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

[Figs]

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.

Burton chose to ignore the fact that Joker wasn't the murderer of the Wayans.

 

[CaptainClown]

Also we don't know if Nolan and co did not include the chem bath; we do know that he probably didn't show it.

 

[StylishHokie21]

I always thought his origin was the chemical bath.

 

[Mister J]

It is. The only question is as to what he was prior to it.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Burton chose to ignore the fact that Joker wasn't the murderer of the Wayans.

And yet, Burton claims to have only read one comic-book in his entire life.

There's me thinking that Nolan was making these films for the comic-book fan base first; the rest second...

 

[bkey]

He actually didn't have an origin in his first appearences in the comics.

 

[Street Vendor]

The other night I read an interview from 1989 with Jerry Robinson, the Joker's co-creator. He said he wasn't involved with the Batman comics by the early fifties, and didn't like the chemical bath origin. He felt that the Joker should be more mysterious. Since he's an adviser on this film, perhaps he influenced Nolan.

The interview was in the 1989 Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide, I'll dig it up and post the direct quote later.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

It is. The only question is as to what he was prior to it.

You have proof, I take it? As in, an official article from an official site describing how the Joker came to have white skin?

 

[The Joker]

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.

How is it one version of the character? Can you give me another origin for him where he obtained his permawhite skin another way?

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.

That's the smile. We're not talking about his smile. We're talking permawhiteness here.

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.

But that's my point. Nobody has given him a different origin to the chemical bath. Over 60 years, various origins, and it's the only thing DC keeps constant.

It is very much definitive, and you have got nothing to disprove that. Your What if scenarios are utterly irrelevant.

We might as well say if a writer changed Batman's parents being shot in Crime Alley to being slaughtered by a serial killer, then that would refute that one origin constant for the last 60+ years.

But nobody has, and probably never will. Just like Joker's chemical bath origin. So please, spare me your what ifs. They have no bearing here.

So, no -- YOUR facts are not facts.

Oh they are. You know and I know it. You just can't admit it.

 

[CaptainClown]

The other night I read an interview from 1989 with Jerry Robinson, the Joker's co-creator. He said he wasn't involved with the Batman comics by the early fifties, and didn't like the chemical bath origin. He felt that the Joker should be more mysterious. Since he's an adviser on this film, perhaps he influenced Nolan.

The interview was in the 1989 Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide, I'll dig it up and post the direct quote later.

ya thats probably why we won't have any hints to joker before he will just show up and be an ass hole

 

[Mr. Superhero]

How is it one version of the character? Can you give me another origin for him where he obtained his permawhite skin another way?

How do we even know it's perma-white? From my understanding, when the Joker first appeared, he had no origin.

He was just there, with white skin. No details on how he came to be. That's why none of the character's origin is definitive, because the character was never created to have a definitive origin.

That's the smile. We're not talking about his smile. We're talking permawhiteness here.

But it represents the same thing.

The Joker having a natural smile is not definitive. The Joker falling into a vat of chemicals is not definitive. It's just a general preference.

But that's my point. Nobody has given him a different origin to the chemical bath. Over 60 years, various origins, and it's the only thing DC keeps constant.

Because people understand that this character DOESN'T NEED an origin...

It is very much definitive, and you have got nothing to disprove that. Your What if scenarios are utterly irrelevant.

It's not definitive at all; Nolan recognizes this, too.

It is just a preference.

We might as well say if a writer changed Batman's parents being shot in Crime Alley to being slaughtered by a serial killer, then that would refute that one origin constant for the last 60+ years.

But nobody has, and probably never will. Just like Joker's chemical bath origin. So please, spare me your what ifs. They have no bearing here.

Bruce's parents being murdered, and thus transforming Bruce into Batman, is how the character was originally written.

The Joker never had an origin to begin with -- the creators never gave him an origin, so who are we to judge the origin of the character?

We didn't create him. Alan Moore didn't create him. They simply presented us with a concept for the character -- not a definitive origin.

Oh they are. You know and I know it. You just can't admit it.

Oh God. Such misguidedness...

 

[Mister J]

You have proof, I take it? As in, an official article from an official site describing how the Joker came to have white skin?

Beyond what you're choosing to ignore? No.

That origin that Joker posted above is exactly what's on DC's site. I think that's official. The only thing left to interpretation is what the Joker was beforehand, which the origin points out as well.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Beyond what you're choosing to ignore? No.

That origin that Joker posted above is exactly what's on DC's site. I think that's official. The only thing left to interpretation is what the Joker was beforehand, which the origin points out as well.

I'm not choosing to ignore anything. Wow -- you posted a picture of some comic-book from the official site; where is the explanation? Where is the definition of the book in terms of whether it is the definitive origin of the character? Seems to me that the character was never written to have an origin. If the creators of the character didn't give the Joker an origin, then how can WE determine his origin?

Think about it.

 

[Matchbox]

I agree to a point that the chemical bath origin is something that many writers use to fall back on. Many writers may see this as being definitive, some may not. It's probably one of those things that was used very early on and just sort of stuck. Arguing whether or not it's actually definitive is pointless because you'd have to define what "definitive" means in this case. Does the fact that all writers who have used an origin refer to the chemical bath make it definitive; or just commonplace and very entrenched? There's no need to get ruffled about this because there's no way to prove anyone right or wrong at this point.

 

[The Joker]

How do we even know it's perma-white? From my understanding, when the Joker first appeared, he had no origin.

Because 60+ years worth of Joker stories have told us that.

LOL

He was just there, with white skin. No details on how he came to be. That's why none of the character's origin is definitive, because the character was never created to have a definitive origin.

Listen carefully now: The character's backstory is not definitive. That is what DC tells us. Not you, not me, not Nolan, and not the man on the moon. The editors and writers of DC for decades tell us this.

How do they tell us this? Thru the origin stories they give him. Each one only retaining one constant - the chemical bath. The one factor they have obviously decided is the best way to show how his whole body became permawhite.

That's the way it is. Fact. You just refuse to accept that because you dislike the permawhite feature of the character.

But it represents the same thing.

The Joker having a natural smile is not definitive. The Joker falling into a vat of chemicals is not definitive. It's just a general preference.

How does that represent the same thing? Joker could have cut that smile on himself, somewhat like what Morrisson did recently in Batman #663.

He's always, repeat always been permawhite.

Because people understand that this character DOESN'T NEED an origin...

Maybe so. But he gets them, anyway. Fact.

It's not definitive at all; Nolan recognizes this, too.

It is just a preference.

No, it is definitive. Nolan is just not the stickler for the comic books that everyone likes to think. Begins is a shining example of that:

- Bruce recieving all his training and guidance from Ra's Al Ghul, whom he never met in the comics until the 1970's, after he abducted Robin.
- There is no Rachel Dawes character in the comics.
- Flass is a green beret, not a fat ass.
- Batman didn't get all his equipment from Lucius Fox

Nolan chose to ignore the permawhite element of the character for his own reasons. His own preferences. Just like he made changes to other staple elements of Batman's mythos.

Bruce's parents being murdered, and thus transforming Bruce into Batman, is how the character was originally written.

The Joker never had an origin to begin with -- the creators never gave him an origin, so who are we to judge the origin of the character?

So what?

Are you seriously trying to say that just because it wasn't in the original story, then it doesn't count?

LMAO!

Nolan based most of Begins on Year One, and that didn't come out until the 80's. But that is considered the origin story for Batman and Gordon and how it all started.

We didn't create him. Alan Moore didn't create him. They simply presented us with a concept for the character -- not a definitive origin.

Oh, I see. So, only what the creating writer writes is concrete. Anything else future writers expand on is totally in the air?

You're priceless.

Oh God. Such misguidedness...

 

[DoctorJones]

The other night I read an interview from 1989 with Jerry Robinson, the Joker's co-creator. He said he wasn't involved with the Batman comics by the early fifties, and didn't like the chemical bath origin. He felt that the Joker should be more mysterious. Since he's an adviser on this film, perhaps he influenced Nolan.

The interview was in the 1989 Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide, I'll dig it up and post the direct quote later.

Fascinating. I hope Robinson and Nolan speak about their collaboration in future.

 

[Street Vendor]

Here is the pertinent quote from the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide, 1989 edition. Page A-60:

(Interviewer)Why didn't the Joker have an origin? There was no explanation for his bizarre appearance.
(Jerry Robinson): We did that deliberately. Later on, long after I had left the strip, they gave him an origin and explained that he looked that way because of some chemical accident. Frankly, I don't think we would have written an origin for him. I would have preferred it if his origin had always remained unknown-it takes the mystery out of the character to explain it and makes him too ordinary. It would be better if characters in the story or the readers themselves speculated about it.

I wish my scanner wasn't busted, I would scan the whole interview and post it. It's a good read.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Because 60+ years worth of Joker stories have told us that.

Except for the original concept of the character. That is something that other writers have insisted on.

How do we know whether the character originally had perma-white skin? That's just something that OTHER writers have insisted on.

Listen carefully now: The character's backstory is not definitive. That is what DC tells us. Not you, not me, not Nolan, and not the man on the moon. The editors and writers of DC for decades tell us this.

How do they tell us this? Thru the origin stories they give him. Each one only retaining one constant - the chemical bath. The one factor they have obviously decided is the best way to show how his whole body became permawhite.

That's the way it is. Fact. You just refuse to accept that because you dislike the permawhite feature of the character.

Okay, here's something for you to chomp on:

FROM THE DC DATABASE:

What is suggested and largely accepted, however, is he was a petty thief duped into wearing the mask of the Red Hood to act as a costumed figurehead for thugs bent on robbing the Ace Chemical Processing Plant in Gotham City. Thwarted by Batman, the Red Hood fell into a vat of toxic chemicals that bleached his skin bone white, turned his hair green and left him with a crazed, ruby red, malignant rictus for a smile. Driven utterly insane, the Joker fixated upon Batman as his arch-nemesis. Depending on the writer, Joker heavily drinks and smokes, but still he has not suffered any ill side effects.

It is "largely accepted" -- not "definitive".

Do you know why it isn't the definitive origin of the character? Because the creators of the character didn't give him an origin. You proved my point earlier when you asked "how else could the Joker have perma-white skin?" Well, that's EXACTLY what the writers of DC have asked themselves. They have promoted the chemical bath origin because they think it is the ONLY way for him to have perma-white.

They have GUESSED the origin of the character, because that is all they CAN do.

How does that represent the same thing? Joker could have cut that smile on himself, somewhat like what Morrisson did recently in Batman #663.

He's always, repeat always been permawhite.

I'm not really arguing whether the Joker is perma-white or not -- just that the creators of the character never hinted about his skin so how can it be a FACT that the character HAS perma-white skin?

You seem to have a difficulty with determining the difference between something DEFINITIVE and something WIDELY ACCEPTED.

For instance, Superman was sent to Earth from Krypton, right before it was destroyed. Do you know why that is definitive? Because that's how the character was originally written.

You are the one dodging this, my friend.

Maybe so. But he gets them, anyway. Fact.

You mean, writers guess at how the Joker came to have white skin?

No, it is definitive.

Is it f**k.

If it was definitive, then the ORIGINAL CREATORS OF THE CHARACTER WOULD HAVE MADE IT SO.

They never did; they intentionally left his origin unknown.

Nolan is just not the stickler for the comic books that everyone likes to think. Begins is a shining example of that:

- Bruce recieving all his training and guidance from Ra's Al Ghul, whom he never met in the comics until the 1970's, after he abducted Robin.
- There is no Rachel Dawes character in the comics.
- Flass is a green beret, not a fat ass.
- Batman didn't get all his equipment from Lucius Fox

Nolan chose to ignore the permawhite element of the character for his own reasons. His own preferences. Just like he made changes to other staple elements of Batman's mythos.

Yeah, but Nolan could make a very good argument for not giving Joker perma-white skin.

Namely, Bob Kane and co. never provided the character with an origin, so how can the character HAVE a definitive origin? For all we know, the original design of the character could have applied make-up. We just don't know -- it's just that writers have ASSUMED that the character had perma-white, and then have rounded up an explanation for the white skin.

It's hardly definitive -- it's just widely accepted.

So what?

Are you seriously trying to say that just because it wasn't in the original story, then it doesn't count?

LMAO!

Nolan based most of Begins on Year One, and that didn't come out until the 80's. But that is considered the origin story for Batman and Gordon and how it all started.

I'm not talking about THE STORY. That is you, misinterpreting my f*****g argument. I'm talking about THE CHARACTER, in of themselves. There's a big difference, you know.

Oh, I see. So, only what the creating writer writes is concrete. Anything else future writers expand on is totally in the air?

You're priceless.

YES! If he creators of the character didn't give the Joker an origin, then how can OTHER writers, who had nothing to do with the thinking up and design of the character, determine his origin? You said it yourself; how else can the Joker have perma-white skin?

That's exactly what Alan Moore and co. did. They ASSUMED that the Joker had perma-white skin, and then tried to come up with an explanation as to HOW.

They're just guessing.

Why is Peter Parker's origin definitive? Because that's how the creator wrote the character.

Why is Kal-El's origin definitive? Because that's how the creator wrote the character.

Why is Bruce's origin definitive? Because that's how the creator wrote the character.

 

[Matchbox]

Here is the pertinent quote from the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide, 1989 edition. Page A-60:

(Interviewer)Why didn't the Joker have an origin? There was no explanation for his bizarre appearance.
(Jerry Robinson): We did that deliberately. Later on, long after I had left the strip, they gave him an origin and explained that he looked that way because of some chemical accident. Frankly, I don't think we would have written an origin for him. I would have preferred it if his origin had always remained unknown-it takes the mystery out of the character to explain it and makes him too ordinary. It would be better if characters in the story or the readers themselves speculated about it.

I wish my scanner wasn't busted, I would scan the whole interview and post it. It's a good read.

Thanks for the info, Street.

 

[Nightwatcher11]

I absolutley agree with what that says above. ^^^ I prefer a mysterious Joker who's origin we know nothing about.

 

[MadeManifest]

it's a very brave move on Nolan's part to even strip away the one element of The Joker's backstory considered "canon"

I don't think it's brave to mess with the look of iconic characters, but that's just me.

You're not putting anything at risk except the anger of a few diehard fans (like myself) and you're stripping the character of one of its key elements.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

(Interviewer)Why didn't the Joker have an origin? There was no explanation for his bizarre appearance.
(Jerry Robinson): We did that deliberately. Later on, long after I had left the strip, they gave him an origin and explained that he looked that way because of some chemical accident. Frankly, I don't think we would have written an origin for him. I would have preferred it if his origin had always remained unknown-it takes the mystery out of the character to explain it and makes him too ordinary. It would be better if characters in the story or the readers themselves speculated about it.

Abso-bloody-exactly.

See? This is EXACTLY what I'm getting at.

What's that about "definitive", Joker...??

 

[MadeManifest]

because a definitive back story is not something that a director can choose to ignore, because it is an essential part of the character.

Well, if the Joker didn't fall into a chemical bath, that's the choice Nolan made.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Except for the original concept of the character. That is something that other writers have insisted on.

How do we know whether the character originally had perma-white skin? That's just something that OTHER writers have insisted on.

Because it was in one of his first appearances if I'm not mistaken. Didn't they have a scene with the coroner examining his body, then being shocked to find that the skin didn't have makeup on it, that it was bleached?

And the chemical bath is something that has been a fact of the character's existence since it was revealed he was the red hood. It's the only thing about his origin that is concrete. Besides that, no one knows what he was before the bath.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

And the chemical bath is something that has been a fact of the character's existence since it was revealed he was the red hood.

Was that origin established by the creator's of the Joker, or someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the character?