... be a sillouette, if you will. The only scenes where we really SEE him, should be Joker/Batman "showdowns." Other than that, make him a SMALL PART of the movie.


If Joker isn't a big part of the movie, I'll be pissed. 3 years is an eternity, and I don't want to wait until 2011 to see the Joker fleshed out. It's bad enough we have to wait that long to see Two-Face.

[Castlewood]

If Joker isn't a big part of the movie, I'll be pissed. 3 years is an eternity, and I don't want to wait until 2011 to see the Joker fleshed out. It's bad enough we have to wait that long to see Two-Face.

Less... is... more.

If not.... We get another Jack Nicholson.

[Crooklyn]

You go too much less, and you get nothing more than a glorified cameo...

[Jack Napier]

Less... is... more.

If not.... We get another Jack Nicholson.

I say he could have the same amount of screen time and play it completely different, doesn't mean he'll be all over the place the way Nicholson was.

By the way, I don't think they should have Ledger play it like Nicholson did at all. Not because it didn't work, but because that's being repetitive. Nicholson was fantastic.

[Agentsands77]

I feel like this "show little of the Joker" idea is mainly a bold overreaction to BATMAN '89, where the Joker was shown to a fault. We don't need to reduce the Joker to a cameo to make up for that. As long as he's played in moderation, there'll be more than enough to keep him from overtaking the film.

But let's face it, in a lot of stories, the Joker is actually somewhat shadowy. Especially in the kind of stories that Nolan is drawing from (BATMAN #1, "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge"). These are the kind of stories where the Joker's effect is felt on every moment, but the Joker's not really present - its his actions that are felt. So no, I don't think we'll actually see that much of the Joker. But frankly, I don't think that's such a big deal, as long as his presence dominates the film even when he's not actually there.

[Crooklyn]

I still think it's a load of crap. We've been waiting for over a decade for his return, we didn't wait that long to simply "feel his presence".

Moderation is fine.

[Agentsands77]

I still think it's a load of crap. We've been waiting for over a decade for his return, we didn't wait that long to simply "feel his presence".

Moderation is fine.
I fear you will be disappointed. Just by nature of going with the "target killer" storyline, I imagine the Joker's screentime won't be anything huge. Somewhere around Liam Neeson's presence in BEGINS, probably.

[David Rice]

I fear you will be disappointed. Just by nature of going with the "target killer" storyline, I imagine the Joker's screentime won't be anything huge. Somewhere around Liam Neeson's presence in BEGINS, probably.

YEP! I think Jett over @ BOF said this too.

[Keyser Sushi]

I fear you will be disappointed. Just by nature of going with the "target killer" storyline, I imagine the Joker's screentime won't be anything huge. Somewhere around Liam Neeson's presence in BEGINS, probably.

Yeah, it's good to keep people's expectations in check. That'll be fewer people whose *****ery we have to put up with in '08 when the movie wasn't made according to their particular vision.

(No offense, Crooklyn, you just made a target of yourself. It could have been anybody. :D )

[David Rice]

Oh yeah, absolutely that's Joker.

But the thing is, the guy he's shooting? He has a reason for shooting him. It isn't because he felt like it. It's because the guy irritated him, or because he's taunting Batman, or because killing that guy proves his point about Joker. Of course he's full of gags, he's the JOKER... but like any good comedian, the jokes - or in this case the crimes - are not random. There is ALWAYS a point. He just has fun getting there.

Great example! That is the Joker!

[Crooklyn]

I fear you will be disappointed. Just by nature of going with the "target killer" storyline, I imagine the Joker's screentime won't be anything huge. Somewhere around Liam Neeson's presence in BEGINS, probably.
Then you'd be right. I would very much be disappointed. The ONLY reason why I gave the significant loss in screentime to the villains, a pass, is because I understood the necessity of Bruce in a genesis story. Now that we're passed that stage, we can move on to Batman and the villains.

I'm not expecting Nicholson-like screentime, but I definitely expect more than Neeson/Murphy/Wilkinson. Dare I say it...combined.

[Agentsands77]

Then you'd be right. I would very much be disappointed.
Well, I imagine that's how it'll be.

The ONLY reason why I gave the significant loss in screentime to the villains, a pass, is because I understood the necessity of Bruce in a genesis story. Now that we're passed that stage, we can move on to Batman and the villains.
I would like the same amount of focus on Bruce/Batman. Even will all the focus he got in BEGINS, it wasn't anywhere near the depth it should. They should be able to examine Batman that much more in-depth.

I'm not expecting Nicholson-like screentime, but I definitely expect more than Neeson/Murphy/Wilkinson. Dare I say it...combined.
Giving the Joker as much screentime as they had combined would be nearing the levels of Nicholson in BATMAN '89. And I wouldn't expect it, especially given the huge amount of supporting characters who will are to appear in THE DARK KNIGHT, and since the "target killer" story will demand the Joker be in the the background out of necessity.

[Crooklyn]

I would like the same amount of focus on Bruce/Batman. Even will all the focus he got in BEGINS, it wasn't anywhere near the depth it should. They should be able to examine Batman that much more in-depth.
Lol, what happened to "less is more" here? It only applies to select situations? :cwink:

The "depth" required isn't dictated by screentime.

And I know you're going to turn that around and say "but what about Joker, can't you apply the same statement to him?". The difference is, Bruce got his time in BB, it doesn't hurt to share some of that time with the greatest comic book villain.

Giving the Joker as much screentime as they had combined would be nearing the levels of Nicholson in BATMAN '89.
Wilkinson and Murphy together barely added up to 5 minutes. Add in Neeson, and you still wouldn't even get half of what Nicholson got. Just goes to show the severe background push the villains received.

And I wouldn't expect it, especially given the huge amount of supporting characters who will are to appear in THE DARK KNIGHT, and since the "target killer" story will demand the Joker be in the the background out of necessity.
The "target killer" story is nothing but damn rumor. Where is this from, BOF? Same place that was spouting off for MONTHS...that Penguin was going to be in TDK?

[Paste Pot Pete]

However, if I could make one suggestion, it's this: Don't show too much of the Joker. Keep Ledger in the shadows. Make the audience CRAVING more. If they do that, then the Joker will be PERFECT. He needs to be someone that we never see in perfect light. He needs to be behind smoke... be a sillouette, if you will. The only scenes where we really SEE him, should be Joker/Batman "showdowns." Other than that, make him a SMALL PART of the movie.


No, no, no.

Hold the reveal as long as you want to build suspense, but once the Joker finally shows his mug, that's it. It's his coming-out party.

The Joker is the ultimate ham. Make him as vicious and evil as you want (as he should be), but never take away his showmanship.

It's what makes him The Joker; it's what makes him the opposite of Batman. Batman is the force for good, yet he dwells in the shadows and hides his appearance. Joker is the embodiment of evil, yet he sings it loud and proud. It's why he leaves a calling card, and why he announces his crimes before he commits them!

[Agentsands77]

Lol, what happened to "less is more" here? It only applies to select situations? :cwink:
I never said "less is more" at all, if you recall. And frankly, the Joker doesn't have any sort of character arc (or a deep one), so it's not like he'll need the screentime.

The "depth" required isn't dictated by screentime.
But it can be limited by it. Even BATMAN BEGINS, for all its focus, was limited in how much it could explore Bruce's character - I want to see even more development and depth to Wayne/Batman than BEGINS was capable of offering.

The difference is, Bruce got his time in BB, it doesn't hurt to share some of that time with the greatest comic book villain.
The Joker's going to have plenty of time in BB3 too, so why are we worrying that he's not going to have enough time in THE DARK KNIGHT?

The "target killer" story is nothing but damn rumor. Where is this from, BOF?
It's taken from Nolan's own comments. He cited as his key personal influences BATMAN #1, 2, and "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge," which indicates to me that they'll be going with the "target killer" Joker. It's hardly conclusive, but it's one thing all those sources have in common. Furthermore, it would bring an aspect of the character that Nicholson didn't have, and I would be delighted to see it used.

[Crooklyn]

I never said "less is more" at all, if you recall. And frankly, the Joker doesn't have any sort of character arc (or a deep one), so it's not like he'll need the screentime.
Lol, you can't be serious. Joker is Batman's biggest villain. What the hell do you mean he doesn't "need" the screentime?

But it can be limited by it. Even BATMAN BEGINS, for all its focus, was limited in how much it could explore Bruce's character
Well you can't expect his whole lifestory when they have to introduce him back to the audience again. We saw a lil' bit of him, and we'll see more of that assuredly.

I want to see even more development and depth to Wayne/Batman than BEGINS was capable of offering.
Obviously. The character has been established, Batman has begun so to speak, so already they have a new direction to take. The one constant in all these films is Batman himself, so I really wouldn't worry about his character development.

The Joker's going to have plenty of time in BB3 too, so why are we worrying that he's not going to have enough time in THE DARK KNIGHT?
"Plenty"? Since when? If Joker is going to be the main villain in TDK, his screentime will be limited in the sequel. Harvey will be introduced here, and as everyone knows, Two-Face is next in line. NOW is the time for Joker to get his shine.

It's taken from Nolan's own comments. He cited as his key personal influences BATMAN #1, 2, and "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge," which indicates to me that they'll be going with the "target killer" Joker. It's hardly conclusive, but it's one thing all those sources have in common. Furthermore, it would bring an aspect of the character that Nicholson didn't have, and I would be delighted to see it used.
It's indicative of where they plan to take the character. As you said, not nearly conclusive evidence of how they plan to utilize him. I'm in agreement however that I welcome with open arms a different take than Nicholson's.

[Agentsands77]

Lol, you can't be serious. Joker is Batman's biggest villain. What the hell do you mean he doesn't "need" the screentime?
Well, just in the sense that he's a character who doesn't need an origin or a lot of explanation. For example, Hannibal Lecter in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - he dominates that entire film, but he's in it for 15 minutes. It's about how well those moments are done. Similarly, for the Joker, it's all about quality, not quantity.

Obviously. The character has been established, Batman has begun so to speak, so already they have a new direction to take.
Yes, but THE DARK KNIGHT is still all about, well, "the Dark Knight," and about how things react to choices in ways we don't expect. We know that's the declared direction for this film - it's first and foremost about Batman having to face a new kind of evil that he was never anticipating.

"Plenty"? Since when? If Joker is going to be the main villain in TDK, his screentime will be limited in the sequel. Harvey will be introduced here, and as everyone knows, Two-Face is next in line. NOW is the time for Joker to get his shine.
Goyer stated BB3 would be about the Joker's trial, and then Dent's scarring at his hands. Sounds to me like that would mean a lot of Joker.

It's indicative of where they plan to take the character. As you said, not nearly conclusive evidence of how they plan to utilize him.
Not conclusive, but somewhat curious that all those sources have it in common. And if you're going to bother mentioning "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge," that's really all you can have in mind, since that doesn't really have anything else to bear on the Joker's portrayal.

[Crooklyn]

Well, just in the sense that he's a character who doesn't need an origin or a lot of explanation. For example, Hannibal Lecter in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - he dominates that entire film, but he's in it for 15 minutes.
But Joker isn't Hannibal, so you really can't compare how those 2 would be handled on film. Joker is a VERY outspoken individual. If people are so adamant on having a "mysterious" Joker, then take one poster's suggestion. Have his presence known throughout the film, say first half, but once you do his big reveal...that is it. Curtains are up, they don't go back down.

It's about how well those moments are done. Similarly, for the Joker, it's all about quality, not quantity.
That's a pretty black & white statement. What's wrong with quality AND quantity? Why does it have to be either/or?

Yes, but THE DARK KNIGHT is still all about, well, "the Dark Knight," and about how things react to choices in ways we don't expect. We know that's the declared direction for this film - it's first and foremost about Batman having to face a new kind of evil that he was never anticipating.
Yes, and that's no doubt talking about Joker himself. Honestly, I'm not even worried about where they're going to take Bruce's character. I've read enough interviews to know there's no way in hell they'll ever make him take the back-burner as long as they're around.

Goyer stated BB3 would be about the Joker's trial, and then Dent's scarring at his hands. Sounds to me like that would mean a lot of Joker.
Annnnd what do you think the trial will be about? PREVIOUS events, ala TDK. Make no mistake, I guarantee TDK's sequel will be Dent's film more than it is Joker's.

And if you're going to bother mentioning "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge," that's really all you can have in mind, since that doesn't really have anything else to bear on the Joker's portrayal.
Perhaps you'd like to rephrase, I don't get your meaning on this.

[Agentsands77]

Joker is a VERY outspoken individual.
Interestingly enough, he's not particularly outspoken in BATMAN #1 and 2, Nolan's self-proclaimed big influences for THE DARK KNIGHT. He's a shadowy, sinister murderer.

Furthermore, I think THE DARK KNIGHT will probably show the Joker grow as a character throughout. I don't think he's going to start off huge - I think he's going to grow crazier as the film progresses and things "escalate."

That's a pretty black & white statement. What's wrong with quality AND quantity? Why does it have to be either/or?
It could be quality and quantity, but I'm just saying the primary concern should be quality. The reason Ra's doesn't particularly resonate with BEGINS isn't because of his screentime - it's because the screentime he's given doesn't bother to make him that engaging or memorable. If Joker was given the same amount of screentime as Ra's, but it was all put to excellent use, he would dominate the film (especially since the rest of the story would all have to do with asking questions about him).

Annnnd what do you think the trial will be about? PREVIOUS events, ala TDK. Make no mistake, I guarantee TDK's sequel will be Dent's film more than it is Joker's.
Sure it will be Dent's film. But that doesn't mean the Joker won't have a substantial part. Especially since I think it's likely that Dent won't actually be scarred until about two-thirds of the way through the film.

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase, I don't get your meaning on this.
In citing "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" as an influence, the only thing that can really be taken away from that story is really the Joker's methodology. Otherwise, there's nothing about his portrayal that is stand-out for Nolan to take something away from.

[Crooklyn]

Interestingly enough, he's not particularly outspoken in BATMAN #1 and 2, Nolan's self-proclaimed big influences for THE DARK KNIGHT. He's a shadowy, sinister murderer.
All true. But I also get from those stories, an obviously more "focused" madman, one who works alone, and is generally more ruthless. These traits are already far and away from what Nicholson portrayed. So while Nolan may very well use those 2 stories as a blueprint, we still don't which parts he'll adapt.

Furthermore, I think THE DARK KNIGHT will probably show the Joker grow as a character throughout. I don't think he's going to start off huge - I think he's going to grow crazier as the film progresses and things "escalate."
I'd be fine with this. Like I said previously, they can take out 2 birds with one stone by literally splitting up Joker's appearance into halves. First part of the film, have him be like Batman #1/2, then in the second half with the big reveal...the modern Joker we all know and love.

It could be quality and quantity, but I'm just saying the primary concern should be quality. The reason Ra's doesn't particularly resonate with BEGINS isn't because of his screentime - it's because the screentime he's given doesn't bother to make him that engaging or memorable. If Joker was given the same amount of screentime as Ra's, but it was all put to excellent use, he would dominate the film (especially since the rest of the story would all have to do with asking questions about him).

Of course quality should be the main concern. I'd expect nothing less from such a top-notch crew. But there comes a time when quantity and quality do meet up. I believe there is a correlation at some point, where if you don't give enough quantity, there's simply not much room for the quality you intend to put in.

Sure it will be Dent's film. But that doesn't mean the Joker won't have a substantial part. Especially since I think it's likely that Dent won't actually be scarred until about two-thirds of the way through the film.
That depends on where they take it with Joker in TDK. So maybe it's too early to talk about this.

In citing "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" as an influence, the only thing that can really be taken away from that story is really the Joker's methodology. Otherwise, there's nothing about his portrayal that is stand-out for Nolan to take something away from.
Well the Joker in there is pretty different from the first 2 Batman issues, don't you think? There's many things Nolan can take from these stories. From what I can tell, there's unique traits in every single one of them. Chances are, he'll pick off the best ones and put it together, just as he did with Batman/Bruce.

[Nepenthes]

I think the Joker in TDK will great, IF ONLY we don't forget......



the only perfect Joker is the one in our heads

:joker:

[Hades]

Euuuughgh......the wait to at least see what the Joker looks like or a discription of him is killing me.

[DA Harvey Dent]

If Joker isn't a big part of the movie, I'll be pissed. 3 years is an eternity, and I don't want to wait until 2011 to see the Joker fleshed out. It's bad enough we have to wait that long to see Two-Face.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k297/Romulus219/relax7ohcopy.jpg

[Darknightnomis]

I think the Joker in TDK will great, IF ONLY we don't forget......



the only perfect Joker is the one in our heads

:joker:


Amen.

Personally I could care less if the Joker live up to the "hype" of fanboys or not. I just want and intelligent, clever, action adventure movie that primarily focus on BRUCE WAYNE/ BATMAN and not the villians.

The joker should be about as important in TDK as Scarecrow was in 'Begins'.

If I want to see the Joker live up to the 'Hype" I'll watch tim Burton's Batman.

[THE MR. TERRIFIC]

^^

Amen to your Amen

[ultimatefan]

There´s nothing more useless on the Internet than demanding things to live up to hype. It´s by definition an irrational phenomen where people build up such high expectations it´s impossible to completley fullfill them. The best you can do is get relatively close.

[WeaponXProject]

I think I'll like the Joker but I have my doubts about Ledger. Frankly, I'm more intrigued by Harvey Dent....

[Katsuro]

Especially since I think it's likely that Dent won't actually be scarred until about two-thirds of the way through the film.

You seriously think that? You really believe the main villain of the third movie wont be created until the last third of it? What are you expecting the first 2/3 of the movie to about? Goyer said that the trial happens in the third movie, not that the third movie is ABOUT the trial. It'll be a small scene, not the whole movie.

Personally, i'm expecting them to change Harvey's scarring to near the end of the second film. It'd make more sense there for various reasons. Mostly it's because I believe the audeince's first reaction to Harvey's scarring should be in the theater, and not during the trailers for the third movie. Some general movie-goers wont know what's to become of this guy. I'd rather have them sit in the theater being surprised as it happens, rather than seeing Two-Face in the trailer a couple years down the line and finding out like that.

[Miranda Fox]

You seriously think that? You really believe the main villain of the third movie wont be created until the last third of it? What are you expecting the first 2/3 of the movie to about? Goyer said that the trial happens in the third movie, not that the third movie is ABOUT the trial. It'll be a small scene, not the whole movie.

Personally, i'm expecting them to change Harvey's scarring to near the end of the second film. It'd make more sense there for various reasons. Mostly it's because I believe the audeince's first reaction to Harvey's scarring should be in the theater, and not during the trailers for the third movie. Some general movie-goers wont know what's to become of this guy. I'd rather have them sit in the theater being surprised as it happens, rather than seeing Two-Face in the trailer a couple years down the line and finding out like that.

I did hear a rumour about that (Two-Face is going to get scarred in TDK) but the person it came from is a dip****, so I didn't give it much thought.

However, that would sure as hell be a twist. ;)

[Agentsands77]

You seriously think that? You really believe the main villain of the third movie wont be created until the last third of it?
Sure. Two-Face doesn't show up in THE LONG HALLOWEEN till almost the very end. Wouldn't be that shocking.

What are you expecting the first 2/3 of the movie to about?
Some other story, of course, as well as Dent's disintigration.

Personally, i'm expecting them to change Harvey's scarring to near the end of the second film.
Unlikely. I think that everything points to Dent having something of a minor role in THE DARK KNIGHT.