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

What do you think of the latest pic of heath ledger as mista J?

  • Yes its fine that he's a regualr guy that applies white make-up

  • No because his skin should be bleached like its always been


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't like the way Burton twisted the Joker, making him the killer of the Waynes, this "You made me!" business. Absolute bollocks, but Nolan has taken a realistic approach the Joker, he just is. Its like Hannibal Lecter, he was better before we had the backstory I don't need to know about his family. We don't want to know how the Joker got those scares or why he wears make up, that his business. Batman is different, if Bruce's parents weren't killed he could have easily ended up the dumb playboy act he does so well.
 
Im still cautious Joker seems written well for TDK im just not sure about Ledger himself i dont want to be watching scenes and think to myself "thats so fake" thats the feeling i get when i hear the voice so far but thats only a few clips in a big film so im still optimistic.

I think it will take a few years after the film to truely dissect it BB was touted as gods presence on earth by some upoun its release a film that was absolutely perfect in all ways but its (many) flaws have started to be discussed in mature manner later down the line disscussions not dominated by fanboys calling people not totally happy with the movie scum and other unflattering names the same for TDK i think.

I dunno, I think with "Batman Begins", its great popularity has worked against it in certain circles. I think it is the pedestal many comic fans have put it on that has encouraged its critics to be a lot harder on it than they are on other comic book movies. In my perspective, "Begins" has only got better with age.
 
I dunno, I think with "Batman Begins", its great popularity has worked against it in certain circles. I think it is the pedestal many comic fans have put it on that has encouraged its critics to be a lot harder on it than they are on other comic book movies. In my perspective, "Begins" has only got better with age.

I agree. The thing about Begins, though, is that it wasn't a typical comic book movie, which really worked for it. My family actually rented the movie and my mom (who is not a big comic movie fan) came in about 15 minutes in, and she had no idea it was a Batman movie (until the obvious bits came up)....and surprisingly she enjoyed it.

I agree that people have put the film up on a pedestal, but looking at comic movies such as Fantastic Four and even Spider-man, there's still that comic-booky feel to them. Begins took the genre and kinda re-defined it in a way, which worked for it. But whether or not people like that is all a matter of taste i guess....like we see on these boards, not everyone loves the whole "gritty realism" take.
 
I liked Batman Begins and agree that it stands out simply because of how it treats the material but I have to agree that it is given far too much praise.
 
I dunno, I think with "Batman Begins", its great popularity has worked against it in certain circles. I think it is the pedestal many comic fans have put it on that has encouraged its critics to be a lot harder on it than they are on other comic book movies. In my perspective, "Begins" has only got better with age.
Actually, with time I've begun to see how scattershot the last act is, but yeah, the good bits only get better with age. :yay:

I think BB was limited by its summer blockbuster status, since if they had something a bit more intimate for the third act and utilized Nolan's neo-noir thriller abilities more, it would have come out better than it already is. But man, I love the second act so much. It was certainly the Batman movie I had been waiting my entire life to see, and I wasn't even a fan of the comic books back then.
 
I personally am a "perma-white" supporter and I see many people who originally were kinda mad when they saw the first photo changing their minds after seeing the teaser, Ledger's death, and the overall hype of his performance.

Well, I want to say right here and now that I think it will be the best acting as the Joker that we have ever seen...but even that doesn't remove my qualms with the look. I'm still holding out for some semblance of perma-white because that was a major part of the Joker for me personally.
 
It's not really that important to me. I'm more concerned with how he's portrayed & not if the make-up is permanent or not.
 
I've been thinking about this for a long time, and while I'm not going to vote until I see the film, I think it's fine Nolan didn't even give Joker vitiligo. Lest we forget, in Alan Moore's story the Joker suggest his past might be one possibility of his deluded mind, and the Joker's origin was not set in stone for almost 40 years.

Now I recognise what makes Joker a foil for Batman is he suffered great tragedy too, but came out evil. For this version of the character, that scarred grin is that tragedy. A chelsea smile is a horrific thing to do to somebody: facial mutilation, kicking, ugh. It's a good alternative to being betrayed by your mates who stick on a ridiculous red helmet and leave you to fend for yourself half-blind against police and Batman at a toxic chemical factory.

But this Joker sees his scarred, ruined face and twists it into a smile. It's so much subtler actually than waking up with a clown face. He enhances it with make-up: and what's creepier is he adds so much make-up over the years without washing it off that it has become entrenched in the pores and wrinkles of his skin. That's just weird.

So I'm thinking to myself, Nolan has captured the themes of the Joker, if not followed a story many of us were very familiar with, and had been made famous by various media depictions of the character (the chemicals are even referenced in The Batman cartoon).
 
I've been thinking about this for a long time, and while I'm not going to vote until I see the film, I think it's fine Nolan didn't even give Joker vitiligo. Lest we forget, in Alan Moore's story the Joker suggest his past might be one possibility of his deluded mind, and the Joker's origin was not set in stone for almost 40 years.
To retread: the chemical bath is cannon, and has always existed in every origin of the character. The "multiple choice" element refers to The Joker's life prior to his transformation.
 
I've been thinking about this for a long time, and while I'm not going to vote until I see the film, I think it's fine Nolan didn't even give Joker vitiligo. Lest we forget, in Alan Moore's story the Joker suggest his past might be one possibility of his deluded mind, and the Joker's origin was not set in stone for almost 40 years.

Now I recognise what makes Joker a foil for Batman is he suffered great tragedy too, but came out evil. For this version of the character, that scarred grin is that tragedy. A chelsea smile is a horrific thing to do to somebody: facial mutilation, kicking, ugh. It's a good alternative to being betrayed by your mates who stick on a ridiculous red helmet and leave you to fend for yourself half-blind against police and Batman at a toxic chemical factory.

But this Joker sees his scarred, ruined face and twists it into a smile. It's so much subtler actually than waking up with a clown face. He enhances it with make-up: and what's creepier is he adds so much make-up over the years without washing it off that it has become entrenched in the pores and wrinkles of his skin. That's just weird.

So I'm thinking to myself, Nolan has captured the themes of the Joker, if not followed a story many of us were very familiar with, and had been made famous by various media depictions of the character (the chemicals are even referenced in The Batman cartoon).

Great post, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The Joker's past is indeed shrouded in mystery, and I think it's a very brave move on Nolan's part to even strip away the one element of The Joker's backstory considered "canon", namely the chemical bath. That leaves this Joker as a complete enigma, as if he just climbed out fully formed from someone's nightmare.
 
I personally am a "perma-white" supporter and I see many people who originally were kinda mad when they saw the first photo changing their minds after seeing the teaser, Ledger's death, and the overall hype of his performance.

Well, I want to say right here and now that I think it will be the best acting as the Joker that we have ever seen...but even that doesn't remove my qualms with the look. I'm still holding out for some semblance of perma-white because that was a major part of the Joker for me personally.

I agree. I'm 50/50 on the whole make-up idea.
 
Do you have proof of this?


...and of this?

RacerX-Countdown31-p22.jpg

RacerX-Countdown31-p23.jpg
 
That's just one version -- it has never been confirmed as the definitive Joker origin:

Though many have been related, a definitive history of the Joker before the chemical bath has never been established in the comics, and his real name has never been confirmed. He has been portrayed as lying so often about his former life that he himself is confused as to what actually happened. As he says in The Killing Joke: "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" In Arkham Asylum: A Serious House On A Serious Earth written by Grant Morrison, it is said that the Joker may not be insane, but have some sort of super-sanity, where he creates himself each day to cope with the chaotic flow of modern urban life.


The first origin account, Detective Comics #168 (February 1951), revealed that the Joker had once been a criminal known as the Red Hood. In the story, a scientist looking to steal from the company that employs him adopts the persona of Red Hood. After committing the theft, Red Hood is dropped into a vat of chemical waste by Batman. He emerges with bleached white skin, red lips, green hair, and a bizarre permanent grin.


The most widely cited backstory can be seen in The Killing Joke. It depicts him as originally being an engineer at a chemical plant who quits his job to become a stand-up comedian, only to fail miserably. Desperate to support his pregnant wife, the man agrees to help two criminals break into the plant where he was formerly employed. In this version of the story, the Red Hood persona is given to the inside man of every job (thus it is never the same man twice); this makes the man appear to be the ringleader, allowing the two criminals to escape. During the planning, police contact him and inform him that his wife has died in a household accident.
 
Do you have proof of this?


...and of this?


The Red Hood origin is cannon. It was in the issue "The Man Behind the Red Hood". It was in Detective Comics #168. Can't remember the exact decade but it was either the 40's or most likely the 50's.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. That many decades ago I HIGHLY doubt they were making it up to fool us. Things were more straight forward with the writing of comics back in the day. In that issue, Joker himself tells Batman that it was him under the Red Hood.

The one thing that is up for speculation and argument is what his life was like before the chemical bath.
 
That's just one version -- it has never been confirmed as the definitive Joker origin

Isn't that what regwec just said? That Joker has multiple backstories. The ONLY common element in ALL of them is the fall into the chemical bath.
 
The Red Hood origin is cannon. It was in the issue "The Man Behind the Red Hood". It was in Detective Comics #168. Can't remember the exact decade but it was either the 40's or most likely the 50's.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. That many decades ago I HIGHLY doubt they were making it up to fool us. Things were more straight forward with the writing of comics back in the day. In that issue, Joker himself tells Batman that it was him under the Red Hood.

The one thing that is up for speculation and argument is what his life was like before the chemical bath.
And by canon; I take it you're implying that it is the definitive Joker origin? As in, it's as definitive as Bruce's parents being shot and killed? It's as definitive as Peter Parker being bit by a spider?

Isn't that what regwec just said? That Joker has multiple backstories. The ONLY common element in ALL of them is the fall into the chemical bath.
I think "common" is the proper word to describe it. By no means is the chemical bath origin definitive. It's just something for writers to fall back on. Visit virtually any comic-book website; they will all tell you that Joker's ORIGIN is not definitive.
 
I think "common" is the proper word to describe it. By no means is the chemical bath origin definitive.

Until they give us an origin story for him without the chemical bath, then it is very much definitive. And that is not an opinion, it's a fact.

DC have included it in every backstory they've given him dating right back to the 50's. It's the only constant the character has.

You can look at it any way you like to please yourself, but facts are facts. Those scans I posted above were in one of the recent issues of the Countdown series, with DC simply reaffirming that Joker has various interpretations of his past, but his fall into the chemicals is a constant.
 
Until they give us an origin story for him without the chemical bath, then it is very much definitive. And that is not an opinion, it's a fact.

DC have included it in every backstory they've given him dating right back to the 50's. It's the only constant the character has.

You can look at it any way you like to please yourself, but facts are facts. Those scans I posted above were in one of the recent issues of the Countdown series, with DC simply reaffirming that Joker has various interpretations of his past, but his fall into the chemicals is a constant.
If the Joker's origin was as definitive as, say, Bruce's parents being shot, then trust me, Nolan would have used it, because a definitive back story is not something that a director can choose to ignore, because it is an essential part of the character. The fact remains that the chemical bath thing is just ONE VERSION of the Joker's origin. I mean, take Bermejo's Joker, for example. His Joker has a cut smile, while other Joker's have a natural smile. Both are each as credible as each other.

Also, if a writer came out tomorrow and had the Joker have a laboratory accident, thus leaving him with white skin -- that origin would just be as credible as the chemical bath origin. Why? Because the chemical bath origin has never been confirmed as the essential origin of the character. It's just one version, and we, as readers, can choose whether to go along with it or not.

So, no -- YOUR facts are not facts.
 
It may not be confirmed that the chem bath plays a part in Jokers creation but in all interpretations I have read/heard there is a form of chem bath
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,398
Messages
22,097,287
Members
45,893
Latest member
DooskiPack
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"