am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

[The Morningstar]

Nicholson didn't really need to "transform" himself like Ledger did though.

I think they are both great in different ways.

The idea that Jack's Joker wasn't homicidal or psychotic enough is nonsense. The guy electrocuted a guy to death then held a conversation with the charred remains. That was perfect balance of humorous and creepy.

I also think people overlook the significance of him nonchalantly shooting Bob. He was obviously his oldest friend, maybe only real friend, they probably came up in the mob together. Then he just shoots him like it was nothing.

 

[Batman jr.]

He didn't nail him as much as Heathcliff did, safe (maybe) for his "look", but that is course because we now have Mr. Realistic at the helm lol.

I do like Nicholson, and there are performances of him that are incredibly overlooked (The Passenger), but his Joker is more of a crazy acid taking maniac who listens to Prince.

 

[El Payaso]

He was the only live action Joker, apart from Romero, who was never a serious contender in the campy show.

So? Was Nicholson's acting any less good because of that? Would Ledger's performance be any better if there was no Nicholson's approach to compare?

I don't think he was just playing himself, but compared to Heath I think Heath obviously put more talent into the role. Heath was unrecognizable. If not for the Cop scene, you would never know Heath Ledger was in TDK. Face, voice, mannerisms. He nailed it.

Put that make-up on and tell me if you or anyone else would look recognizable.

And he changed his voice. How does that make anything better. I don't deny all the talent Ledger had in everything he did. But this concept of 'the more different the actor looks, the better acting' is just misplaced concepts. Was Hannibal Lecter any worse than Joker because you can see Hopkins's face?

I could still see and hear Jack when he was the Joker. He didn't change his voice. When he kept applying flesh toned make up it was easy to see Jack there with the Chelsea grin.

Oh the horror of it. You can see the actor. So how does that make his acting any worse?

I could see Bale's face and voice. Was his acting weaker than if he had prosthetics and a wig for Bruce Wayne?

Btw, I have to ask why you bumped such an old thread? It's 5 years old.

It's Superherohype forums.

Nicholson didn't really need to "transform" himself like Ledger did though.

Everyone involved thought of Nicholson precisely because he was the Joker already. Now he was supposed to have altered everything about him that was precisely thought to be pitch perfect for the role just to get some fan admiration.

I think they are both great in different ways.

Both stole the show just as the Joker is supposed to do and were highly praised.

The idea that Jack's Joker wasn't homicidal or psychotic enough is nonsense. The guy electrocuted a guy to death then held a conversation with the charred remains. That was perfect balance of humorous and creepy.

I also think people overlook the significance of him nonchalantly shooting Bob. He was obviously his oldest friend, maybe only real friend, they probably came up in the mob together. Then he just shoots him like it was nothing.

Pretty much everything he did mixed the psycho and the comedian just the way the classic Joker does.

I guess Cavill's Superman won't be as good as Reeve's simply because Reeve's was an unknown so audiences could believe he was actually Superman. Some fans could be saying, no, Reeve was better. When I saw Cavill's Superman I just saw a known actor.

 

[El Payaso]

He didn't nail him as much as Heathcliff did, safe (maybe) for his "look", but that is course because we now have Mr. Realistic at the helm lol.

I do like Nicholson, and there are performances of him that are incredibly overlooked (The Passenger), but his Joker is more of a crazy acid taking maniac who listens to Prince.

And I could describe Ledger as merely a 'facepainter anarchist.' Doesn't take anything from his acting though.

 

[The Joker]

So? Was Nicholson's acting any less good because of that? Would Ledger's performance be any better if there was no Nicholson's approach to compare?

You're missing the point. There was no competition for best live action Joker before Ledger because there was only Romero and Nicholson.

So saying he was the definitive on screen Joker before TDK is kind of moot since there wasn't exactly a rake of serious Jokers competing for that title. It's not like say it's James Bond, who had several actors play him.

Put that make-up on and tell me if you or anyone else would look recognizable.

Yes, I did. I dressed up as Ledger's Joker for two Halloweens and I still looked like me except with a white face and red lips lol.

I don't know how the make up artists on TDK pulled it off with such simple make up application, but to turn this:

into this:

was amazing. I can not see a trace of handsome boy Heath anywhere in there.

Whereas Jack can still be seen in that white make up. Especially when he's wearing the flesh toned make up for those long scenes he wears it in. Maybe Jack has a more distinctive face than Heath. I don't know, I can't put my finger on it. Maybe Heath's more grungy style of make up hides the face more than a straight on application of white make up.

But my point still stands. I can still see Jack in the role, but with Heath I can't see him at all. That for me helps make the more impressive of the two Jokers by looking and sounding like a whole different character.

And he changed his voice.

No, he didn't. He still sounded like Jack. Just more hyper. Case in point when he's talking to Grissom from the shadows before his reveal, there's no change in his vocals when he reveals himself as Joker. He just starts laughing it up when he starts shooting him.

I'm not knocking Jack's voice. Or his appearance. I'm just saying when it comes to him and Ledger, one literally transformed into the Joker in every way, while I could still see and hear the actor playing the other.

How does that make anything better. I don't deny all the talent Ledger had in everything he did. But this concept of 'the more different the actor looks, the better acting' is just misplaced concepts.

I'm not making that generalization. I'm talking about in regards to the Joker. I think the Joker should look and sound like a completely different person to the actor playing him.

I mean Mark Hamill doesn't sound like himself when he voices Joker.

Oh the horror of it. You can see the actor. So how does that make his acting any worse?

See above point.

It's Superherohype forums.

That doesn't explain why a five year old thread required a bumpage.

 

[Batman jr.]

And I could describe Ledger as merely a 'facepainter anarchist.' Doesn't take anything from his acting though.

You seem to completely overlook the fact that I said something about Ledger's appearance. And his voice does sound TOTALLY different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-B4NXW6bH8

Is it that hard to admit that Nicholson didn't do much to distinguish himself? It's actually an acid re-hash of The Shining if you ask me. But one that made him a *****load of money.

 

[Brain Damage]

I think Jack did a spectacular job as The Joker. He's funny, sadistic and a heck of a lot of fun to watch. But, it is very much Jack doing his thing, and it's clear to see. As Batman Jr said, the performance does bear a lot of resemblance to The Shining. That's not a bad thing it all, mind you, but it's just a different form of acting.

Heath completely lost himself in the character and it's nearly impossible to distinguish the actor for the entirety of the film. And no, it's not just about make up. Someone above mentioned Anthony Hopkins, but when I watch Silence of the Lambs, I don't see Anthony Hopkins, I see Hannibal Lecter. Same thing with Malcom McDonald as Alex in A Clockwork Orange.

Make up helps, yes, but if the acting chops aren't there, then all it is is cheap parlor tricks to conceal an actor's true identity.

When I watch TDK I see The Joker.
When I watch Batman I see Jack playing The Joker, and doing a damn fine job at it.

 

[Batman jr.]

I think Jack did a spectacular job as The Joker. He's funny, sadistic and a heck of a lot of fun to watch. But, it is very much Jack doing his thing, and it's clear to see. As Batman Jr said, the performance does bear a lot of resemblance to The Shining. That's not a bad thing it all, mind you, but it's just a different form of acting.

Heath completely lost himself in the character and it's nearly impossible to distinguish the actor for the entirety of the film. And no, it's not just about make up. Someone above mentioned Anthony Hopkins, but when I watch Silence of the Lambs, I don't see Anthony Hopkins, I see Hannibal Lecter. Same thing with Malcom McDonald as Alex in A Clockwork Orange.

Make up helps, yes, but if the acting chops aren't there, then all it is is cheap parlor tricks to conceal an actor's true identity.

When I watch TDK I see The Joker.
When I watch Batman I see Jack playing The Joker, and doing a damn fine job at it.

And Hopkins seems like a very nice Brit, so the contrast between him & Lecter is as big as between HL & his Joker. Nicholson is of course not insane, but he's a bad boy after all.

Which is why I like many of his movies haha.

Imagine a movie with Hopkins, Oldman & Ledger...

 

[Cain]

It wasn't just the make up for Ledger. It was the nuances in his facial mannerisms that really made it look like somebody completely different. People overlook that but you can make yourself look completely different based on the subtleties created by facial expressions. With that said; the only actor to ever give that amount of dedication to a complete physical transformation up until BATMAN outside of Peter Sellers was De Niro in Raging Bull.

It just wasn't really a giant commonality back then like it is today. A lot of leading men from the 70's and 80's like say a Nicholson or a Hackman, Heston, Bronson, McQueen Beatty, Redford, Pacino or Eastwood had certain characteristics that translated to every role.

Cause their performances were transformations on a more empathic level than it was on a physical one. So things like dramatically altering the voice or adopting a brand new walk weren't really priorities for actors then. Being able to properly and convincingly emote and bring a role to life emotionally was

There are still leading men today from late in the 80's like Denzel & Tom Cruise who very much still carry themselves this way. Doesn't make their amazing performances any less effective though it's just a different approach. I think based on his performance Jack dedicated the same amount of respect and love to the role that Heath did but since Jack isn't a method actor and Heath is people see it as "Jack being Jack".

The whole "chameleon" thing again was something De Niro really brought to more prominence with Raging Bull and then King of Comedy. After that we had guys like Daniel Day-Lewis in the late 80's start to approach all their roles the same way but before then it wasn't as common. That's definitely one thing I always keep in mind when contrasting both Jokers.

 

[Batman jr.]

It wasn't just the make up for Ledger. It was the nuances in his facial mannerisms that really made it look like somebody completely different. People overlook that but you can make yourself look completely different based on the subtleties created by facial expressions. With that said; the only actor to ever give that amount of dedication to a complete physical transformation up until BATMAN outside of Peter Sellers was De Niro in Raging Bull.

It just wasn't really a giant commonality back then like it is today. A lot of leading men from the 70's and 80's like say a Nicholson or a Hackman, Heston, Bronson, McQueen Beatty, Redford, Pacino or Eastwood had certain characteristics that translated to every role.

Cause their performances were transformations on a more empathic level than it was on a physical one. So things like dramatically altering the voice or adopting a brand new walk weren't really priorities for actors then. Being able to properly and convincingly emote and bring a role to life emotionally was

There are still leading men today from late in the 80's like Denzel & Tom Cruise who very much still carry themselves this way. Doesn't make their amazing performances any less effective though it's just a different approach. I think based on his performance Jack dedicated the same amount of respect and love to the role that Heath did but since Jack isn't a method actor and Heath is people see it as "Jack being Jack".

The whole "chameleon" thing again was something De Niro really brought to more prominence with Raging Bull and then King of Comedy. After that we had guys like Daniel Day-Lewis in the late 80's start to approach all their roles the same way but before then it wasn't as common. That's definitely one thing I always keep in mind when contrasting both Jokers.

Despite the fact that their careers have been mostly going downhill, especially De Niro's after 1995 or so, I'll always be a fan of him & Pacino. The latter gave one of his final great performances in Insomnia btw... t:

You can't forget their classic roles, benchmarks for all aspiring actors. Not that many others can claim that IMHO.

 

[Cain]

Despite the fact that their careers have been mostly going downhill, especially De Niro's after 1995 or so, I'll always be a fan of him & Pacino. The latter gave one of his final great performances in Insomnia btw... t:

You can't forget their classic roles, benchmarks for all aspiring actors. Not that many others can claim that IMHO.

He was even better in Angels in America and The Merchant of Venice.

I could never stop enjoying classic work by anybody involved in filmmaking just cause they fell off. That doesn't make their classic work any less classic. From Pacino and De Niro to Eddie Murphy, Francis Ford Coppolla and Tim Burton I can't say "oh I hate them" just because they now make mediocre to poor ****. It doesn't negate the existence of their masterpieces by any means.

But yeah even in BATMAN itself you see a case of a Peter Sellers or Laurence Olivier chameleon like method actor (Keaton) versus a more traditonally empathic one (Nicholson) in the vein of a Cary Grant or Humphrey Bogart and get to appreciate the strength of both approaches.

 

[El Payaso]

You're missing the point. There was no competition for best live action Joker before Ledger because there was only Romero and Nicholson.

So Nicholson had Romero befoe and somehow... you're saying Nicholson was the first one and had no one to be compared to?

So saying he was the definitive on screen Joker before TDK is kind of moot since there wasn't exactly a rake of serious Jokers competing for that title. It's not like say it's James Bond, who had several actors play him.

Okay. Nicholson had Romero to be compared to. But in your opinion Romero was not good or something, or he was bad enough so he was practically nothing. OR... Nicholson was just much better.

Yes, I did. I dressed up as Ledger's Joker for two Halloweens and I still looked like me except with a white face and red lips lol.

Oh, I did too. I went to a costume party like myself and said I needed the bathroom. When I came out even my old friends were gasping and looking at me like I was a ghost.

I don't know how the make up artists on TDK pulled it off with such simple make up application, but to turn this:

into this:

was amazing. I can not see a trace of handsome boy Heath anywhere in there.

I'll explain how it works:Make-up, in fact, covers your face and distorts it. Fact. Same as prothethics, which Ledger also used. Or are you saying that Ledger deformed his face tensing facial muscles?

Hollywood has a long tradition on wonderful make-up. I mean, have you ever seen "Monster" and how different Charlize Theron looked? And that's just one of many examples.

Somehow you're making it sound like a futuristic technology not yet available.

Whereas Jack can still be seen in that white make up. Especially when he's wearing the flesh toned make up for those long scenes he wears it in. Maybe Jack has a more distinctive face than Heath. I don't know, I can't put my finger on it. Maybe Heath's more grungy style of make up hides the face more than a straight on application of white make up.

Not only Jack's face is quite distinctive, but they also chose Jack because of the face and grin. How smart would have been covering the perfect face for the Joker making it look like someone else.

It would have been like choosing Willem Dafoe for Green Goblin and put a mask over his face. Oh wait---

But my point still stands. I can still see Jack in the role, but with Heath I can't see him at all. That for me helps make the more impressive of the two Jokers by looking and sounding like a whole different character.

A whole different character than who?

No, he didn't. He still sounded like Jack. Just more hyper. Case in point when he's talking to Grissom from the shadows before his reveal, there's no change in his vocals when he reveals himself as Joker. He just starts laughing it up when he starts shooting him.

I'm not knocking Jack's voice. Or his appearance. I'm just saying when it comes to him and Ledger, one literally transformed into the Joker in every way, while I could still see and hear the actor playing the other.

By "he changhed his voice" I meant Ledger. Since Ledger was the last one being mentuioned, any further "he" must be referring to him.

Again, Nicholson did not need much transformation because they chose him precisely because of how much he was the Joker already.

I'm not making that generalization. I'm talking about in regards to the Joker. I think the Joker should look and sound like a completely different person to the actor playing him.

I'm still waiting to hear what's the reasoning after this concept.

That doesn't explain why a five year old thread required a bumpage.

We have a thread about Spider-man's hair. It's SHH forums, those things just happen.

You seem to completely overlook the fact that I said something about Ledger's appearance. And his voice does sound TOTALLY different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-B4NXW6bH8

You seem to completely overlook the fact that I was referring to your description. Poor descriptions can be made about everything.

Is it that hard to admit that Nicholson didn't do much to distinguish himself? It's actually an acid re-hash of The Shining if you ask me. But one that made him a *****load of money.

Is it that hard to admit that Noicholson had all the correct face features to become the Joker without altering his face? That he was chosen because he had the right face and mannerisms?

He simply did not need to distinguish himself that much.

And please note that with the above statement I'm admitting he did not distinguish himself.

I think Jack did a spectacular job as The Joker. He's funny, sadistic and a heck of a lot of fun to watch. But, it is very much Jack doing his thing, and it's clear to see. As Batman Jr said, the performance does bear a lot of resemblance to The Shining. That's not a bad thing it all, mind you, but it's just a different form of acting.

Heath completely lost himself in the character and it's nearly impossible to distinguish the actor for the entirety of the film. And no, it's not just about make up. Someone above mentioned Anthony Hopkins, but when I watch Silence of the Lambs, I don't see Anthony Hopkins, I see Hannibal Lecter. Same thing with Malcom McDonald as Alex in A Clockwork Orange.

Make up helps, yes, but if the acting chops aren't there, then all it is is cheap parlor tricks to conceal an actor's true identity.

When I watch TDK I see The Joker.
When I watch Batman I see Jack playing The Joker, and doing a damn fine job at it.

I completely see Hopkins doing a damn fine job at being Hannibal Lecter. But his face is there. And I bet everything that if Hopkins had wore heavy make-up and/or prosthetics you could see less of Hopkins.

 

[Batman jr.]

Romero's take was silly, no more no less.

 

[elgaz]

Yes, I did. I dressed up as Ledger's Joker for two Halloweens and I still looked like me except with a white face and red lips lol.

I don't know how the make up artists on TDK pulled it off with such simple make up application, but to turn this:

into this:

was amazing. I can not see a trace of handsome boy Heath anywhere in there.

I have a very large hardback book detailing the 'Making of The Dark Knight', I won it in a competition. It's quite detailed and has some interesting facts and stories.

One of the things they covered is the various techniques they used for Ledger's makeup. They tried applying it normally (just white facepowder, black eyes, etc) but it just looked too normal and straight, exactly as it would if me or you put it on DIY style.

So they improvised. While applying the white makeup to Heath's forehead for example, he raised his eyebrows as high as he could to induce wrinkles in his forehead, then repeated this again and again as they applied and re-applied. The same with his chin and cheeks, and any other area of his face where he could make lines/wrinkles appear. This made the white makeup appear more layered and shaded than just plastering it on straight.

For the black area around his eyes, they used this technique again (scrunching his eyes) to create layers. Then they used a very fine water spray/mist to make it run very slightly.

There's lot of other little tricks also, but when they were all combined, they gave the makeup a much more effective (and sinister) look than it would have had. I must see if I can get the pages in question scanned in from the book.

 

[Brain Damage]

What exactly is the title of the book?
Sounds like a great read.

 

[elgaz]

Just dug it out there and dusted it off

It's called "The Dark Knight, Featuring Production Art and Full Shooting Script". It's a great book, has a lot of concept art in it too - different illustrations of some of the different Joker costumes they considered, for example.

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Knight-Featuring-Production-Shooting/dp/0789318121

Here's an excerpt:

"Our version of the Joker is drawn very much from the earliest of the comics, really the first couple of stories where the Joker appeared," Christopher Nolan reveals, and he gives credit to the brilliance of the late Heath Ledger in creating the role for The Dark Knight.

"The main quality was fearlessness. I was looking for an actor not afraid of comparisons with previous actors, not afraid of taking on such an iconic role, and someone with a really strong point of view on how they'd approach that. Heath had those qualities in spades."

Keeping with Christopher Nolan's wishes to make all aspects of Batman's world as realistic as possible, the make up team including Robb-King, John Caglione Jr., and Conor O'Sullivan did medial research to ensure the Joker's scarring looked genuine. "We didn't base it on any specific sort of injury; it was an amalgamation of things, and it came together really well," he says.

Prosthetic makeup artist Conor O'Sullivan points out that it was important to ground the Joker in reality rather than in complete fantasy. "The scarring was [designed] to give him the appearance of a smile, or leer, but also, it could be responsible for the character losing his mind, in a way" he says.

Applying the Joker makeup was a complicated but enjoyable process for Heath Ledger and makeup artist John Caglione Jr. "Heath would scrunch up his face in specific expressions, raising his forehead, and squinting his eyes, and I would paint on the white over his facial contortions," Caglione says. "This technique created textures and expressions that just painting the face one flat white would not. Then I used black makeup around Heath's eyes while he held them closed very tight, which created consistent facial features. Then after the black was on, I sprayed water over his eyes, and Heath would squeeze his eyes and shake his head side to side, and all this black drippy and smudgy stuff would happen. Doing Heath's makeup was like a dance."

 

[El Payaso]

Funny how Nolan mention that he wanted Ledger not to be afraid of being compared with previous actorS. Guess he did consider Romero.

 

[B4tman]

Jack was great and, but my favorite has to be Heath ledger, he was phenomenal.

 

[The Joker]

So Nicholson had Romero befoe and somehow... you're saying Nicholson was the first one and had no one to be compared to?

Correct. Heath and Jack are both serious approaches to the Joker. The homicidal maniac Joker. Romero was great, mustache sticking out on his upper lips make up and all, but he was campy Joker. Comparing him to Jack or Heath is like comparing Adam West to Keaton or Bale.

It's like comparing a horror movie to a comedy.

Okay. Nicholson had Romero to be compared to. But in your opinion Romero was not good or something, or he was bad enough so he was practically nothing. OR... Nicholson was just much better.

None of the above. It's that one was a total light hearted comedy approach while the other was a serious dark take on the Joker.

Oh, I did too. I went to a costume party like myself and said I needed the bathroom. When I came out even my old friends were gasping and looking at me like I was a ghost.

You must have done one hell of a make up job.

I'll explain how it works:Make-up, in fact, covers your face and distorts it. Fact.

That's a generalization. It depends on the type of make up, how much you use, and how you use it. Case in point, the make up used on Jack is very different to how Heath's was done.

The result was one actor still visible under the make up and the other looking like a different person.

Same as prothethics, which Ledger also used. Or are you saying that Ledger deformed his face tensing facial muscles?

I'll take that as a rhetorical question.

Hollywood has a long tradition on wonderful make-up.

I know. Look at Danny DeVito as The Penguin.

Somehow you're making it sound like a futuristic technology not yet available.

How am I doing that? I said it exactly for what it is. They put on some white make up, messily applied, too, onto a handsome Hollywood pretty boy like Heath Ledger, and made him looking like a psychotic clown who didn't look like Heath at all. Even in the scenes when it's smeared on his face.

Simple yet brilliant.

Not only Jack's face is quite distinctive, but they also chose Jack because of the face and grin. How smart would have been covering the perfect face for the Joker making it look like someone else.

Then that adds further explanation as to why he still looked like Jack in the make up. It was purposely done.

It would have been like choosing Willem Dafoe for Green Goblin and put a mask over his face. Oh wait---

As much as I hate Power Ranger Goblin, the character does wear a mask. But they could have gone with a prosthetic rubber mask that let Dafoe express his face.

A whole different character than who?

The actor playing them. I see and hear Jack when I watch him as Joker. I can't see or hear Heath when I watch him as Joker.

So for me Heath's Joker really feels like the Joker more because when I watch Jack in other roles, like The Shining or The Witches of Eastwick, I can see traces of his Joker style in there. I can't see anything of Heath's prior roles in his Joker performance. The guy vanished before my eyes into white make up and purple suit in TDK.

Again, Nicholson did not need much transformation because they chose him precisely because of how much he was the Joker already.

Well that's subjective.

I'm still waiting to hear what's the reasoning after this concept.

For the same reason Mark and Cesar changed their voices, they are playing a character who is as different from the norm as you can get. He is literally a whole new persona. Much like Batman when he puts on his mask.

Danny did it for the Penguin. He didn't look like Danny and he complimented his performance by coming up with a voice to match the look. Gary Oldman when he played Dracula is another example that springs to mind. He didn't look like Gary, and he didn't sound like Gary:

For me this is how characters like the Joker should be done. They should feel like unique entities on screen. Let me clarify again this not a knock on Jack. For what they were going for with him it was perfect.

But my preference is the Joker who feels like a guy you've never seen before.

We have a thread about Spider-man's hair. It's SHH forums, those things just happen.

I....don't see why a thread about Spider-Man's hair explains someone going back five years into the archives to resurrect a thread like this.

At least Spidey's hair is relevant to his dorky appearance. Why OutRiddled decided to go fishing for this thread, and it must have taken some hunting to get one from 5 years ago, is beyond me.

 

[The Joker]

Just dug it out there and dusted it off

It's called "The Dark Knight, Featuring Production Art and Full Shooting Script". It's a great book, has a lot of concept art in it too - different illustrations of some of the different Joker costumes they considered, for example.

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Knight-Featuring-Production-Shooting/dp/0789318121

Here's an excerpt:

Many thanks for posting that. The make up application sounds like a real hoot. Especially when he shook his head after the water was sprayed on his eyes lol.

 

[El Payaso]

Correct. Heath and Jack are both serious approaches to the Joker. The homicidal maniac Joker. Romero was great, mustache sticking out on his upper lips make up and all, but he was campy Joker. Comparing him to Jack or Heath is like comparing Adam West to Keaton or Bale.

It's like comparing a horror movie to a comedy.

It's like comparing Ledger's approach to Nicholson's. Gangster in a fantasy world vs terrorist from a real world version.

None of the above. It's that one was a total light hearted comedy approach while the other was a serious dark take on the Joker.

You mean they were really different takes. Much as Nicholson and Ledger.

Nicholson was not supposed to be 100% serious. Nor to be grounded in a real life referent, like Ledger was with current terrorism.

You must have done one hell of a make up job.

Barely.

But I know who did a terrific make-up job: the guys from TDK with Ledger.

That's a generalization. It depends on the type of make up, how much you use, and how you use it. Case in point, the make up used on Jack is very different to how Heath's was done.

The result was one actor still visible under the make up and the other looking like a different person.

Which was my whole point. The make-up made Ledger unrecognizable.

I'll take that as a rhetorical question.

No. If you have an answer, share please.

You said tyhat it wasn't the make-up that made Ledger unrercognizable but his talent ("I think Heath obviously put more talent into the role. Heath was unrecognizable.") because you 'didn't know how the make up artists on TDK pulled it off with such simple make up application, but to turn this (...) into this."

So, if it wasn't the make-up who made Ledger's face look different, then what was it?

I know. Look at Danny DeVito as The Penguin.

Then you know it's the make-up. Good.

How am I doing that? I said it exactly for what it is. They put on some white make up, messily applied, too, onto a handsome Hollywood pretty boy like Heath Ledger, and made him looking like a psychotic clown who didn't look like Heath at all. Even in the scenes when it's smeared on his face.

Simple yet brilliant.

Oh, so you do know how the did it. You said you didn't know.

Then that adds further explanation as to why he still looked like Jack in the make up. It was purposely done.

Yes. I said so before: "Everyone involved thought of Nicholson precisely because he was the Joker already."
"Is it that hard to admit that Nicholson had all the correct face features to become the Joker without altering his face? That he was chosen because he had the right face and mannerisms?"

As much as I hate Power Ranger Goblin, the character does wear a mask. But they could have gone with a prosthetic rubber mask that let Dafoe express his face.

Exactly. Raimi's decision was incredibly poor.

The actor playing them. I see and hear Jack when I watch him as Joker. I can't see or hear Heath when I watch him as Joker.

So for me Heath's Joker really feels like the Joker more because when I watch Jack in other roles, like The Shining or The Witches of Eastwick, I can see traces of his Joker style in there. I can't see anything of Heath's prior roles in his Joker performance. The guy vanished before my eyes into white make up and purple suit in TDK.

As I have said to death, Jack Nicholson had the Joker persona inside of him. You give evidence of this because he always had this cackling maniac thing going on before he was chosen to be the Joker in B89.

Will Smith had to train for like a year in order to become Muhammad Ali. If they had chosen a beefed up black actor instead, this actor wouldn't have had to train that much. He looked like Ali already. In your reasoning, Will Smith's acting is better because he looked so different from his regular look.

Well that's subjective.

Almost everything is.

Nevertheless:

They said on the 2005 dvd extras that they just took Jack's grin and expanded it, because his smile was what they were looking for.

For the same reason Mark and Cesar changed their voices, they are playing a character who is as different from the norm as you can get. He is literally a whole new persona. Much like Batman when he puts on his mask.

Nicholson's character was pretty much out of the norm, and quite different from his Jack Napier, who never smiled and was more of a silent guy.

Danny did it for the Penguin. He didn't look like Danny and he complimented his performance by coming up with a voice to match the look. Gary Oldman when he played Dracula is another example that springs to mind. He didn't look like Gary, and he didn't sound like Gary:

For me this is how characters like the Joker should be done. They should feel like unique entities on screen. Let me clarify again this not a knock on Jack. For what they were going for with him it was perfect.

But my preference is the Joker who feels like a guy you've never seen before.

Never saw Nicholson with white make-up, green hair and that distorted smile before.

I....don't see why a thread about Spider-Man's hair explains someone going back five years into the archives to resurrect a thread like this.

Ok, time to explain the sarcasm: it doesn't actually explain anything. They're things that just happen here. And they're not against any rules. And as this thread was bumped, a bunch of people that includes you were pretty much interested in posting.

At least Spidey's hair is relevant to his dorky appearance. Why OutRiddled decided to go fishing for this thread, and it must have taken some hunting to get one from 5 years ago, is beyond me.

Which makes it more fascinating.

 

[The Joker]

It's like comparing Ledger's approach to Nicholson's. Gangster in a fantasy world vs terrorist from a real world version.

No, they are both serious approaches to the Joker done with different styles. But serious nonetheless.

Romero is different in every way from tone, to style, to approach.

You mean they were really different takes. Much as Nicholson and Ledger.

See above point.

Nicholson was not supposed to be 100% serious. Nor to be grounded in a real life referent, like Ledger was with current terrorism.

You're arguing semantics.

Which was my whole point. The make-up made Ledger unrecognizable.

Along with changing his voice and his whole acting style and mannerisms. Every facet of him vanished into that role.

I can't say the same for Jack which is why I find Heath a more impressive Joker.

No. If you have an answer, share please.

You said tyhat it wasn't the make-up that made Ledger unrercognizable but his talent ("I think Heath obviously put more talent into the role. Heath was unrecognizable.") because you 'didn't know how the make up artists on TDK pulled it off with such simple make up application, but to turn this (...) into this."

So, if it wasn't the make-up who made Ledger's face look different, then what was it?

Re-read my comments that you quoted and you'll see the answer to your question.

I never said once that the make up didn't help transform him. I said I didn't know how such a simple make up application caused such an effective transformation.

Then you know it's the make-up. Good.

Part of it, yes. Voice and performance also included.

Oh, so you do know how the did it. You said you didn't know.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Obviously I know they applied make up onto Heath. I said I don't know how such simple make up application was so effective in transforming him completely to look completely unrecognizable.

Yes. I said so before: "Everyone involved thought of Nicholson precisely because he was the Joker already."
"Is it that hard to admit that Nicholson had all the correct face features to become the Joker without altering his face? That he was chosen because he had the right face and mannerisms?"

Thanks for clarifying that Jack looking like Jack was done on purpose. It would be worse if they attempted to make him feel different and had failed.

As I have said to death, Jack Nicholson had the Joker persona inside of him. You give evidence of this because he always had this cackling maniac thing going on before he was chosen to be the Joker in B89.

No, Jack had a Joker persona they wanted. Meaning similar style that he had done in previous movies like The Shining or The Witches of Eastwick. That kind of crazy quirky character you could see in his Joker performance.

Will Smith had to train for like a year in order to become Muhammad Ali. If they had chosen a beefed up black actor instead, this actor wouldn't have had to train that much. He looked like Ali already. In your reasoning, Will Smith's acting is better because he looked so different from his regular look.

Darn right. All credit to Will for physically altering himself and selling the performance, too. That is a mark of great acting than someone who supposedly already "had it inside them".

Almost everything is.

Nevertheless

Nevertheless what? Uma Thurman looked identical to comic book Ivy. The look alone doesn't make it right.

They said on the 2005 dvd extras that they just took Jack's grin and expanded it, because his smile was what they were looking for.

So they hired him based on his smile then?

Nicholson's character was pretty much out of the norm, and quite different from his Jack Napier, who never smiled and was more of a silent guy.

His methods and energy level was different, but you could still see and hear Jack.

Never saw Nicholson with white make-up, green hair and that distorted smile before.

Semantics. You're talking about a costume, not a performance.

Ok, time to explain the sarcasm: it doesn't actually explain anything. They're things that just happen here. And they're not against any rules. And as this thread was bumped, a bunch of people that includes you were pretty much interested in posting.

I never said they were against the rules, and citing previous pointless happenings doesn't negate the question of why someone would do it.

Which makes it more fascinating.

Eh I think you're easily fascinated lol

 

[Brother Jack]

I've always thought Nicholson essentially played a heightened version of himself long before I saw TDK. It was and is a very entertaining and appropriate performance but it wasn't the type of role in which the actor really transforms. That's what Ledger did, regardless of the specific characterization. And the relatively minimal makeup used with Ledger I think is a great testament to that, because Nicholson was covered in makeup and still looked like himself (which again, isn't a bad thing).

 

[Brain Damage]

Just dug it out there and dusted it off

It's called "The Dark Knight, Featuring Production Art and Full Shooting Script". It's a great book, has a lot of concept art in it too - different illustrations of some of the different Joker costumes they considered, for example.

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Knight-Featuring-Production-Shooting/dp/0789318121

Here's an excerpt:

Thank you! I remember actually browsing through this at Borders not long after TDK came out.

Would you say it's worth the price tag?

 

[OutRiddled]

I've always thought Nicholson essentially played a heightened version of himself long before I saw TDK. It was and is a very entertaining and appropriate performance but it wasn't the type of role in which the actor really transforms. That's what Ledger did, regardless of the specific characterization. And the relatively minimal makeup used with Ledger I think is a great testament to that, because Nicholson was covered in makeup and still looked like himself (which again, isn't a bad thing).

If you watch Jack in interviews, he doesn't act like Joker, so I don't know what you mean by "heightened version of himself".

Also, do you really think he (Jack Nicholson) looks like himself with the Joker makeup? He does have a more distinctive face than Ledger, but I don't see how he still "looks like himself". I just don't see it: