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

[LegendaryCaleb]

Seriously, listen to yourselves..."he has permawhite skin, but then he wears flesh color to look normal...but then he wears make up over that to make himself look like a clown!"...do you have any idea how absolutely ******ed that sounds, and would be?

itd be as stupid as the bat nipples....

 

[TheBatman072]

I believe that he wears flesh make-up over white skin, to act behind-the-scenes. His mouth is cut, he starts to go crazy, and the make-up slowly deteriorates. Revealing the white underneath. But to everybody else, it just looks like he's a normal guy wearing white make-up.

 

[Darkness Falls]

itd be as stupid as the bat nipples....

(head Explodes)

 

[Nivek]

Seriously, listen to yourselves..."he has permawhite skin, but then he wears flesh color to look normal...but then he wears make up over that to make himself look like a clown!"...do you have any idea how absolutely ******ed that sounds, and would be?

The really sad thing is how totally oblivious they sound when they point out these facts that point toward Perma-white. Unfortunately, the same "facts" show he is wearing make-up.

There are no stages, the Joker is not layered, he's a guy wearing clown gresepaint over a (horribly executed) Chelsa-grin. Just deal with like everyone else. It's okay to admit to being disappointed and let down by Nolans apparent take on the Joker. bUt the longer some of you drag out this Perma-white thing, the more pathetic and stupid you look.

 

[Nepenthes]

Seriously, listen to yourselves..."he has permawhite skin, but then he wears flesh color to look normal...but then he wears make up over that to make himself look like a clown!"...do you have any idea how absolutely ******ed that sounds, and would be?

It definitely sounds stupid at first but not when you consider the type of gags and schemes Joker likes to pull (smiley fish?) along with his vanity, revenge motives, ego, etc. It makes a crazy sort of sense to disguise yourself while projecting a heightened self-image at the same time. And when it's revealed it won't seem stupid it retrospect, it will make sense in terms of the plot and it will be a window into Jokers tactics and mindset. And would be alot more 'mysterious' than a psycho in clown paint.

the more pathetic and stupid you look.

looks like someone needs to step back a little

 

[LexCorp]

It sounds stupid but not when you consider the type of gags and schemes Joker likes to pull (smiley fish?) along with his vanity, revenge motives, ego, etc. It makes a crazy sort of sense to disguise yourself while projecting a heightened self-image at the same time. And when it's revealed it won't seem stupid it retrospect, it will make sense in terms of the plot and it will be a window into Jokers tactics and mindset. And would be alot more 'mysterious' than a psycho in clown paint.






looks like someone needs to step back a little

Is the joker face crap still going on...

There are better threads on here put your energies somewhere else.

 

[Keyser Soze]

You just completely destroyed your whole arguement.


By your logic, if I acted EXACTLY like the Joker, and put white face-paint on and went out doing exactly what he does, then I'm the Joker?

Or how about this. If some guy in the comics just decided that he wanted to throw on some white face-paint, dye his hair green, and go out commiting crimes and such(which has already happened), does THAT make that guy the Joker?

No.

Joker's most defining characteristic IS the perma-white. Yeah, anybody can LOOK like the Joker, but as you said, nobody can scar and unscar themselves, so nobody can BE the Joker.

I don't see how I "destroyed my own argument" at all. I was talking about the most distinct "facial characteristic" of The Joker, as opposed to Two-Face. It was a very specific part of a discussion - verging on an off-topic tangent - about how the instantly recognisable characteristic of Joker's face when you look at it is that it's white, something that The Joker (not "anyone") could feasibly achieve through make-up. I wasn't even talking about the characterisation at this point. So either you misread my post, or you're deliberately taking it out of context.

But let me respond to your facetious question with another facetious question. If when I say, The Joker can apply white make-up and still be The Joker, this translates to "ANYONE can apply white make-up and still be The Joker", does this mean that YOU are saying that, if I were to bleach my skin white, THAT would instantly make me The Joker?

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Is the joker face crap still going on...

There are better threads on here put your energies somewhere else.

Yeah, the make-up/disguise back and forth can get old, because nobody really knows the truth. Some people look at the pictures and see one thing, I look at them and see what I want to (white skin).

But really, this thread is about what elements of the character of The Joker make the character who he is. Some say that he can be a great Joker without white skin, others think the white skin is fundamental. There's been some good discussion about this topic, so why knock us for that?

Also: Clay, that was pretty cool. I hope you're right. And while makeup over makeup wouldn't make sense to us, it seems like the kind of thing the Joker would find hilarious.

 

[LexCorp]

Yeah, the make-up/disguise back and forth can get old, because nobody really knows the truth. Some people look at the pictures and see one thing, I look at them and see what I want to (white skin).

But really, this thread is about what elements of the character of The Joker make the character who he is. Some say that he can be a great Joker without white skin, others think the white skin is fundamental. There's been some good discussion about this topic, so why knock us for that?

Also: Clay, that was pretty cool. I hope you're right. And while makeup over makeup wouldn't make sense to us, it seems like the kind of thing the Joker would find hilarious.

I didn't mean to knock I just felt it goes down to such a silly level sometimes because the face issue means so little to me.

 

[Nepenthes]

Is the joker face crap still going on...

There are better threads on here put your energies somewhere else.

yeah i'll mind my own energies thanks

 

[LexCorp]

yeah i'll mind my own energies thanks

lol

Sorry I guess I did come off a bit harsh there.

 

[Feste]

The really sad thing is how totally oblivious they sound when they point out these facts that point toward Perma-white. Unfortunately, the same "facts" show he is wearing make-up.

There are no stages, the Joker is not layered, he's a guy wearing clown gresepaint over a (horribly executed) Chelsa-grin. Just deal with like everyone else. It's okay to admit to being disappointed and let down by Nolans apparent take on the Joker. bUt the longer some of you drag out this Perma-white thing, the more pathetic and stupid you look.

I like your way of thinking - it's, IMO, along the lines of "stop saying things that don't fit me... it's ok to admit I am right... If you don't admit I am right you are stupid - because I have figured it all out and I'm smart..."

I personally belive that there's at least one thing more pathetic than people grasping the thin (or not) hope about a particular idea. That thing is people attacking other people's beliefs - not arguing, but attacking. You have not offered any valuable argumentation to support your point of view - and from where I stand, that's quite... funny.
Have you ever heard about different perceptions? What's so obvious to you, might not be as obvious to me or anyone else. If you wish to change that perception and convince anyone that your point of view is the right one - offer some argumentation that can be analysed and evaluated. That's what Mr.Clay did (quite impressively, I must add - splendid experiment, Mr. Clay ). That's what most of us do here every day.
Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion, right? They can express it, augment it with a relevant argumentation, discuss and even argue about opinions of others that they do not share. But there should be mutual respect. The ammo in this battle should have some merit - accusations and derogatory terms are... well, blanks. If you hit someone with them - it'll hurt. But that's just it.
Do you really wan't to hurt someone in the course of presenting your point of view to us? I certainly hope not.
Notice - this place is called a "discussion board".
And I belive, that this "perma - white thing" will not die on anyone's demand. Make up is somehow involved in Joker's case - yes. But the way it is involved is still opened to discussion, IMO. Mr. Clay presented plausible argument. It's not true perhaps( for some even the word is "probably") but it's valid. And that shows that there's room for discussion. And thee will be room for discussion, IMO, untill it's confirmed by the right people, that Joker wears make up.
And I'm sorry if someone thinks this post is unnecessary - I just had to. I'm all for a heated debate - I've had a few in my life. But I really can't be silent, if someone attacks instead of discussing.
Hope you'll understand.

 

[Nepenthes]

lol

Sorry I guess I did come off a bit harsh there.

ha yeah okay

And trust me i know what you mean, this thread is frustrating at best. but there's life in it yet! Watch, this will go to 1000 pages....

and depending on your point of view an issue like the Jokers skin can tie into his entire characterization, a big part of him is his appearance and 'performances'. So for some of us it's hardly a trivial issue.

The main reason I hold out hope for permawhite>flesh disguise>make-up is that to me, it's a perfectly typical Joker scheme that could highlight much about the character while also being a useful plot device. It's not so much about being unfaithful to the comics, rather it just seems like a great opportunity. Mess with our assumptions and perceptions regarding the Joker, baffle Batman, create some mystery, etc.

 

[Matchbox]

I like your way of thinking - it's, IMO, along the lines of "stop saying things that don't fit me... it's ok to admit I am right... If you don't admit I am right you are stupid - because I have figured it all out and I'm smart..."

I personally belive that there's at least one thing more pathetic than people grasping the thin (or not) hope about a particular idea. That thing is people attacking other people's beliefs - not arguing, but attacking. You have not offered any valuable argumentation to support your point of view - and from where I stand, that's quite... funny.
Have you ever heard about different perceptions? What's so obvious to you, might not be as obvious to me or anyone else. If you wish to change that perception and convince anyone that your point of view is the right one - offer some argumentation that can be analysed and evaluated. That's what Mr.Clay did (quite impressively, I must add - splendid experiment, Mr. Clay ). That's what most of us do here every day.
Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion, right? They can express it, augment it with a relevant argumentation, discuss and even argue about opinions of others that they do not share. But there should be mutual respect. The ammo in this battle should have some merit - accusations and derogatory terms are... well, blanks. If you hit someone with them - it'll hurt. But that's just it.
Do you really wan't to hurt someone in the course of presenting your point of view to us? I certainly hope not.
Notice - this place is called a "discussion board".
And I belive, that this "perma - white thing" will not die on anyone's demand. Make up is somehow involved in Joker's case - yes. But the way it is involved is still opened to discussion, IMO. Mr. Clay presented plausible argument. It's not true perhaps( for some even the word is "probably") but it's valid. And that shows that there's room for discussion. And thee will be room for discussion, IMO, untill it's confirmed by the right people, that Joker wears make up.
And I'm sorry if someone thinks this post is unnecessary - I just had to. I'm all for a heated debate - I've had a few in my life. But I really can't be silent, if someone attacks instead of discussing.
Hope you'll understand.

Great post, feste. I agree completely. A lot of people here really need to understand that nothing is confirmed yet. Myself and others have said this over and over--but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. For me, I have several pieces of evidence that point to The Joker being permanently white. (I also realize that there is evidence that supports the makeup theory as well) However, I also have a belief that Nolan has something up his sleeve for us regarding The Joker--just a gut feeling. So yeah...I believe The Joker is permanently white. What I will not do is call other people "pathetic" or "stupid" or "lame" for believing any differently. Why? Because I actually have respect for people and think before I post something. There are some posters here that should try that.

-Matchbox

 

[Mercurius]

Except Jason and Michael are both mute - serious, silent serial killers.

Giving The Joker permawhite skin and a cut-smile doesn't take away from his "complexity". It's up to the writing, the direction, and Ledger's portrayal to nail the character, and make it true to The Joker.

As for him losing the "ambiguity", I don't really see how this is an issue. Even in the comics, The Joker is supposed to be frightening. Look at art by Jim Lee, or Tim Sale, or Dave McKean, or even Brian Bolland, and tell me that he DOESN'T look "deranged".

The permawhite is not such a problem, the way I see it.

The cut-smile is a problem, for the reasons already presented (loss of the smile peculiarity, possible comparisons with desfigured Two-Face, etc).

Ledger is a magnificent actor, one of the best to-day. Nolan is a very smart filmmaker. No problem at all about both things, that get me hyped.

Bolland's Joker has some distortions here and there, mostly in the nightmare sequence. The rest of it he is quite the well-dressed freak, which is one of his distinguishing features. No pasty schizoid hair, for instance.

McKean's version has two very important ideas for us to observe in a discussion:

a) Arkham Asylum's graphic novel is a visual depiction of that particular house through the mind of the mad. Batman is a shadow, everything in that book is a metaphor;

b) It comes when the characters have their stories absolutely well-known and established, even playing with this common general knowledge.

What I think will be lost in ambiguity is exactly what happens in The Killing Joke: Batman is fooled by a false Joker in the Asylum; Gordon surprised by Joker's unpredictable surge of madness.

There is nothing unpredictable when the man himself looks like a living dead with a huge scar. He IS what his face tells us he is. And that's it.

As I said before, I don't think it will harm our pleasure with the great movie awaiting us, and another impressive Ledger's perfomance.

But I suppose we'll feel the Joker is not all we could expect from the character, again.

 

[Feste]

Very well written post, Mercurius It's also my opinion that Joker is not that well established in a film medium to justify the need for change...
and yes, some of possible concept are lost with the introduction of scars and make up. In my view the goal that the crew wants to achieve here is making Joker look strictly corresponding to the state of his mind. He is not a "clown at midnight" right now - in a sense, that the perception of the clown differs depending on a person and that proverbial time of the day This version of Joker is meant to be just scary due to his looks - regardless of who and when faces him.
IMO - it's a bit dissapointing.
but yeah - the movie can still be a pleasure.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Seriously, listen to yourselves..."he has permawhite skin, but then he wears flesh color to look normal...but then he wears make up over that to make himself look like a clown!"...do you have any idea how absolutely ******ed that sounds, and would be?

I agree, that's a pretty stupid and contrived idea. Anjow brought it up as one of his source's 'theories.' I don't think we've seen him since.

 

[Octoberist]

with all due respect to Anjow, in the long run, he's just a fan like and me. In term of sources, he doesn't have the connection to get to the right people sometimes.

 

[bobguy64]

I agree, that's a pretty stupid and contrived idea. Anjow brought it up as one of his source's 'theories.' I don't think we've seen him since.

Of course, if these 'sources' were really 'sources', they'd have facts and not theories.




.

 

[CaptainClown]

I like your way of thinking - it's, IMO, along the lines of "stop saying things that don't fit me... it's ok to admit I am right... If you don't admit I am right you are stupid - because I have figured it all out and I'm smart..."

I personally belive that there's at least one thing more pathetic than people grasping the thin (or not) hope about a particular idea. That thing is people attacking other people's beliefs - not arguing, but attacking. You have not offered any valuable argumentation to support your point of view - and from where I stand, that's quite... funny.
Have you ever heard about different perceptions? What's so obvious to you, might not be as obvious to me or anyone else. If you wish to change that perception and convince anyone that your point of view is the right one - offer some argumentation that can be analysed and evaluated. That's what Mr.Clay did (quite impressively, I must add - splendid experiment, Mr. Clay ). That's what most of us do here every day.
Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion, right? They can express it, augment it with a relevant argumentation, discuss and even argue about opinions of others that they do not share. But there should be mutual respect. The ammo in this battle should have some merit - accusations and derogatory terms are... well, blanks. If you hit someone with them - it'll hurt. But that's just it.
Do you really wan't to hurt someone in the course of presenting your point of view to us? I certainly hope not.
Notice - this place is called a "discussion board".
And I belive, that this "perma - white thing" will not die on anyone's demand. Make up is somehow involved in Joker's case - yes. But the way it is involved is still opened to discussion, IMO. Mr. Clay presented plausible argument. It's not true perhaps( for some even the word is "probably") but it's valid. And that shows that there's room for discussion. And thee will be room for discussion, IMO, untill it's confirmed by the right people, that Joker wears make up.
And I'm sorry if someone thinks this post is unnecessary - I just had to. I'm all for a heated debate - I've had a few in my life. But I really can't be silent, if someone attacks instead of discussing.
Hope you'll understand.

well said.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Of course, if these 'sources' were really 'sources', they'd have facts and not theories.

.

That's exactly what I said to him. He's right about a lot of stuff, but I don't believe anything when it comes to him knowing if Joker is perma-white or not. Last time I saw him on the boards, he said his source had a 'theory' that Joker applies several layers of makeup. Everyone in the thread said it was a terrible idea and about 2 hours later he came back and said his second source had another 'theory' stating the Joker has a perma-white face but his neck and body are flesh colored.

 

[CristoTheSecond]

The permawhite is not such a problem, the way I see it.

The cut-smile is a problem, for the reasons already presented (loss of the smile peculiarity, possible comparisons with desfigured Two-Face, etc).

Ledger is a magnificent actor, one of the best to-day. Nolan is a very smart filmmaker. No problem at all about both things, that get me hyped.

Bolland's Joker has some distortions here and there, mostly in the nightmare sequence. The rest of it he is quite the well-dressed freak, which is one of his distinguishing features. No pasty schizoid hair, for instance.

McKean's version has two very important ideas for us to observe in a discussion:

a) Arkham Asylum's graphic novel is a visual depiction of that particular house through the mind of the mad. Batman is a shadow, everything in that book is a metaphor;

b) It comes when the characters have their stories absolutely well-known and established, even playing with this common general knowledge.

What I think will be lost in ambiguity is exactly what happens in The Killing Joke: Batman is fooled by a false Joker in the Asylum; Gordon surprised by Joker's unpredictable surge of madness.

There is nothing unpredictable when the man himself looks like a living dead with a huge scar. He IS what his face tells us he is. And that's it.

As I said before, I don't think it will harm our pleasure with the great movie awaiting us, and another impressive Ledger's perfomance.

But I suppose we'll feel the Joker is not all we could expect from the character, again.

Basically, make-up and a cut smile pisses off everybody.

 

[bobguy64]

Basically, make-up and a cut smile pisses off everybody.

Nah, not everybody.

I've seen so many 'Joker auditions' on youtube, it just makes me love the 'cut smile' or 'scarred smile' even more.

A guy in whiteface is just a guy in whiteface, IMO. I think the 'permasmile' approach is needed for a big screen Joker to work.

Besides, I don't think Ledger's scars are as bad as we first thought. If he can cover them up to disguise himself as a cop, they can't be that blatant.



.

 

[bobguy64]

That's exactly what I said to him. He's right about a lot of stuff, but I don't believe anything when it comes to him knowing if Joker is perma-white or not. Last time I saw him on the boards, he said his source had a 'theory' that Joker applies several layers of makeup. Everyone in the thread said it was a terrible idea and about 2 hours later he came back and said his second source had another 'theory' stating the Joker has a perma-white face but his neck and body are flesh colored.

Oh, yes. I remember.

Somebody claims to have seen 'white hands', and then all the backwards justifying began.

 

[The Joker]

Seriously, listen to yourselves..."he has permawhite skin, but then he wears flesh color to look normal...but then he wears make up over that to make himself look like a clown!"...do you have any idea how absolutely ******ed that sounds, and would be?

I have to agree!