The Dark Knight I guess joker just applies make-up after all

[The Shape]

The Joker being permawhite is unrealistic, fantastical, and doesn't fit in the slightest when placed in the real world.

The Joker applying make-up does.

People are complaining about this just like they were with the Scarecrow three years back. Let it go.

The Joker, as we know him from the comics, is not realistic. Falling in a vat of chemicals and coming out with bleached skin, green hair, and ruby red lips just doesn't happen. Nolan is sacrificing elements of the character so that the viewer can be further convinced and immersed in the world of Gotham City.

What would you rather have? A motion-picture set in the real world, with realistic characters and valid stories, or a motion-picture set in the fantastical realm of DC Comics, where characters are colorful, extravagant, and outrageous?

If you want the latter, then stop posting here, because you're not going to get it from Nolan.

Many do want the latter, though, and I don't think that's a problem. There are plenty of fans of each possible angle that can be taken.

 

[Closerframe]

As I said in my posts, when this "one man's vision" is probably the only one we're going to get for 20 years, can you really blame people for wanting to see in it a trait that's as old as the character itself?

It's not going to ruin the movie for me, but I can't help but thinking it would have been better, and a lot les controversial, if permawhite were included. Even many of the people who don't mind it say they would have liked permawhite.

After viewing Batman Begins three years ago, I knew Joker wouldn't be permawhite, I'm not saying it would be better if in fact he was permawhite in the new movie, because in all reality I don't know since the movie won't be released until July. I like the concept of taking a character into a new direction, I'm one of the few who says I like him better with make-up because it does make him seem more insane.

 

[The Joker]

The Joker being permawhite is unrealistic, fantastical, and doesn't fit in the slightest when placed in the real world.

Ninjas in the himilayas plotting the destruction of citys with microwave emitters and fear toxin does not fit in the slightest when placed in the real world.

NEXT!

 

[Charlie The Red]

And don't take offense when I say "stop posting here." I'm not trying to tell you guys to shut up or anything.

What I'm saying is, you're not getting what you want with this new film. It might be time to open up your minds and accept it, and move on. Be optimistic about it.

Sorry if there was any confusion.

 

[Charlie The Red]

Ninjas in the himilayas plotting the destruction of citys with microwave emitters and fear toxin does not fit in the slightest when placed in the real world.

NEXT!

Ninjitsu is a real martial art with historical validity.

People plot the destruction of cities all the time. I do recall a major attack on a city occuring, oh, seven years ago, some time in September. Maybe that was a dream?

NEXT!

 

[Closerframe]

The Joker being permawhite is unrealistic, fantastical, and doesn't fit in the slightest when placed in the real world.

The Joker applying make-up does.

People are complaining about this just like they were with the Scarecrow three years back. Let it go.

The Joker, as we know him from the comics, is not realistic. Falling in a vat of chemicals and coming out with bleached skin, green hair, and ruby red lips just doesn't happen. Nolan is sacrificing elements of the character so that the viewer can be further convinced and immersed in the world of Gotham City.

What would you rather have? A motion-picture set in the real world, with realistic characters and valid stories, or a motion-picture set in the fantastical realm of DC Comics, where characters are colorful, extravagant, and outrageous?

If you want the latter, then stop posting here, because you're not going to get it from Nolan.

I don't think Nolan intends this to be a real life drama. Don't forget Batman is a superhero, and The Dark Knight is still a superhero movie at heart. There were lots of things in Batman Begins that were unrealistic.

 

[The Shape]

Ninjitsu is a real martial art with historical validity.

People plot the destruction of cities all the time. I do recall a major attack on a city occuring, oh, seven years ago, some time in September. Maybe that was a dream?

NEXT!

True, but planes hitting a building can happen. Microwave emitters and fear toxin don't exists.

 

[The Joker]

Ninjitsu is a real martial art with historical validity.

But they don't sit in the Himilayas worrying and plotting about the balance of the world.

People plot the destruction of cities all the time. I do recall a major attack on a city occuring, oh, seven years ago, some time in September. Maybe that was a dream?

NEXT!

Chemicals that bleach your skin and hair very much exist.

Millionaires who dress up in capes and pointy eared cowls, and drive around in black tanks do not.

NEXT!

 

[Saint]

I'm not saying you can't complain all together it's just pointless since, the movie has already been filmed.

And yet you remain on the forum--despite the fact that nothing you say means anything, since the movie has already been filmed.

This is a discussion forum. We are here to discuss. Critical examination is a good a topic for discussion as any, and therefore there will be people who are critical of the film. It's not pointless, because it serves what everyone is here for: discussion. The only thing that's pointless is complaining about the fact that people are having conversations you don't like.

 

[StylishHokie21]

The Joker being permawhite is unrealistic, fantastical, and doesn't fit in the slightest when placed in the real world.

The Joker applying make-up does.

People are complaining about this just like they were with the Scarecrow three years back. Let it go.

The Joker, as we know him from the comics, is not realistic. Falling in a vat of chemicals and coming out with bleached skin, green hair, and ruby red lips just doesn't happen. Nolan is sacrificing elements of the character so that the viewer can be further convinced and immersed in the world of Gotham City.

What would you rather have? A motion-picture set in the real world, with realistic characters and valid stories, or a motion-picture set in the fantastical realm of DC Comics, where characters are colorful, extravagant, and outrageous?

If you want the latter, then stop posting here, because you're not going to get it from Nolan.

Nolan's film was far from realistic.

 

[Mister J]

And yet you remain on the forum--despite the fact that nothing you say means anything, since the movie has already been filmed.

This is a discussion forum. We are here to discuss. Critical examination is a good a topic for discussion as any, and therefore there will be people who are critical of the film. It's not pointless, because it serves what everyone is here for: discussion. The only thing that's pointless is complaining about the fact that people are having conversations you don't like.

Well said and sad that it still bears repeating, once again.

 

[TNC9852002]

True, but planes hitting a building can happen. Microwave emitters and fear toxin don't exists.

I'm pretty sure that there does exist similar devices.

-TNC

 

[SpiderB]

I find the fact that the man who becomes the Joker takes on this persona himself VERY interesting. In the comics/B'89, a man came out of a chemical bath with a completely clownish appearance and said..."Der, I'm da Joker now!" Now, I love that origin, and I don't dislike the perma-white aspect at all, but that's the Joker in a nutshell, without delving into all of the other psychological issues and all that.

In TDK, however, this man's face is scarred somehow across the mouth. This event, similar to the chemical bath, must have put this man straight over the edge. With his twisted smile, he takes on the persona of the Joker, but creating the clownish image himself, rather than having it completely bestowed upon him. The comic and TDK versions only truly lack similarities in their appearances, but their "origins", and the ideas behind them, are very close. The Joker from the comics is perma-white, and can never change that, just as TDK has perma-scars, which will never fade. And just as the Joker loves his ghastly white appearance in the comics, it appears TDK Joker loves his scars, otherwise he would seek a surgical solution.

So, in conclusion, I don't mind the change, because the heart of the character is still there. What makes it even more interesting for me is that the Joker's makeup essnetially becomes his new face. He never takes it off and lets it rot on him until it nearly looks permanent. However, he did remove it to impersonate the police officer, but I don't see that as being much different from the Joker putting on flesh-colored make-up to impersonate or blend in the comics or B'89. As I said, they look different, but the principle behind them remains the same.

And in response toone of nickyg's points, the Joker loves people looking like him. If he could, he would turn the whole world into a bunch of deranged clowns. That's why in the comics he has his Joker venom, and why his goons commonly wear clown masks. This remains the same in TDK, with Joker painting his face all over Harvey Dent posters, his victims, etc. I don't feel that he can be replicated, because it's not only his appearance that defines him, but his actions.

EXCELLENT post. You hit the nail on the head. This is a point I gave up trying to explain long ago. The makeup and the scar serve the exact same purpose as the permawhite/chemical bath. It's simply a more metaphorical or psychological take on it.

 

[The Shape]

EXCELLENT post. You hit the nail on the head. This is a point I gave up trying to explain long ago. The makeup and the scar serve the exact same purpose as the permawhite/chemical bath. It's simply a more metaphorical or psychological take on it.

Thank you. I agree that all of the psychological and metaphorical aspects are still clearly there, and they both have their own different disfigurments, but I think TDK is as good of a Joker as we could get. I really think the reason most people have a problem with the makeup is simply because his look is different from the comics. People don't like the grungy Joker, and that's fine. Everyone has their opinion, but when people complain that this isn't true to the character...well, that's simply not true.

 

[Sandouras]

Thank you. I agree that all of the psychological and metaphorical aspects are still clearly there, and they both have their own different disfigurments, but I think TDK is as good of a Joker as we could get. I really think the reason most people have a problem with the makeup is simply because his look is different from the comics. People don't like the grungy Joker, and that's fine. Everyone has their opinion, but when people complain that this isn't true to the character...well, that's simply not true.

"But its not like teh comics! This isnt the joker!!!! "


As if Jack was.

 

[Micah12345]

one my post in my epic thread

 

[Micah12345]

almost there

 

[Octoberist]

very close huh? how sad..

 

[The Shape]

To Mister J -- I think you might as well allow the creation of a sequel thread for this one. This is famous, and some great discussions (and really bad ones) have taken place in here. The next one should even keep the same classic title -- " I guess joker just applies make-up after all...part 2"

 

[Solidus]

Plus, and I've said this before many times, too, I agree that the comics shouldn't be absolute, indisputable, unchanging dogma, but this is the only Joker we're probably going to get for many years. Can you blame people for wanting something that represents the wider range of comic continuity?

And yea I think that many have not even given it the chance yet. I have a feeling when the movie comes out, new change is always seen with skepticism. That is normal and completely fine. But if it is a great role, which it seems clearly it may be, that in years people will love it, and care for it. And nothing wrong with that.

And do I blame people for wanting that something represents wider range of comic continuity? Not at all. Everyone may do so. But if we always do that, we may miss out on cool creative ideas and new directions for the characters we love.

And it seems this Joker will be well received and is well received. And of course not everyone. But I do not say that you can't want the permawhite. More power to ya. I see where you're coming from. And I do understand the sentiments completely.

 

[Luchastyle]

i don't think a sequel for this should be allowed =)

there's nothing more to say. but that's just me

 

[Crook]

Everyone may do so. But if we always do that, we may miss out on cool creative ideas and new directions for the characters we love.

Well duh.

On the other hand, one can argue that there must also be some sort of guideline or blueprint set, to prevent negative alterations/deviations. It's not a no-holds-barred, in name of creativity, type of situation. However, the debate is in what is within these guidelines. Which makes the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round...

 

[Luchastyle]

double post

 

[Mister J]

To Mister J -- I think you might as well allow the creation of a sequel thread for this one. This is famous, and some great discussions (and really bad ones) have taken place in here. The next one should even keep the same classic title -- " I guess joker just applies make-up after all...part 2"

I concur.

Initially, I thought a new title would be more befitting, but I like the 'continuity' of this name too. It depends on who starts it.

 

[Crook]

I concur.

Initially, I thought a new title would be more befitting, but I like the 'continuity' of this name too. It depends on who starts it.

If I had my way, it'd be:

"I guess we're still arguing about the make-up & permawhite after all"