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

[TedKordLives]

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.



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

Well, I'm not, I'm judging by what I've seen of the character. From what I have seen, which is the same stuff most of the people on this forum have seen, we're getting a lot of the characterization, with little of the origin. Personally, I'd prefer bleached skin, but if it doesn't happen, it won't really ruin the character for me, especially not in this movie. My question was more of a hyopthetical either/or. My point was, which is more important, as a matter of opinion? Personally, I'd prefer the psychopath in clown paint to the normal guy with bleached skin, but ideally, he'd be the best of both those worlds.

As far as the "pretending" bit, obviously my response was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I would like to point out that there's no way that, if in the world of the film, there is no other Joker, there's no way Heath's portrayal can be a guy pretending to be the Joker. Again, I get that that's not your point, but my rebuttal is that, as a fictional character who has undergone many such interpretations as subject to the world of the story being told, and the people telling it, there's not really a right or wrong Joker. There's the Joker you expect, and the Joker you want, but sometimes there's also the Joker you get.

 

[Penismightier]

Well, I'm not, I'm judging by what I've seen of the character. From what I have seen, which is the same stuff most of the people on this forum have seen, we're getting a lot of the characterization, with little of the origin. Personally, I'd prefer bleached skin, but if it doesn't happen, it won't really ruin the character for me, especially not in this movie. My question was more of a hyopthetical either/or. My point was, which is more important, as a matter of opinion? Personally, I'd prefer the psychopath in clown paint to the normal guy with bleached skin, but ideally, he'd be the best of both those worlds.

As far as the "pretending" bit, obviously my response was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I would like to point out that there's no way that, if in the world of the film, there is no other Joker, there's no way Heath's portrayal can be a guy pretending to be the Joker. Again, I get that that's not your point, but my rebuttal is that, as a fictional character who has undergone many such interpretations as subject to the world of the story being told, and the people telling it, there's not really a right or wrong Joker. There's the Joker you expect, and the Joker you want, but sometimes there's also the Joker you get.

By that logic I could make a movie where I cast, I don't know, Jim Nabors as Othello. Sure, it's new and exciting and not what people expect, and of course it isn't wrong. I agree that there is no right or wrong way to portray a character. But completely ignoring years of tradition and how the character has been portrayed isn't exactly right either. That was an extreme example above, but I think it gets the point across.

 

[TedKordLives]

By that logic I could make a movie where I cast, I don't know, Jim Nabors as Othello. Sure, it's new and exciting and not what people expect, and of course it isn't wrong. I agree that there is no right or wrong way to portray a character. But completely ignoring years of tradition and how the character has been portrayed isn't exactly right either. That was an extreme example above, but I think it gets the point across.

But my point is that I don't see that as happening here. The real truth is, we don't know what the Joker's gonna be like. We don't know his film origin, or if he'll even have one. And, obviously, just as I feel that there's not necessarily a right or wrong to an interpretation of a character, just a like or dislike of that interpretation, whether anyone likes or dislikes the Joker as he will appear in this film is entirely a matter of opinion, and can't be right or wrong. Here's a close example of my feelings on the character.

In the Spider-Man films, Peter Parker has webs that come out of his arms organically. I think that's stupid, and I think it's unecessary. I think it takes away from the character, because it diminishes Peter's genius in developing and building webshooters. The webshooters were the element of Spider-Man that showed Peter's intelligence and ingenuity. However, I quickly got over that fact when Spider-Man was webslinging, and as the film went on, I stopped noticing, because the character I was seeing on film was, in all other ways, my Spider-Man, the wise-cracking underdog who never got the girl even when he got the girl. Web-shooters didn't seem as important compared to that stuff.

To that end, I will be dissapointed if TDK's Joker is not the "classic" Joker, and doesn't have bleached skin, but I'm willing to bet I'll forget all about that when he's laughing at his own demented jokes and marauding around Gotham. You know, being the Joker.

 

[Sun_Down]

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

It's apparent you don't know what "cariacature" means. Because it doesn't mean "whine and act indignant, then assert you were only kidding when someone calls you on it".

 

[BurtonBegan]

"You can't always get what you want"

haha, the joker could be singing this to Maggie:

'I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she was gonna meet her connection
At her feet was her footloose man'

then, stab stab stab, maggie snuffs it, achieving his favourite colour 'cherry red'...

I believe in Keith Richards

 

[rubinator]

http://imageshack.us
Shot at 2007-07-30

Shot at 2007-07-30

Looking at this face it looks like he has scars next to his lips that make it look like he is smiling but i like the jack nichlson joker better

 

[Mr. Socko]

Well, I'm not, I'm judging by what I've seen of the character. From what I have seen, which is the same stuff most of the people on this forum have seen, we're getting a lot of the characterization, with little of the origin. Personally, I'd prefer bleached skin, but if it doesn't happen, it won't really ruin the character for me, especially not in this movie. My question was more of a hyopthetical either/or. My point was, which is more important, as a matter of opinion? Personally, I'd prefer the psychopath in clown paint to the normal guy with bleached skin, but ideally, he'd be the best of both those worlds.

As far as the "pretending" bit, obviously my response was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I would like to point out that there's no way that, if in the world of the film, there is no other Joker, there's no way Heath's portrayal can be a guy pretending to be the Joker. Again, I get that that's not your point, but my rebuttal is that, as a fictional character who has undergone many such interpretations as subject to the world of the story being told, and the people telling it, there's not really a right or wrong Joker. There's the Joker you expect, and the Joker you want, but sometimes there's also the Joker you get.

Joker has never, in any incarnation been a normal guy with bleach skin. Nor has he been a psychopath in clown paint.

What's wrong with a psychopath with bleached skin...y'know, the way he's most famous for?

 

[Jacobhiggins]

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?

There has been no change, you will see joker looking like both of those pictures in the movie. His appearence changes and probablly gets worse as the movie progresses!

 

[Jacobhiggins]

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.

In Nolans universe your not going to get what you hope for. Maybe if they make another Batman franchise you will get it, but you not in the next movies!

 

[El Payaso]

In Nolans universe your not going to get what you hope for.

sig worthy

 

[Changeling]

haha, the joker could be singing this to Maggie:

'I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she was gonna meet her connection
At her feet was her footloose man'

then, stab stab stab, maggie snuffs it, achieving his favourite colour 'cherry red'...

I believe in Keith Richards

lol thats a kewl idea but creepy

 

[Penismightier]

Joker has never, in any incarnation been a normal guy with bleach skin. Nor has he been a psychopath in clown paint.

What's wrong with a psychopath with bleached skin...y'know, the way he's most famous for?

It's sad that you and regwec are just so spot on about, well, everything involving The Joker and yet there is still much arguing. I'll probably get banned or at least censored for saying the following, but it really needs to be said for the people who blindly think Nolan is wonderful, despite evidence of him corrupting a beloved character. And thus I say:

People who do blindly follow Nolan, stop metaphorically blowing him for a moment and think, that maybe, just maybe, he could potentially be wrong. Everyone makes mistakes. And twisting an iconic character to the point where he has no meaning would qualify as a mistake.

 

[gwynplaine]

Nolan and Ledger probably tryed a lot of different approachs before settling on what we are getting now. They always said that their take on the character would be darker than the previous incarnations. There was really no reason or artistic value in doing something remotely close to Jack's work or anyone before him, and they probably would have suffered from the comparison.
Ledger is a great actor and Nolan a fantastic director, a lot of people, me included, are putting their trust in them, if only because they have the b***s to try something different.

 

[TedKordLives]

Joker has never, in any incarnation been a normal guy with bleach skin. Nor has he been a psychopath in clown paint.

What's wrong with a psychopath with bleached skin...y'know, the way he's most famous for?

You're absolutely correct, and I agree with you. However, what I was saying was, "If these are our only options, I'll glad choose this one."

And to Penismightier, I love the Joker. He's my favorite villain, and he has been for 20 years. I've seen him in so many incarnations, and through the eyes of so many different creators, that I guess I have no problem with seeing Chris Nolan's take on the character, too. My opinion is that, from what I've seen so far, there's enough of the Joker that I've always loved to make me excited about this film, and because of that, I trust that Nolan will tell a compelling story involving his vision of the character. As I've said over and over and over, this is NOT supposed to be the "Definitive" Joker. It's the same thing we've gotten with everything else in Batman Begins, and with what we've seen of TDK, it's one artist's take on a character with a diverse history, and I'm fine with that.

 

[Penismightier]

I think of Favreau and Downey on Iron Man and how in interviews they say they have a lot of respect for the character and it's history and they want to bring that character to the big screen in the right way.

Then I read interviews with Ledger. I get a vibe of contempt for the genre and medium as a whole. I don't know about anyone else, but I want the actor playing The Joker to have, if not admiration, at least respect for the medium in which they originated.

Honestly, if I were directing a Batman movie, or any comic book movie for that matter, I would think about the creator and all of the writers through the years. Who am I, and in a sense, who is Chris Nolan to disregard The Joker to the extent where he has no meaning anymore? No movie adaptation of Batman will be definitive, but still, have some respect for all those writers and artists that came before you.

It takes a lot of hubris to make drastic changes to a character that iconic, on both Nolan's and Ledger's part. Anyone can have the balls to go new places with characters, it takes talent to do it well and to make the characters still have the same meaning and resonance.

 

[gwynplaine]

Wait and see. You haven't seen nothing yet. And I don't really care what Ledger is like in real life, I don't hang out with him. I just want him to shine between Action ! and Cut! And hopefully scare the s**t out of me on screen.

 

[TedKordLives]

To be fair, we really have no idea how much Nolan's Joker will or won't coincide with the comics. Furthermore, I really can't imagine how Joker wearing make-up instead of having bleached skin will "disregard the Joker to the extent that he has no meaning anymore."

Anyway, Bruce Wayne training to be a ninja with Ra's al-Ghul is pretty far off from how he came to be Batman in the comics, and that doesn't "remove all meaning" from the character, or the portrayal. As far as Nolan's "reverence" for comics, have you ever read Year One? Aside from the Ra's al-Ghul/Scarecrow stuff, that IS Batman Begins!

 

[GoogleMe94]

personally, from looking at that photo with rachel dawes, that looks almost nothing like the Joker, at least the one i know. then again, the scarecrow looked nothing like his comic counterpart except the mask.

 

[regwec]

There has been no change, you will see joker looking like both of those pictures in the movie. His appearence changes and probablly gets worse as the movie progresses!

If it gets worse rather than better, then it's an even bigger change. The Joker is not Darkman, nor is he a Zombie.

 

[SpinyNorman]

I think of Favreau and Downey on Iron Man and how in interviews they say they have a lot of respect for the character and it's history and they want to bring that character to the big screen in the right way.

Then I read interviews with Ledger. I get a vibe of contempt for the genre and medium as a whole. I don't know about anyone else, but I want the actor playing The Joker to have, if not admiration, at least respect for the medium in which they originated.

What gives you that impression? I haven't gotten that impression at all.

So far, everyone who's seen him do the role has been flipping out over it.

 

[Mr. Socko]

If it gets worse rather than better, then it's an even bigger change. The Joker is not Darkman, nor is he a Zombie.

Of'course not.......... Ra's Al Ghul is Darkman!

 

[regwec]

It's apparent you don't know what "cariacature" means. Because it doesn't mean "whine and act indignant, then assert you were only kidding when someone calls you on it".

It is apparent that you don't know what caricature means, or how to spell it, nor do you have any ability to perceive humour.

 

[sasquatchs]

If it's a disguise it seems quite fitting to me that he can't quite keep it up to the same standard, as Batman starts to foil his plans

 

[Penismightier]

Furthermore, I really can't imagine how Joker wearing make-up instead of having bleached skin will "disregard the Joker to the extent that he has no meaning anymore."

Yes, it does. The entire theme of the character is that one bad day and that accident turn him into The Joker. And that while Batman can take off his cowl and become Bruce Wayne, Joker cannot. There, that's the meaning and theme of the character summed up.

And, while Bruce Wayne training with the ninjas was a departure from the comics, the meaning of the character was intact because he was still doing it because his parents were killed. That's an example of how changes from the comics work in movies. They still retain meaning in their characters and advance through the plot of the movie. I'll even go further and say the training in the movie was actually more fleshed out than the comics.

Batman Begins was undoubtedly extremely accurate to Year One. The aesthetics of Gotham were really my only complaint about Begins, which is a very small complaint. However, this is a totally different film in which the actor playing The Joker seems to have no respect for the history of his character. And the director, who had a huge say in who was cast, seems to be taking it in a direction that completely disregards anything the comics established.

I think it all come down to this question I have for Nolan and Ledger, if The Joker indeed does apply makeup:
What is the significance of him putting on makeup? And no, it's not because that's what the plot calls for or because the guy thinks its really cool to scare the crap out of people when he's committing crimes by wearing makeup. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but to disregard the character's theme better equal a reason that is equal to the comics.

 

[gwynplaine]

We see tons of very faithful Jokers on Youtube and they mostly suck. I'd rather see talented people try something different and daring (and still in the spirit of the character) . The most important thing, just like when representing a living being on screen is to capture the essence of the character. It feels like that's what Nolan and Ledger are going for. But once again we don't know anything. Think positive.