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

[The Joker_1000]

I know this may seem out of nowhere but does anyone have any pics of the Joker from the comics (doesn't matter if they are old or recent).

 

[Doc Samson]

The bottom line is, going from what Nolan himself has said, and also the costume designer, this Joker didn't become crazy just from "one bad day". They wanted the look of his clothes to appear like these are things he's been wearing the whole time, his scars may have just given him a persona. or "mask" if you will, but IMO a psycho who willingly goes around like that is much more crazy than someone who goes insane from an accident. This Joker could very well have been nuts the whole time...

 

[The Joker_1000]

That does make for a more interesting story & it fits so well into the story. I'd still like it if we weren't given too much information about the Joker's background as I want a lot of his origins in the movie to remain a mystety.

 

[Doc Samson]

That does make for a more interesting story & it fits so well into the story. I'd still like it if we weren't given too much information about the Joker's background as I want a lot of his origins in the movie to remain a mystety.

Exactly my way of looking at it, to me its so much more intriguing, and there's no other way the Joker would've fit into Nolans world. And as long as he's directing, the characters do have to fit into his world, not ours...

 

[DoctorJones]

Exactly. I like the comics origin(s), but Nolan has made his own excellent and valid (sounding, the film isn't out yet) interpretation.

 

[Prefix]

Exactly my way of looking at it, to me its so much more intriguing, and there's no other way the Joker would've fit into Nolans world.

That is debatable.

 

[Damiean Dark]

That is debatable.

VERY debatable my personal favourite Joker the mark hamil one with the killing edge of the long halloween/Knightfall would stand out in Nolans world which is what joker is all about imaging proper Joker perma skin and ruby lips with the traditional purple suit,jacket and fedora hat coupled with Hamils sophisticated dialouge it could be amazing.

 

[Doc Samson]

VERY debatable my personal favourite Joker the mark hamil one with the killing edge of the long halloween/Knightfall would stand out in Nolans world which is what joker is all about imaging proper Joker perma skin and ruby lips with the traditional purple suit,jacket and fedora hat coupled with Hamils sophisticated dialouge it could be amazing.

I wasn't so much talking look, as I was origin. Origin-wise, falling into chemicals was never going to make it in this version, if that was the case, I'm certain Ras would've had his Lazarus Pit & Scarecrow would've had his whole ensemble. This re-telling (or not telling if you will) of the Joker's origin provides the basis and speculation that we're all so heavy into now, which to me, makes the character intriguing. The thought that he may have been out there all this time, that he's always been insane, and the scars only gave him a persona, not a reason, to be who he is strikes me as so much more unnerving.

 

[Street Vendor]

I'm not fan of the chemical bath origin, at least as told in the Red Hood story from Detective #168. That was a weakly scripted and poorly drawn tale, a very lackluster origin for comicdom's greatest villian. However, I do think that the Joker should be permawhite; I just think no explanation works better than the original Red Hood story. I do like Alan Moore's take on the subject.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

I don't see why it's a big deal whether or not it was an acid bath, it's all fictional.

Thank christ someone has finally showed the intelligence to say this. Your damn right buddy, it's no big deal at all. I can't believe how frustratingly misguided and downright pointless this 'argument' has become (although it always was, to be honest). Okay, for all those still raging about how the Joker has a single, canonical origin that is set in stone, or ranting about which one is more valid, listen up: THE JOKER IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER. HE EXISTS ONLY IN THE IMAGINATION. THERE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE A 'DEFINITIVE' ORIGIN FOR HIM. THERE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE A 'DEFINITIVE CANON.' ALL INTERPRETATIONS ARE VALID, AND ALL ARE EQUALLY VALID. It's not like with a real person, say Bob Kane, where you can say with absolute authority that 'Bob Kane was born in 1915' or 'Bob Kane was a man.'

So say, if sitting here right now I imagine that the Joker was rolled in super-adhesive talcum powder at birth, that is AS EQUALLY VALID as imagining that he was turned white by freak exposure to the corrosive, bleaching fart of a 10,000 pound toad, and AS EQUALLY VALID as imagining that he has a unique genetic disorder, and AS EQUALLY VALID as imagining that he wears make up, or fell in a vat of chemicals, or spray paints himself every morning. THERE IS NO HIERARCHY OF VALIDITY FOR ANYTHING INVOLVING A FICTIONAL CHARACTER OR STORY. In fact, if I want the Joker to be a fat black grandma, then he can be, and that is in no way, shape or form less 'correct' than the standard image of the Joker.

WHATEVER YOU, I, OR ANYONE THINKS UP FOR THE JOKER, IS VALID. THERE IS NO WRONG, NO RIGHT. Why? BECAUSE THE JOKER IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, A REAL PERSON.

Arguement over things like this is futile. The merits of an interpretation can be discussed (but even then remember that appreciation or otherwise of such merits is entirely subjective, and therefore all are as equally valid as the interpretation itself), but PLEASE, let's stop trying to suggest that one origin or whatever is better, or more likely than another.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I wasn't so much talking look, as I was origin. Origin-wise, falling into chemicals was never going to make it in this version, if that was the case, I'm certain Ras would've had his Lazarus Pit & Scarecrow would've had his whole ensemble. This re-telling (or not telling if you will) of the Joker's origin provides the basis and speculation that we're all so heavy into now, which to me, makes the character intriguing. The thought that he may have been out there all this time, that he's always been insane, and the scars only gave him a persona, not a reason, to be who he is strikes me as so much more unnerving.

People need to get off the realism boat. For the last time, having your skin bleached by chemicals IS. NOT. UNREALISTIC. We have chemicals that can change our pigmentation today, it is in no way a stretch to believe that chemicals could dye a man's skin a certain color.

In fact, it's much more realistic then many of the things that happened in Batman Begins. In my opinion (since I can't ask Nolan) the reason Joker is not perma-white has nothing to do with realism, it's most likely purely for visual reasons. Nolan wanted his Joker to look a certain way, so he made him look that way. I would sincerely doubt that he thought chemical dying was too unrealistic.

 

[Infinity9999x]

T: THE JOKER IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER. HE EXISTS ONLY IN THE IMAGINATION. THERE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE A 'DEFINITIVE' ORIGIN FOR HIM. THERE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE A 'DEFINITIVE CANON.' ALL INTERPRETATIONS ARE VALID, AND ALL ARE EQUALLY VALID. It's not like with a real person, say Bob Kane, where you can say with absolute authority that 'Bob Kane was born in 1915' or 'Bob Kane was a man.'


WHATEVER YOU, I, OR ANYONE THINKS UP FOR THE JOKER, IS VALID. THERE IS NO WRONG, NO RIGHT. Why? BECAUSE THE JOKER IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, A REAL PERSON.

Actually, you're wrong. While Joker is not a real person he IS copyrighted. DC owns him, which means that DC gets to say what goes in terms of the Joker's character. You can imagine that Joker was born with a genetic deformity, but until DC says that he was, that's all it is, imagining.

The Joker is a copyrighted character, which means that if you want to change anything regarding the character, you must consult DC. DC owns the character, he is their property. Is he real in terms of flesh and blood? No, but in terms of legality and money, he is very much real. Real enough for you to get sued if you tried to write a story about him and sell it without their permission.

The Joker is not in the public domain, you can write all the fanfics of him you want, but it won't be cannon, and therefore will not be part of the actual Joker character.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Actually, you're wrong. While Joker is not a real person he IS copyrighted. DC owns him, which means that DC gets to say what goes in terms of the Joker's character. You can imagine that Joker was born with a genetic deformity, but until DC says that he was, that's all it is, imagining.

The Joker is a copyrighted character, which means that if you want to change anything regarding the character, you must consult DC. DC owns the character, he is their property. Is he real in terms of flesh and blood? No, but in terms of legality and money, he is very much real. Real enough for you to get sued if you tried to write a story about him and sell it without their permission.

The Joker is not in the public domain, you can write all the fanfics of him you want, but it won't be cannon, and therefore will not be part of the actual Joker character.

DC can publish whatever the hell they want about the Joker -- that still doesn't negate one from turning a blind eye to it.

Kind of like the Joker's origin story...

 

[Infinity9999x]

DC can publish whatever the hell they want about the Joker -- that still doesn't negate one from turning a blind eye to it.

Kind of like the Joker's origin story...

You can turn a blind eye to it all you want, it still doesn't stop it from being true.

I understand the point your making. With fiction work, we basically go with whatever we like more. For example, JKR said Dumbledore is gay. In the books there's really no evidence to support this, and since I didn't think it added anything to the character, I choose not to view him as gay. When I read the Harry Potter books, Dumbledore is not gay for me, I simply think of him the way he was before I heard JKR say that.

However, just because I choose to ignore it does not make it any less true. The person who owns the character of Dumbledore said he was gay, so that character is gay. I may not like it, but I can't do anything about it.

I could ignore that there's snow on the ground outside my house right now too, but that doesn't change the fact that there is.

It's the same with the character of the Joker. A company owns him. That company gets to say what is true for that character. They have control of him. You may not like what they do with him, and you can ignore it, but it doesn't stop if from being fact.

 

[The Guard]

That origin stuff The Guard presented just goes to show that even in "the comics" there isn't always a definitive canon. Hence the potential for constant reinvention.

There may not be anything definitive about who The Joker was BEFORE his chemical bath, but the chemical bath remains a constant story point in his origin.

The bottom line is, going from what Nolan himself has said, and also the costume designer, this Joker didn't become crazy just from "one bad day". They wanted the look of his clothes to appear like these are things he's been wearing the whole time, his scars may have just given him a persona. or "mask" if you will, but IMO a psycho who willingly goes around like that is much more crazy than someone who goes insane from an accident. This Joker could very well have been nuts the whole time...

Maybe. But who's to say he didn't put on that outfit after he became crazy from one bad day? That's the beauty of having no visible origin. It's my hope the writers of THE DARK KNIGHT were clever enough to have The Joker drop some "hints" about his past that will drive fans into a frenzy of trying to figure out who and what he was beforehand.

As I've said before, my personal favorite concept of The Joker is one where he just flat out "appears" and starts wreaking havoc. I've never thought, in the context of his first clash with Batman, that it matters where he came from. What matters is that Batman stop him.

I prefer the idea of a man who puts on makeup or has himself altered to look like he does, and I prefer him to have what I call a "natural" smile, which is unnatural only because of what causes him to smile the way he does. But that's me.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

You can turn a blind eye to it all you want, it still doesn't stop it from being true.

Ever heard the term: "Art is mainly interpretive"?

I understand the point your making. With fiction work, we basically go with whatever we like more. For example, JKR said Dumbledore is gay. In the books there's really no evidence to support this, and since I didn't think it added anything to the character, I choose not to view him as gay. When I read the Harry Potter books, Dumbledore is not gay for me, I simply think of him the way he was before I heard JKR say that.

However, just because I choose to ignore it does not make it any less true. The person who owns the character of Dumbledore said he was gay, so that character is gay. I may not like it, but I can't do anything about it.

Ah, but you see -- if JK Rowling said that, then it would be true. If JK Rowling died, and then someone from, I don't know, Bloomsbury came out and said that Dumbledore was gay, then I could choose to ignore that, because it wasn't the illustrator of the character who made that assessment.

Sure, if JK Rowling died, and then someone else came in and used the Dumbledore character to present a story, then, yeah, I could buy into that. But if that author started creating their own truths about the character, then I would have the luxury of ignoring those truths, regardless of their connection to Bloomsbury, or whatever.

It's the same with the character of the Joker. A company owns him. That company gets to say what is true for that character. They have control of him. You may not like what they do with him, and you can ignore it, but it doesn't stop if from being fact.

If DC came out tomorrow and said that Joker had two penises, then I would stick two fingers up at them.

If the creators of the character came out and said that the Joker had two penises, then I would accept it. Why? Because they created the character -- the know every single aspect of the character, unlike some DC executive who sits at his desk and says: "That's a fact. Erm, no, that one isn't. Okay, that can be a fact, etc."

 

[nickyg641]

Whether or not the Joker is permawhite isn't up for interpretation. It's been so since Batman #1, which was written by Bill Finger, and illustrated by Bob Kane.

Also by Bill Finger, co-creator of the Joker, is, if I remember correctly, "The Man Behind the Red Hood".

And, besides, the people saying that it's definitive are the people who have been writing the Joker for years. It's hardly some exec.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Whether or not the Joker is permawhite isn't up for interpretation. It's been so since Batman #1, which was written by Bill Finger, and illustrated by Bob Kane.

Also by Bill Finger, co-creator of the Joker, is, if I remember correctly, "The Man Behind the Red Hood".

And, besides, the people saying that it's definitive are the people who have been writing the Joker for years. It's hardly some exec.

Children: this is why you should read the topic of discussion before butting in.

You might just miss the point.

 

[The Guard]

If DC came out tomorrow and said that Joker had two penises, then I would stick two fingers up at them.

Doesn't mean it wouldn't be canon. There's a difference between you not liking something, and that something being canon.

If the creators of the character came out and said that the Joker had two penises, then I would accept it. Why? Because they created the character -- the know every single aspect of the character, unlike some DC executive who sits at his desk and says: "That's a fact. Erm, no, that one isn't. Okay, that can be a fact, etc."

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that only the creators of the character can say anything valid about his basics or his mythology?

 

[The Shape]

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that only the creators of the character can say anything valid about his basics or his mythology?

I agree with this one. The character has been crafted and added to so much more after the "creators" were done with him.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

Actually, you're wrong. While Joker is not a real person he IS copyrighted. DC owns him, which means that DC gets to say what goes in terms of the Joker's character. You can imagine that Joker was born with a genetic deformity, but until DC says that he was, that's all it is, imagining.

The Joker is a copyrighted character, which means that if you want to change anything regarding the character, you must consult DC. DC owns the character, he is their property. Is he real in terms of flesh and blood? No, but in terms of legality and money, he is very much real. Real enough for you to get sued if you tried to write a story about him and sell it without their permission.

The Joker is not in the public domain, you can write all the fanfics of him you want, but it won't be cannon, and therefore will not be part of the actual Joker character.

Siiggggghh... I knew this would go over some of your heads. Joker is copyrighted? Wow, I never knew that! DC 'own' the character of the Joker precisely as you say 'in terms of legality and money,' however that very obvious fact has nothing to with my original point. I'm not talking about legal mundanities, I'm discussing the infinite nature of fiction and the ultimate ethereality and potentiality of character in regards to human imagination. Copyright laws and intellectual property rights are rightly there to safeguard the livelihoods and incomes of creative companies and individuals, however they have no scope over individual thought, interpretation or expression. It's not a question of 'fanfics,' (an always cringeworthy genre) but how absolutely every single thought you ever have about any fictional character ever is as valid as those the writers and illustrators at DC have, and despite what you might think, you don't need permission from copyright holders for that to be true. Ideas, and fiction, ultimately cannot be 'owned' (except in the practical sense you refer to), I don't think you've understood my point at all. I suggest you read some mid to late 20th century literary criticism (particularly ideas of intertextuality and Barthes idea of the 'writerly' text) and you might catch up.

 

[nickyg641]

Children: this is why you should read the topic of discussion before butting in.

You might just miss the point.

The opening bit was in reference to the argument earlier. You seemed to be arguing about the validity of permawhite, while at the same time arguing about the validity of the chemical bath origin. I responded to both.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Doesn't mean it wouldn't be canon. There's a difference between you not liking something, and that something being canon.

And who, at DC, has the right to pull ideas out of their own asses and sell them as truths?

"Oh, I write comics for DC, and I had one idea that the execs liked -- that means it's a fact about the character now."

What makes them different from us, the readers? The fact that they have a fancy DC name-tag attached to their shirt? I'm sorry, but no DC executive will sell a fact to me. I will determine my own facts about the character. If DC said that the Joker had three testicles, I'd go: "Thanks for that, but I'll choose not to believe it, thank you very much."

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that only the creators of the character can say anything valid about his basics or his mythology?

Based on the fact that, just because someone is a better writer than me and has some nice ideas about a character doesn't mean that their own ideas are more factual than my own.

The creators, however, have the final word. They created the character. It's like George Lucas and Star Wars. If George Lucas died, and then some dude from DC bought Star Wars and had Emperor Palpatine come back to life, but with five hands so he could fire more lightning; I'd say bugger off. If George Lucas, the creator of the character, came up with this idea, then I would accept it.

 

[nickyg641]

Siiggggghh... I knew this would go over some of your heads. Joker is copyrighted? Wow, I never knew that! DC 'own' the character of the Joker precisely as you say 'in terms of legality and money,' however that very obvious fact has nothing to with my original point. I'm not talking about legal mundanities, I'm discussing the infinite nature of fiction and the ultimate ethereality and potentiality of character in regards to human imagination. Copyright laws and intellectual property rights are rightly there to safeguard the livelihoods and incomes of creative companies and individuals, however they have no scope over individual thought, interpretation or expression. It's not a question of 'fanfics,' (an always cringeworthy genre) but how absolutely every single thought you ever have about any fictional character ever is as valid as those the writers and illustrators at DC have, and despite what you might think, you don't need permission from copyright holders for that to be true. Ideas, and fiction, ultimately cannot be 'owned' (except in the practical sense you refer to), I don't think you've understood my point at all. I suggest you read some mid to late 20th century literary criticism (particularly ideas of intertextuality and Barthes idea of the 'writerly' text) and you might catch up.

I could say my interpretation of Star Wars involves a Darth Vader who wears a suit because he's got a leather fetish. I suppose that's just as valid as, say, 20th Century Fox's interpretation?

 

[nickyg641]

And who, at DC, has the right to pull ideas out of their own asses and sell them as truths?

"Oh, I write comics for DC, and I had one idea that the execs liked -- that means it's a fact about the character now."

What makes them different from us, the readers? The fact that they have a fancy DC name-tag attached to their shirt? I'm sorry, but no DC executive will sell a fact to me. I will determine my own facts about the character. If DC said that the Joker had three testicles, I'd go: "Thanks for that, but I'll choose not to believe it, thank you very much."


Based on the fact that, just because someone is a better writer than me and has some nice ideas about a character doesn't mean that their own ideas are more factual than my own.

The creators, however, have the final word. They created the character. It's like George Lucas and Star Wars. If George Lucas died, and then some dude from DC bought Star Wars and had Emperor Palpatine come back to life, but with five hands so he could fire more lightning; I'd say bugger off. If George Lucas, the creator of the character, came up with this idea, then I would accept it.

They, the writers, have quite a bit more authority to do what they want with the character than you, the reader. Because, by your, you could just as well say that the Joker has three testicles and two penises, and that would be just as valid.