The Dark Knight 1st or 2nd reveal of the Joker

[Infinity9999x]

You know, looking at those two pics next to each other really got me thinking. Look at how different they are. In the first, Joker's skin is completely white, and the lipstick is much darker. In the second it looks like he put on badly applied makeup.

It does raise questions to the whole "does he use makeup or his he really bleached" debate.

 

[souvlaki]

No, that would be one of the biggest mistakes ever, making Joker a comedian who tells good jokes. He even't wasn't in the comics

See, I disagree with this. Maybe I have a sick sense of humor, but there is generally always a joke or two that the Joker would say over the course of a regular comic that I would at least chuckle at. I remember getting a pretty good laugh out of the joke at the end of "The Killing Joke". The Joker from TAS and Mask of the Phantasm was hilarious. I still think Mask of the Phantasm was a brilliant display of using the best of both sides of the Joker, the funny side, and the homicidal side. This whole bit about the Joker being a homicidal serial killer that hardly ever cracks a joke is ridiculous. He never was that in the comics. There is nothing wrong with letting the Joker have a few funny lines in the movie. Thats part of the charm of the Joker in the first place, and what makes him so memorable.

 

[cryptic name]

Jack's the man, I'm a fan, but Joker isn't his best role. I really need to see the passenger

no, but nicholson has said many times that it was his favorite and the only one he can watch himself in.

 

[sasquatchs]

See, I disagree with this. Maybe I have a sick sense of humor, but there is generally always a joke or two that the Joker would say over the course of a regular comic that I would at least chuckle at. I remember getting a pretty good laugh out of the joke at the end of "The Killing Joke". The Joker from TAS and Mask of the Phantasm was hilarious. I still think Mask of the Phantasm was a brilliant display of using the best of both sides of the Joker, the funny side, and the homicidal side. This whole bit about the Joker being a homicidal serial killer that hardly ever cracks a joke is ridiculous. He never was that in the comics. There is nothing wrong with letting the Joker have a few funny lines in the movie. Thats part of the charm of the Joker in the first place, and what makes him so memorable.

Perhaps we could laugh at the joke for a while, then he takes it too far and it disgusts us

 

[itsthebatman]

Many people who support the changes make the argument, effectively, that...

"The Joker has always sucked. Nolan is doing the right thing in turning him into a different character, heavily derivative of flavour-of-the-month horror movie villains".

Excuse me if I recommend that you all go away and become fans of a character that I don't care about, so I can join you in celebrating its corruption?

Come on, man. That's not even close to what they're saying. It's actually 'The Joker's origin and motivations suck. I would much rather see a guy dress up than have bleached skin, simply because it's unrealistic, and therefore would not fit in Nolan's world. Realism is the top criterion for anything done in this movie. Everything must be explained so that nothing is left to the imagination.'

 

[regwec]

You're just paraphrasing me in a gentler way, because you're nicer than me.

 

[sasquatchs]

Giving him backstory is quite a superficial way of making Joker more than just a flavour of the month villain

 

[Oryon]

Humor should play a part, but it should be really dark humor, like so dark that a person would have to be ****ed in the head to laugh at.

...and no sight gags please.( squirting flowers, false teeth etc...)

At times in B89, I felt like I was watching Gallagher in clown face rather than The Joker.

 

[itsthebatman]

You're just paraphrasing me in a gentler way, because you're nicer than me.

True, true. You are a w***er.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Humor should play a part, but it should be really dark humor, like so dark that a person would have to be ****ed in the head to laugh at.

...and no sight gags please.( squirting flowers, false teeth etc...)

At times in B89, I felt like I was watching Gallagher in clown face rather than The Joker.

No squirting flowers, oh what is this world coming to.....

 

[regwec]

I have the wrists of a viking Huscarl.

 

[Sun_Down]

Many people who support the changes make the argument, effectively, that...

"The Joker has always sucked. Nolan is doing the right thing in turning him into a different character, heavily derivative of flavour-of-the-month horror movie villains".

Excuse me if I recommend that you all go away and become fans of a character that I don't care about, so I can join you in celebrating its corruption?

So you've gone ahead and put words into people's mouths and then martyred yourself because of those opinions that you yourself designated to other people?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Joker definitely needs to tell some crazy jokes and laugh at them himself, that's what he usually does. Heath should play the Joker as a homicidal maniac who finds his own jokes hilarious. I want to see him pull a sick gag, kill someone, then laugh for 30 seconds straight.

 

[regwec]

So you've gone ahead and put words into people's mouths

Yes, it was a caricature, as is completely obvious.

and then martyred yourself

No, I am still alive, thanks.

because of those opinions that you yourself designated to other people?

1) It is apparent that you don't know what "martyr" means.
2) It was a caricature, as is completely obvious.

 

[itsthebatman]

I have the wrists of a viking Huscarl.

I don't know what a Huscarl is, but I get what you mean.

 

[SpinyNorman]

I'm pretty tired of the "this element would not be realistic" argument. Listen, Begins wasn't realistic. It just pretended that it was. It had the attitude of realism.

Realism is more about execution than content. You can make a wide variety of things "realistic," or having the appearance of something that could happen, by simply portraying them in the right way.

 

[regwec]

I'm pretty tired of the "this element would not be realistic" argument. Listen, Begins wasn't realistic. It just pretended that it was. It had the attitude of realism.

Realism is more about execution than content. You can make a wide variety of things "realistic," or having the appearance of something that could happen, by simply portraying them in the right way.

A group of us have been saying this for around two years now. The fight goes on.

 

[TedKordLives]

I am apparently in a very small camp here in that I personally love the Joker, he's probably my favorite villain, from his origin, to his "goofy" years, to his more recent exploits, and I also absolutley love everything I've seen about his portrayal in this film. I look forward to Nolan's take on the Joker. I want him to be dark, twisted, murderous, and over-the-top insane. I think the first image is obviously doctored, firstly. The high contrast black and white, compared with the bright red simply give it a stronger graphical impact. I guarantee if that second picture was released first, way less people, love it or hate it, would have been talking about it so much. It's not as striking, though it is much more revealing. I don't think that making the Joker darker, and more disfigured makes him a "flavor of the month horror movie villain," and I also don't think it cheapens the character. As I said in a post on another thread, no one ever said this was the "definitive Batman," nor should it be. It's Nolan's interpretation of the character, and the world, just like Batman '89 and Batman Returns were Burton's. Let's not forget that Burton's Joker was almost 100% unfaithful to the comics as far as his origin and backstory are concerned. People don't seem to like that any less.

Personally, I like both interpretations. A lot of people say things like, "Well, no one's gotten the Joker right in the last 20 years," or "No one's gotten Bruce Wayne right since the 60's," but honestly, these characters have been around so long, through so many iterations by so many creators, that there is no "right way." There's "the way I like," and "the way I don't like," but like any opinion, it can't truly be called "right," or "wrong."

Honestly, would we want to define a character like the Joker so rigidly anyway? His madcap wit, the very essence of the character, defies standards, and so long as that is present (which it thus far has been, through all we have seen), then I for one will be happy; scars, no scars, make-up, chemical bath, whatever.

 

[SpinyNorman]

Probably the best way to have the Joker's origin never be explained would be by having Gordon and Batman just as confused about him as the audience. If you do that, well, that takes the whole issue out of the problem. You've had characters in the movie address the actual issue that the audience is having. Whether they solve it, well, that's up to the movie itself - whether or not to deliver closure has more to do with theme, character, and plot.

But, to me, having Gordon and Bats both surveying the Joker and saying, "I do not understand this," works fine.

The Joker is an question that has no answer. There's the old existential statement that man is eternally asking the world "Why?" and he receives no answer. Well, the Joker has provided the answer. It's a punchline whose summary could be said to be a shrug, a laugh, and "Just because."

You won't ever understand the world. You won't ever understand why you suffer. There won't ever be a good reason. There's just madness, just nothing.

That's the Joker. If he was human before then that person he was is long dead now, and belongs to a different era.

 

[TedKordLives]

Probably the best way to have the Joker's origin never be explained would be by having Gordon and Batman just as confused about him as the audience. If you do that, well, that takes the whole issue out of the problem. You've had characters in the movie address the actual issue that the audience is having. Whether they solve it, well, that's up to the movie itself - whether or not to deliver closure has more to do with theme, character, and plot.

But, to me, having Gordon and Bats both surveying the Joker and saying, "I do not understand this," works fine.

The Joker is an question that has no answer. There's the old existential statement that man is eternally asking the world "Why?" and he receives no answer. Well, the Joker has provided the answer. It's a punchline whose summary could be said to be a shrug, a laugh, and "Just because."

You won't ever understand the world. You won't ever understand why you suffer. There won't ever be a good reason. There's just madness, just nothing.

That's the Joker. If he was human before then that person he was is long dead now, and belongs to a different era.

I one hundred percent agree.

The Joker's not a guy who fell in a vat of chemicals, he's a guy who's lost his ****ing mind.

 

[regwec]

I am apparently in a very small camp here in that I personally love the Joker, he's probably my favorite villain, from his origin, to his "goofy" years, to his more recent exploits, and I also absolutley love everything I've seen about his portrayal in this film. I look forward to Nolan's take on the Joker. I want him to be dark, twisted, murderous, and over-the-top insane. I think the first image is obviously doctored, firstly. The high contrast black and white, compared with the bright red simply give it a stronger graphical impact. I guarantee if that second picture was released first, way less people, love it or hate it, would have been talking about it so much. It's not as striking, though it is much more revealing. I don't think that making the Joker darker, and more disfigured makes him a "flavor of the month horror movie villain," and I also don't think it cheapens the character. As I said in a post on another thread, no one ever said this was the "definitive Batman," nor should it be. It's Nolan's interpretation of the character, and the world, just like Batman '89 and Batman Returns were Burton's. Let's not forget that Burton's Joker was almost 100% unfaithful to the comics as far as his origin and backstory are concerned. People don't seem to like that any less.

Personally, I like both interpretations. A lot of people say things like, "Well, no one's gotten the Joker right in the last 20 years," or "No one's gotten Bruce Wayne right since the 60's," but honestly, these characters have been around so long, through so many iterations by so many creators, that there is no "right way." There's "the way I like," and "the way I don't like," but like any opinion, it can't truly be called "right," or "wrong."

Honestly, would we want to define a character like the Joker so rigidly anyway? His madcap wit, the very essence of the character, defies standards, and so long as that is present (which it thus far has been, through all we have seen), then I for one will be happy; scars, no scars, make-up, chemical bath, whatever.

That's all fine, but I do think that a man who applies makeup so that he looks like The Joker is a man pretending to be The Joker, rather than the beast itself. You may see that as a subtle shift, but I see it as fundamental.

And in what way was Nicholson's Joker "100% unfaithful to the comics"? I'd say it was about 80-90% faithful.

 

[Mr. Socko]

That's all fine, but I do think that a man who applies makeup so that he looks like The Joker is a man pretending to be The Joker, rather than the beast itself. You may see that as a subtle shift, but I see it as fundamental.

And in what way was Nicholson's Joker "100% unfaithful to the comics"? I'd say it was about 80-90% faithful.

Many Joker origins in comics now have Joker as a mob guy before he becomes the Joker. I agree with Alex Ross when he says if the Joker must have an origin, him already being a homicidal guy in the mob before he becomes the Joker is a much better origin than him being a comedian family man. Now from the looks of it, it seems like Heath's version is also a homicidal thief before he becomes the Joker.

The comedian thing is just a bit too cheesy for me.

 

[Penismightier]

That's all fine, but I do think that a man who applies makeup so that he looks like The Joker is a man pretending to be The Joker, rather than the beast itself. You may see that as a subtle shift, but I see it as fundamental.

And in what way was Nicholson's Joker "100% unfaithful to the comics"? I'd say it was about 80-90% faithful.

You are absolutely right, it's fundamental to the character. The whole point is that he's not a serial killer in clown makeup like John Wayne Gacy, the white face is a part of who he IS. In that world where a man dressed as a bat originally fights low level thugs, The Joker completely raises the stakes. Having him be a normal guy under the makeup takes away the mystery of the character. Who is he? Well, according to the new film, just spray his face with a hose to find out.

And Nicholson's Joker was pretty faithful. A detail like The Joker killing Bruce's parents may seem like a huge detail, but I could embrace that because Nicholson was just so faithful to everything the character represents.

 

[TedKordLives]

That's all fine, but I do think that a man who applies makeup so that he looks like The Joker is a man pretending to be The Joker, rather than the beast itself. You may see that as a subtle shift, but I see it as fundamental.

And in what way was Nicholson's Joker "100% unfaithful to the comics"? I'd say it was about 80-90% faithful.

Let me rephrase myself. Very little of his origin had any basis in the comics, save for the chemical vat. It is moreso his pre-Joker characterization that has very little basis in the comics.

On the other hand, one could argue that, since no "true" origin of the Joker has ever been accepted into canon, there's no accurate way to say that it was "innaccurate," but that just makes my point for me.

Concerning your "guy pretending to be the Joker" assertion, I think that is a flawed statement, as that is, essentially, what we will be watching. I think I see your point, but I assert the following: Ledger's Joker is obviously scarred, whether he's got permanent clown face or not, and he's obviously demented. I would like to ask you, would you rather he be a normal criminal with a permanent clown face, or a psychotic weirdo with a sick sense of humor who puts the paint on himself? Obviously, in an ideal situation, he would be a direct translation from the comic book, but that's obviously not what we're getting, and therefore, I pose the question, which is more endemic to the character? Which aspect more defines the Joker?

 

[regwec]

Concerning your "guy pretending to be the Joker" assertion, I think that is a flawed statement, as that is, essentially, what we will be watching.

Yes, really, I am aware that we will be watching actors in make-believe situations. It wasn't really necessary to remind me of that.

would like to ask you, would you rather he be a normal criminal with a permanent clown face, or a psychotic weirdo with a sick sense of humor who puts the paint on himself?

It doesn't have to be a choice. Why do you assume that the director has to get it wrong, one way or another?