Realism and believability is fine when it's characters like Rahs, Penguin, Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Ventriloquist, Firefly, and others but a character like The Joker---is pure fantasy. What Nolan has done with him to me is just took a serial killer, gave him "war paint" as one of the bank robbers in the prologue describes him, and that's it. He's Joker in name and his actions only, but he's not really Joker with the makeup face. The hair and the suit make him Joker, but his appearance does not make him Joker.
Of course, however it's all been accepted here and elsewhere that this new Joker just wears makeup and lipstick. That's great and all but Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow wasn't a totally devoid or divergence from the original source. All he did was wear a suitcoat. Who knows maybe in the end, Joker will fall in a vat of chemicals and come out bleached and looking like regular old Joker but I think realism and believability is fine when it should be applied. I like that Nolan made Batman seem like a real guy who could do all these things, his Batmobile turned Tumbler was a good take; having it be a high-powered humvee/tank.
I like that his Gotham City looks like a mix of Detroit, New York, and Chicago but I fine sooner or later the "Nolanverse" will hurt future Batman films if Nolan is not behind the helm. Look at "Batman: Gotham Knight", Manbat and Killer Croc are in it. Two fantasy villains in a movie that's suppose to be a prequel to "The Dark Knight" but a sequel to "Batman Begins." Is that how it's going to be---that the cartoon movies can only have the fantasy villains but the live-action ones can't? And when Nolan leaves the Batman films and a new director comes behind the camera, he'll be compared and even ridiculed because he didn't do this or that to fit with the "Nolanverse."
People have got to start thinking about these things because if Nolan leaves we may have another Schumacher fiasco on our hands. I know Warner Bros. will try and keep Nolan on the ride for as long as possible and get another director who will try and continue his vision but remember whenever a new director or new writers come in they try to inject their own ideas and thoughts into where the movie should go and the story as well.
I still do not enjoy seeing Heath's Joker not being perma-clowned because I am a fan of canon and Joker's mythos but I do give Heath the credit for capturing Joker's intensity, his chastisement and unlawfulness, and his whimsical charm. I like the voice he has given him and the laugh but the look will always be a disappointment to me. I feel Nolan got lazy and just didn't want to make a remake of "Batman 89'" and instead going a different realistic route and having Joker be albino or maybe just a guy who has a lost of pigment in his skin, instead he's just a regular guy with a cut smile who wears makeup. Oh well.... I'm sure Heath's performance will be nothing but outstanding but like I said the face and appearance will always be a misstep and a disappointment and if this Joker appearance crosses over to future cartoons or other medium than I feel that studios, companies, and the writers will just accept to throw the fantasy out and let realism in and no longer are we watching a "comic book superhero film" perse' but a "comic book drama." If you get my drift.
How is the Joker pure fantasy?
He is a bleached guy in the comics, outside of that he has no super powers. He is just a Man, like Batman. Take away "make-up" and put in "chemical bleaching" and you have the same man. A mass murderer that looks like a clown.
That is what TDK Joker is. WTF?
What I have always liked about the good Batman characters is that they felt like they could truly exist. If you had enough money to buy the tech and had a death wish, you could be Batman. If you had a horrifyingly bad day that turned you clown-like (chemicals, scars) then you could become the Joker. If you were a corrupt scientist working on hallucinogens, then you could be Scarecrow.
While the makeup is more artistic license, I very much like the fact that stressed Joker is human and that people could actually do that. Just be really screwed in the head, get a Chelsea smile and paint your face.
Besides, it would not be too different from the wackos we already have now.
Also, I remember people crying "back in the day" during '89 how the suit was not blue and gray, why did he had an impossible gas gun instead of a Batarang, why cast Keaton, why is Harvey Dent black, why is Gordon not part of the story and a big fat man, why does the Batmobile look like a tombstone in stead of a modified sports car, why is the Joker's face a result of plastic surgery than just a natural wide grin, why is Bruce now just as crazy and an evil killer like the Joker is, and WTF is Joker now have a past and killed the Wayne's instead of Joe Chill? BE FAITHFUL TO THE COMICS YOU BURTON HACK!
Now people worship the movie like it is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
In fact, I think this Joker is more like the Frank Miller Joker and the old Detective Comics one than other versions. Speaking of that, yes, there are many different versions of the Joker. In fact, the only "acid bath" one was in "The Killing Joke" which is a stand alone comic and NOT part of continuity. The Joker really has no past, nobody really knows why his skin is so white.
So once again, WTF is the problem?
