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

[Luchastyle]

i've entered your sig =)


right, your definition was not up to scratch. and joker does not make his weapons for children to play with. he plays with them. he finds murder fun. it's like a hobby. they are toys to him. just as a mechanic might tool around with an old engine. it's a toy.

a toy doesn't have to me designed as a toy, it can be used as one. it's a general term. i agree with what you are saying, but i think you just chose the wrong wording.

(i wish you would add my table line to my quote though. =) that's what make it funny )

 

[Mr. Superhero]

right, your definition was not up to scratch. and joker does not make his weapons for children to play with. he plays with them. he finds murder fun. it's like a hobbies. they are toys to him. just as a mechanic might tool around with an old engine. it's a toy.

a toy doesn't have to me designed as a toy, it can be used as one. it's a general term. i agree with what you are saying, but i think you just chose the wrong wording.

A child can pick up a pencil and use it as a flying airplane, but that object was not intended to be a toy.

This is the main crux of the argument. A toy is defined by the purpose of it's creation. A toy is designed to be played with... not to kill people with.

You can kill someone with a plastic gun, but that gun is still a toy because it was originally intended to be a toy. It was originally intended to be a playful, harmless object.

It's really not that difficult to grasp. The Joker makes his objects, not to play with them in the true sense of the word -- but to kill people.

To intimidate people.

To burn skulls to smithereens.

That's the sole intention behind the creation of the acid-spewing flower. That is why it is made from proper acid-containing material, because it's one and only function is to contain acid so that he can burn people to roast chicken.

Again, it's not intended to be a playful object -- it merely takes the form and construct of a playful object, but it's real function is to kill... which differentiates itself from being a toy.

 

[Luchastyle]

kind of, but no. the joker doesn't play hopstotch and nintendo. he plays through torture and misery. violence is playing to him. so i think he thinks of them as toys =)

 

[regwec]

This discussion has warped out of recognition; whether you want to call The Joker's unconventional arsenal "toys" or "deadly jokes" doesn't matter. The fact is that he uses them and they are part of what defines him. If an eyewitness were asked to give a description of The Joker as a criminal entity, it would likely include such points as "white skin", "green hair", "purple suit" and "use of joke weaponry/deadly toys".

This obviously isn't a summary of his character, but it is a large proportion of what makes him recognizable- his fictional "identity".

 

[Luchastyle]

i know regwec, i just like making mr. superhero come up with more and more things to say. i don't mind it at all =)

i know it's a pointless, nonsensical argument and i have no idea how it started. i saw one post, cap'n responded to it, so i did too, and here we are. i don't even care either way. i just wanted to get a couple jokes in because it's 7:15 in the am, and i'm bored =)

 

[Mr. Superhero]

This discussion has warped out of recognition; whether you want to call The Joker's unconventional arsenal "toys" or "deadly jokes" doesn't matter. The fact is that he uses them and they are part of what defines him. If an eyewitness were asked to give a description of The Joker as a criminal entity, it would likely include such points as "white skin", "green hair", "purple suit" and "use of joke weaponry/deadly toys".

This obviously isn't a summary of his character, but it is a large proportion of what makes him recognizable- his fictional "identity".

Yet the Joker character can still be sold without the use of "unconventional weaponry". I keep referring back to TKJ as an example.

The best part of that book is when the Joker tries to drive Gordon insane. It's not his use of the electric buzzer that makes TKJ great -- it's his shooting of Barbara and then showing Gordon pictures of Barbara that makes it great, because that is a completely twisted thing to do.

Also, I often refer back to "Arkham Asylum" to show that the Joker can still be involved in a great story even without the use of unconventional weaponry.

He only uses guns in that book, yet it is renowned as one of the best Joker stories ever told.

I guess my point is to show that despite the Joker not using any of these "funny weapons" in TDK, he can still be involved in a great story. He can still be the Joker.

 

[Mr. Socko]

This discussion has warped out of recognition; whether you want to call The Joker's unconventional arsenal "toys" or "deadly jokes" doesn't matter. The fact is that he uses them and they are part of what defines him. If an eyewitness were asked to give a description of The Joker as a criminal entity, it would likely include such points as "white skin", "green hair", "purple suit" and "use of joke weaponry/deadly toys".

This obviously isn't a summary of his character, but it is a large proportion of what makes him recognizable- his fictional "identity".

Things like the acid flower and pop gun, even the 'perma-skin' have been with the character for the longest and I would have loved those inclusions, but the Joker can still be characterized in other ways. I see it as Christopher Nolan tore down the building blocks of the comic Joker, and built him back up piece by piece, using the foundation of the comics(purple suit, green hair, psychotic killer) but also adding new and different territory of his own(scarred smile, makeup appliance). I'll also add that this Joker is far more Batman #1, and if I recall correctly, Kane's original Joker wielded a knife in several panels of B#1-2 but didn't use the silly gags at all, which also adds upon the 'foundation' analogy, this Joker is more like the very first.

All I can say is, when I want the vintage type Joker, I will gladly watch Mask of the Phantasm and Batman'89. But this Joker is different, he's more like a real life killer would be, which is Nolan's entire point of grounding the characters. I got tired of complaining about what this Joker is missing, only to learn what this Joker is 'missing' is really intentionally gone for a reason. And this is coming from someone who likes the cartoon like Joker best. I am loving what Nolan and Heath have done, it is something new, it is something different. I can't just sit around mopping about what isn't there, I'm enjoying it for what it is. A darker, sadistic, even scarier version of The Joker who still retains many of the comic book elements.

I'm already sold on Heath's performance, it looks stunning, and this Joker could turn out to be an absolutely brilliant version, even an improvement in many areas. But there are some people who will hate it simply because it isn't exactly like the comics with a boxing gun and bow tie Joker. Batman Begins isn't 100% faithful but it captures the very essence of the caped crusader and is cinematically, the best comic film there is. I expect "The Dark Knight" to be the very same, only better. Let's appreciate this version of Batman for what it is, the very first representation of Batman and Joker as if they really were real while still retaining their comic book spirits.

So come on Reg, let's put a smile on that face

 

[Luchastyle]

you've been making more and more sense lately socko =)

 

[Mr. Superhero]

he's more like a real life killer would be

That is exactly right, Socko.

I would have said the same thing, but I feared a "realism" backlash.

Bottom line is that Nolan has tried to make the Joker as realistic as possible. He even based the Joker's clothing on what some punk rock artists would wear today, so I'm guessing that he has also based the Joker's weaponry on what your average terrorist would use nowadays.

And it doesn't matter that he doesn't have all these electric buzzers and tonnes of laughing gas locked away, because the character can still work, as it was proven in "The Killing Joke" and "Arkham Asylum." The character really doesn't need all of the unusual weaponry to be sold as a fascinating character.

THAT is why he is so much more than most other screen-villains.

 

[Eggyman]

you've been making more and more sense lately socko =)

Pssst, don't encourage him. Sense is frowned upon round here

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

Socko...Thats one heck of a post
I totally agree.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Things like the acid flower and pop gun, even the 'perma-skin' have been with the character for the longest and I would have loved those inclusions, but the Joker can still be characterized in other ways. I see it as Christopher Nolan tore down the building blocks of the comic Joker, and built him back up piece by piece, using the foundation of the comics(purple suit, green hair, psychotic killer) but also adding new and different territory of his own(scarred smile, makeup appliance). I'll also add that this Joker is far more Batman #1, and if I recall correctly, Kane's original Joker wielded a knife in several panels of B#1-2 but didn't use the silly gags at all, which also adds upon the 'foundation' analogy, this Joker is more like the very first.

All I can say is, when I want the vintage type Joker, I will gladly watch Mask of the Phantasm and Batman'89. But this Joker is different, he's more like a real life killer would be, which is Nolan's entire point of grounding the characters. I got tired of complaining about what this Joker is missing, only to learn what this Joker is 'missing' is really intentionally gone for a reason. And this is coming from someone who likes the cartoon like Joker best. I am loving what Nolan and Heath have done, it is something new, it is something different. I can't just sit around mopping about what isn't there, I'm enjoying it for what it is. A darker, sadistic, even scarier version of The Joker who still retains many of the comic book elements.

I'm already sold on Heath's performance, it looks stunning, and this Joker could turn out to be an absolutely brilliant version, even an improvement in many areas. But there are some people who will hate it simply because it isn't exactly like the comics with a boxing gun and bow tie Joker. Batman Begins isn't 100% faithful but it captures the very essence of the caped crusader and is cinematically, the best comic film there is. I expect "The Dark Knight" to be the very same, only better. Let's appreciate this version of Batman for what it is, the very first representation of Batman and Joker as if they really were real while still retaining their comic book spirits.

So come on Reg, let's put a smile on that face

Excellent post, Mr. Socko. I've tried making similar points before, but you word them so much better. Particularly on the first paragraph, with this "building blocks" idea. I think that's a very good interpretation of what Nolan is doing with The Joker. Stripping away much of the aspects of the character we've come to take for granted, to try and get a handle on the core of his motivations. Much like with "Begins"' ploy of introducing Gotham (familiar to us all as a Gothic nightscape) in bright daylight, it's a way of challenging our perceptions, and forcing us to look at something iconic in a new way.

 

[Solidus]

Things like the acid flower and pop gun, even the 'perma-skin' have been with the character for the longest and I would have loved those inclusions, but the Joker can still be characterized in other ways. I see it as Christopher Nolan tore down the building blocks of the comic Joker, and built him back up piece by piece, using the foundation of the comics(purple suit, green hair, psychotic killer) but also adding new and different territory of his own(scarred smile, makeup appliance). I'll also add that this Joker is far more Batman #1, and if I recall correctly, Kane's original Joker wielded a knife in several panels of B#1-2 but didn't use the silly gags at all, which also adds upon the 'foundation' analogy, this Joker is more like the very first.

All I can say is, when I want the vintage type Joker, I will gladly watch Mask of the Phantasm and Batman'89. But this Joker is different, he's more like a real life killer would be, which is Nolan's entire point of grounding the characters. I got tired of complaining about what this Joker is missing, only to learn what this Joker is 'missing' is really intentionally gone for a reason. And this is coming from someone who likes the cartoon like Joker best. I am loving what Nolan and Heath have done, it is something new, it is something different. I can't just sit around mopping about what isn't there, I'm enjoying it for what it is. A darker, sadistic, even scarier version of The Joker who still retains many of the comic book elements.

I'm already sold on Heath's performance, it looks stunning, and this Joker could turn out to be an absolutely brilliant version, even an improvement in many areas. But there are some people who will hate it simply because it isn't exactly like the comics with a boxing gun and bow tie Joker. Batman Begins isn't 100% faithful but it captures the very essence of the caped crusader and is cinematically, the best comic film there is. I expect "The Dark Knight" to be the very same, only better. Let's appreciate this version of Batman for what it is, the very first representation of Batman and Joker as if they really were real while still retaining their comic book spirits.

So come on Reg, let's put a smile on that face

Very well said. Like I said with my 3D talk how movies have another dimension that needs attending to, which is acting. And it brings another flavor to the characters that comics can never bring to life, thats why they use visuals/props to help explain the character more. Works wonderful for comics, but with movies you can do so much more.

Like Stan Lee said, you need to re-invent the characters, or people get bored of them. And the Joker has been re-invented tons of times for that reason. And yes Nolan has taken the old style of the Joker, tore it apart, and started anew, building it like blocks as Socko so wonderfully put it. He took core attributes and gave a fresh spin on the character, while keeping the spirit alive through Heath's acting abilities.

Well said Socko, well said.

 

[regwec]

Socko puts it very nicely, but in the end, it all boils down to the degree of attachment one felt to the comicbook original. I like him a lot, and have done so for many years, so I tend to think that efforts to improve him or absorb other pop-culture influences into his idiom are misguided. I'm sure what we'll get will be perfectly entertaining, but I will still long to see the character treated with more fidelity.

Others feel differently, and are glad of a reinvention. That's absolutely fine, and I applaud their open-mindedness. I object only when people like me are told that "The Joker has always been raggedy" or "there is no evidence that The Joker doesn't wear makeup in the comics" or "knives are The Joker's trademark weapons". These are all Nolan's inventions; he deserves credit for them if they work well, and blame for them if they don't. Let's all at least accept that the Nolan brother's have made their mark on the film fairly firmly.

I have said before that I wish DC would write the movies into comicbook continuity, as one of the 52 dimensions of the DCU. If the Batman of earth 44 wore a rubber wetsuit designed by Waynetech, and was trained in martial arts by Ra's al Ghul; and if he faced a clown-painted knife-fetishist called The Joker; then purests like me would have no reason to quibble and Nolanites wouldn't be forced to pretend that 70 years of comicbook tradition never happened.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

"knives are The Joker's trademark weapons".

And yet...

 

[regwec]

Yes, as we have discovered, he has used knives, though they do not compete with his less conventional arsenal to recieve consideration as his trademarks.

I notice that you have posted an image from "No Man's Land", where he is threatening a construction worker with a pair of scissors, prior to getting battered by Bane. Is it your contention that scissors are The Joker's trademark weapon?

Does anyone else want to revisit the last 20 pages?

 

[Solidus]

Peace and love guys. Peace and love!

 

[Beanjuice]

i think regwec has made his point so just drop the issue

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Yes, as we have discovered, he has used knives, though they do not compete with his less conventional arsenal to recieve consideration as his trademarks.

I notice that you have posted an image from "No Man's Land", where he is threatening a construction worker with a pair of scissors, prior to getting battered by Bane. Is it your contention that scissors are The Joker's trademark weapon?

Does anyone else want to revisit the last 20 pages?

OMG! How unreasonable can you get?

The picture clearly shows that the Joker has always used knives throughout his existence. Right the way down to the first ever interpretation of the character.

I'm not denying that electric buzzer's and laughing gas are not Joker trademark weapons, because they clearly are -- but so are knives and guns.

In "The Death In The Family", the Joker threatens to go wild with a nuclear missile. In "Arkham Asylum", the Joker goes crazy with a gun.

In "The Killing Joke", the Joker pulls out a knife from basically nowhere.

Yes, he has always used unconventional pieces of weaponry, but at the same time he has often used knives, guns and nuclear weapons.

And since Nolan has tried to make this Joker character as realistic as possible, then why would he not have dozens of knives stashed away?

If you don't want to accept that Joker has always used knives, throughout his existence, then fair enough. Don't accept it.

 

[Luchastyle]

i'd say one of the joker's most iconic uses of a weapon was of course the beating of jason todd with a crowbar. what's the difference what weapons joker uses? he hurts people. he hangs them, he stabs them, he shoots them, he beats them senseless, he uses his little gag weapons, he does it all. what's the difference?

 

[regwec]

I have "accepted" this about fifteen times in this thread, and always have known it to be the case. But our discussion was over whether they should be seen as his "trademark weapon". You position on this has at least shifted to acknowledge that his trademark weapons are his deadly toys or whatever you want to call them.

I can't make much sense of the rest of your post, and i'm not sure what you're really trying to argue against anymore.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

But our discussion was over whether they should be seen as his "trademark weapon"

Which is what I have been disputing.

How can knives not be one of Joker's trademark weapons if he's used them ever since he was first created?

 

[Magenta666]

Isn't there a thread specifically for Joker using knives?

 

[regwec]

I'll refer you to the Batman/swords debate a couple of pages back.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

*ahem* well...I guess the Joker just applies make-up after all...

Knives arent the subject...(I believe theres a thread)
but honestly...Why so Serious?