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

[CaptainClown]

It's sad that it's gonna be closed soon. It's almost at 20,000 posts, and that's when they usually close threads and new ones have to be made.

I am so making a new one!

 

[Mr. Superhero]

The first chunk of your post all is mostly repeating the same two points, so rather than my usual piece-by-piece rebuttal, I'll just address them.

1. You say that Kane intended for the Joker to have no origin.

This is not based on anything besides your own wishing. Kane may well have intended to reveal the origin later, or have someone else reveal it, or he may have simply not decided on one yet. We don't know.

Or, then again, he may not. So my argument is just as valid, and your hypothetical examples do not change the exquisite fact that Bill Finger and Bob Kane didn't present the Joker with an origin.

Correct: and it is their business to sell fiction. This means they contribute to it when necessary, either through editors or other means.

But don't you see that DC Comics is just a means to an end? They host the art-work of others in order to boost profits and to help comic-book writers earn a living. I don't see how this reasoning negates the fact that Bob Kane and Bill Finger are the sole creators of the Joker, and that through creating the Joker, they presented us with a piece of art. That art-work, throughout the last forty-years or so, has been thoroughly analyzed by a number of writers who want to apply to their own ideas to the character. Nonetheless, if a certain writer turned around one day and say: "The Joker fell into a bath of chemicals; that's why he has permanently bleached skin!"; that would be their own personal interpretation of how the Joker developed white-skin, and to sell that idea is what their job entails. That is why they do what they do: the present ideas, not to sell them as facts. You people often say that the chemical bath origin is the only origin used to explain how the Joker ended up with white-skin so that means it is the only way for the Joker to have developed white skin, but this is a deeply ignorant argument, especially when one takes into account that other writers may feel the same way as I do -- that the Joker doesn't need an origin story -- or they simply feel they would be wasting their time in creating a whole new origin story for the character. Because, at the end of the day, the Joker's origin is totally rendered useless, largely due to the notion that this character was never intended to have an origin story.

Bob Kane specifically left the Joker's origin ambiguous. Other writers have tried to explain how the Joker got white-skin, but that is just their own interpretation -- not necessarily the interpretation of others. DC Comics can sell that interpretation as some hierarchical truth, but that will not affect me, because I am wise enough to realize that DC Comics is just a means to an end, and most people are blind to the fact that the writers of DC are just ordinary people presenting their own ideas about a character on glossy paper -- they are just like us, only more "better", innit?

No you couldn't. No publisher would take it because you (and they) would be sued into the next dimension.

A DC Comics publisher, then, for crying out loud...

 

[Keyser Soze]

Sometimes, this thread makes my head hurt.

Hey, everyone! Look! A pretty picture!

 

[regwec]

His "smile" looks a bit like a ruby-red handle bar moustache.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Dude, I was going to say I think I just killed it, but we all know for a fact it will rise again. I guarantee that tomorrow someone will post something along the lines of 'teh acid bath is the definitive Joker, teh permawhite is teh bestest.' Then someone will post a retort: 'Teh make-up is teh greatest. Ledger's is the only Joker.'

This topic will go on and on even after the film is released. To me, Joker applying makeup just isn't the same, but it's something different that can be pretty good on it's own terms. I really don't have much else to say here, the gas has burned and my mileage has reached it's limit.

Sometimes, this thread makes my head hurt.

Spoiler

Hey, everyone! Look! A pretty picture!

Nice picture, indeed.

 

[Saint]

No, as I said before, all configurations (or as I said the 'structure' or 'make-up') are derivative,

How, precisely? Don't worry about the elements--we agree on that--but how precisely is configuration not unique?

If you mean to say that the configuration is not unique because the elements are derivative, I can't agree. If that is what you're saying, then our fundamental disagreement may be that my position suggests the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, and your position suggests it cannot be. I don't expect we can resolve a disagreement like that.

as well as the elements. Both are inextricably linked. And go look up 'unique' in the dictionary, I'll think you'll find then that there are no 'degrees' of uniqueness.

I'm not talking about a degree of uniqueness, I'm talking about a degree to which it is derivative. You might argue they're linked, I suppose.

Moreover, even if a state of 'uniqueness' was to exist in regards to a text (which is something of an impossibility), that in itself is no signifier of value.

Another fundamental disagreement I wouldn't expect to resolve.

At any rate, all this is far removed from my original point, which still stands and has remained constant.

Frankly, I was enjoying this ancillary discussion much more than that one. They do relate, though--we've been talking about the a possible value assigned to "original" ideas versus "interpretations" and whether that value (if it exists) grants them the authority to be "more true" than the alternative.

There can be no 'definitive' origin for the Joker, just as there can be no definitive Joker, because as a fictional creation there is no 'real' or empirical information to define the definitive. The predominance of any particular interpretation is merely the result of the mechanics of production, or general ignorance. Author, text and reader exist equally and thus none can claim dominance. Case closed.

Your position makes sense, but obviously I disagree for reasons I've explained. Supposing you were right, though, would it affect the ultimate discussion--that being, should Joker be white simply because he is in the comics? I guess we'd have to determine whether the film is adapting the comic book or the entirety of the idea. The latter would include all alternative interpretations and all perceptions of the audience and authors, and would more easily allow from make-up. The former would very specifically mean Joker should be white, since that is the interpretation being adapted (unless, of course, we get into how accurate these adaptations should or should not be, and that's a whole other boring deal).

 

[Beanjuice]

heath looks so amazing the new pic. god dammit i miss him

 

[The Shape]

heath looks so amazing the new pic. god dammit i miss him

You never knew him.

 

[Dcknight]

You never knew him.

Maybe he does.







t:

 

[Beanjuice]

You never knew him.

does it matter? he was someone i looked up to and had alot of respect for. i may not have knew him but his death affected me very deeply.so got anymore smart comments?

 

[The Battousai]

His "smile" looks a bit like a ruby-red handle bar moustache.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

^ You're just desperately trying to get up to 2,000 posts, aren't you?

 

[The Shape]

^ You're just desperately trying to get up to 2,000 posts, aren't you?

Gotta hate spammers. I think he should get about a thousand posts removed.

 

[The Shape]

does it matter? he was someone i looked up to and had alot of respect for. i may not have knew him but his death affected me very deeply.so got anymore smart comments?

Nope, you totally pwned me.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Gotta hate spammers. I think he should get about a thousand posts removed.

 

[The Shape]

^ You're just desperately trying to get up to 2,000 posts, aren't you?

 

[Saint]

Or, then again, he may not. So my argument is just as valid, and your hypothetical examples do not change the exquisite fact that Bill Finger and Bob Kane didn't present the Joker with an origin.

Which is why I have also repeatedly explained that it doesn't matter what he intended.

But don't you see that DC Comics is just a means to an end? They host the art-work of others in order to boost profits and to help comic-book writers earn a living.

Of course, but the art produced is still affected by their input and they are still a critical component of how the art turns out. If not for DC, the final product would be different. Better or worse is unknown, but different all the same.

I don't see how this reasoning negates the fact that Bob Kane and Bill Finger are the sole creators of the Joker, and that through creating the Joker, they presented us with a piece of art.

A piece that was, by it's nature, unfinished. I've already talked about this, and we're obviously not agreeing, so I won't say anything else except that more complete reasoning is present in my other posts.

That art-work, throughout the last forty-years or so, has been thoroughly analyzed by a number of writers who want to apply to their own ideas to the character.

It has been continued.

Nonetheless, if a certain writer turned around one day and say: "The Joker fell into a bath of chemicals; that's why he has permanently bleached skin!"; that would be their own personal interpretation of how the Joker developed white-skin, and to sell that idea is what their job entails. That is why they do what they do: the present ideas, not to sell them as facts.

It's both. Comic book rely very heavily on continuity--what is printed has to become the "truth" of that character because the story will fall apart without constants. They may later re-write reality and say Joker isn't white-skinned, or is white-skinned but through different means, but until then the truth of DC's version of the character is what it is.

You people often say that the chemical bath origin is the only origin used to explain how the Joker ended up with white-skin so that means it is the only way for the Joker to have developed white skin

No, of course not. If we had seen this outright, sure, but we've only heard Joker's origin through his own mouth. It would take only a minor retcon to say he was lying all this time and that he's white-skinned for an entirely different reason. Deciding on a definitive origin for the DC character would not be wrong simply because Kane didn't do it; the character has gone beyond Kane.

but this is a deeply ignorant argument, especially when one takes into account that other writers may feel the same way as I do -- that the Joker doesn't need an origin story -- or they simply feel they would be wasting their time in creating a whole new origin story for the character. Because, at the end of the day, the Joker's origin is totally rendered useless, largely due to the notion that this character was never intended to have an origin story.

Character's grow into places they weren't originally intended, and that this growth is "useless" is not something you should say so absolutely.

Other writers have tried to explain how the Joker got white-skin, but that is just their own interpretation -- not necessarily the interpretation of others.

Well, no--it's not just "their interpretation. It's the sanctioned DC version. If you want to say that your idea is as valid as the DC version, well, I suppose there's something to that, but does it matter? The DC version is what's being adapted.

Accordingly, it is not unreasonable for people to expect the adaptation conform to the standards of the version being adapted, rather than the standards in [email protected]'s fan fiction or Mr. Superhero's head or Saint's scribbles.

Actually, I was wrong to try and assign inherent validity to the official canon. I'm always telling people to stop creating bogus rationalizations to support their preferred ideas, and instead to just admit that their preference is the only reason they have to support it. I suppose the former is what I was doing.

You were doing it, too--all that nonsense about creator authority. I don't think you really believe in that, and you illustrated as much when I mentioned the Wolverine and Captain America examples.

If Sunburned Hand is correct, then you assigning validity to Kane is just as wrong as me assigning t to the the canon. As I mentioned in my last post to him, if that's true then the only way to determine how the adaptation should be is in determining what version is being adapted. We know that the DC version is being adapted, and that is enough to argue that the adaptation should be faithful to it (though, again, to what degree is debatable).

This relates to something I've said frequently: if you're going to change a character to such a degree, why use that character at all? It defeats the purpose. For example, why call the movie "Steel" when it is nothing like Steel? Why not just call it something else? In comics, when someone wants to do something with the Joker that doesn't fit, they don't just stuff it in there--they put it in Elseworlds, or they make a different character entirely. But the movie industry always makes this mistake.

 

[BatSpider]

^ You're just desperately trying to get up to 2,000 posts, aren't you?

Nice

Im trying to get to 3000

But that pic is cool, adds new emotion to Heath's Joker we haven't seen yet

 

[The Guard]

I disagree that a canon can never exist, because they do. On many levels, in many ways. There are facts laid down about characters in the context of a particular timeline, origin, etc.

Now, what is canon?

An established principle: the canons of polite society.
A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion

Mr. Superhero, as I believe Saint has just pointed out, if you're going to say that art is interpretive to the degree that you suggest it is, you simply cannot cling to "the creators" as being the only ones who can interpret or define that art, or the overall basis for your argument simply falls apart, and you look like a massive hypocrite.

You can dislike a concept all you want, but that does not change the fact that it is fact that it is a part of the Batman comic book mythology. Nothing will ever change that. Not a retcon, nothing. Because it was, at some point, a part of that mythology. If you don't want to believe it, fine. No one can force you to face the reality of a given situation.

It just completely destroys the purpose of ART. Please, tell me: do the DC executives have a greater vision of the Joker than I? Wait, what if I, in the next ten years, become a writer for DC and start making my own facts up about the character? Will you, Guard, accept my vision, or continue to use your OWN imagination to sway your understanding of a character?

I will accept that, even if I don't like your vision, it is still a part of DC Comics canon. That it happened in the Batman mythology in a particular timeline.

Damn, there's me thinking that I have ideas about the Joker that are just as good as some of the ideas that I have seen produced lately...

Can you elaborate? I'm curious to see what you've come up with.

I can accept that character PERSONA evolves, as I have stated many times, but not genetic "facts" about a character that are promoted by various comic-book companies.

Now wait a minute. Half the things about the Batman or any mythology over the years are generic "facts" that have been added to existing characters and their mythology.

No, they're not. Because when George Lucas dies; other writers will step in and try to promote their ideas as all-encompassing "facts".

Hmm. That may be what WILL be. But right now, they are completely different dynamics. George Lucas personally approves almost anything you see that has the name STAR WARS attached to it. He also places it where it belongs in the STAR WARS continuity and whether it is valid as having occurred in the movie universe.

However, based on what the author created, I will make up my own mind on what and what not to believe. Remember, "art is interpretive."

You can interpret what art means to you. You cannot interpret what actually exists on paper or it's meaning to the mythology, as that is up to the creators, as you have so aptly put it. These are two different concepts you're playing with. Personal interpretation and a concept's existence.

What a meaningless point. You aren't proving anything here -- you're basically saying that Star Wars was inspired by a collection of fables. Yes, we know. What's your point?

I'm implying that you rely too much on the basic visions of those who aren't really all that creative when it comes right down to it (Shall we talk about how Batman was created and his influences, and how he evolved?), and that somewhat closeminded approach will likely prevent you from enjoying quality additions to the character and mythology if you're too slavish about it.

Not quite, as the theories I've been outlining have different implications for a work of 'art' (i.e. painting/sculpture) than they do for say a text or film. Say you look at your painting, which for argument's sake we'll say is a square canvas all blue. You can say as you look at the painting "This painting is blue, but my interpetation is that it's red." However, you would obviously be wrong, as the painting is quite clearly and convincingly blue .

Nonsense. Perhaps the artist meant for it to be seen as red. Only HE can say, right?

This is because the painting, and the colour 'blue' are real, and that fact is staring you in the face as you look at it. The colours of paintings are not open to interpretation, because they are obvious, empirical fact - reality right in front of you at that single instant.

Ok...so if "blue" is real, and the painting is blue, explain how the Joker having a clear chemical bath origin in several places in the Batman mythology does not make it canon?

However, later in a different instant when sitting on the bus home, you may think of the painting, and this time imagine it as all red. This now is an act of interpretation, and is valid and as correct as anything else, because the painting is no longer real, but imagined.

Imagining something and what actually exists in the continuity are two seperate concepts.

However, with a fictional text, be it a character, scenario, plot or whatever, your interpretation, whatever it may be is infinite and equally valid.

What you imagine can be valid. Not in the context of how it affects the actual continuity or canon, however.

I'm starting to think you two are confusing "how I imagine a character in a given scenario" with "What's actually been written about the character".

Bob Kane and Bill Finger did not create the definitive Batman--they created a version of Batman that, through the combined effort of hundreds of writers, became the definitive Batman.
That is simply the nature of company-owned comics.

Exactly.

The same is true of the Joker. They created a throwaway villain--as all villains were throwaways back then--and I would be unsurprised if they never even considered his origin. A hundred other writers then came along and turned that throwaway villain into the definitive Joker.

Heck, they didn't even give Batman an origin right away.

Right, so this Joe Blo may very well have some amazing ideas locked away, but he isn't allowed to apply those ideas to his own understanding of a character, because they haven't been f*****g published by some special DC vComics printer?

Throw me a bone. That Joe Bloe can apply his own ideas to his own understanding of a character, because that's what art is all about.

Sure, he can apply his own ideas to his own understanding or beliefs about a concept until the cows come home. But Joe Blo, if he's being logical, also will accept (not neccessarily like or accept it as part of his own preference about a mythology) that a certain "canon" exists for the Batman mythology. You can imagine whatever you want. While people may not like your ideas, almost no one can tell you they are not valid in the context of your imagination.

My point is though that creation is not fact - 'Creators,' be they authors, poets, directors or whomever have no more authority over anyone else than readers or viewers. All interpretations are valid.

This isn't about whether someone's personal interpretation of a character is valid. This is about what actually exists in the comics has any definitive nature in that medium.

Just because more and more stories are shaped around the chemical bath doesn't mean that I have to read them. I can read a Joker story that is totally unrelated to the chemical bath origin, and through that, draw my own conclusions up about the character.

Sure. You don't have to read them, and you can think what you want about the character, but the FACT is, based on what has been written, in the comic book canon, The Joker is as he is, at least visually, because he took a dip in chemicals.

There are no final 'truths' about a FICTIONAL character. That's my (and I think perhaps, Mr. Superhero's) point.

No one ever said there were. But there are truths about what has been WRITTEN about that character.

What truths, exactly? You mean concepts that are widely accepted? My interpretation of a character can be influenced by the presentation of that character's persona, but my interpretation of a character can never be influenced by genetic ideas that are presented as "truths" by DC.

What about the rest of the mythology elements that began as "generic ideas"?

If I don't want my Joker to have an origin, then I can rightfully ignore the chemical bath origin, regardless of "DC CANON"...

No one said you can't. Your Joker can be what you want. But the fact is that the chemical bath thing is part of DC's canon. The comic book Joker fell into chemicals, or staged one hell of an elaborate ruse to make it look like he did (an angle I've always wanted to see played out).

1)The Joker is NOT REAL. There are NO TRUTHS ABOUT HIM. HE IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, AND AS SUCH, IF YOU, I OR ANYONE ELSE IMAGINE HIM TO HAVE WHITE, BLUE OR GOLD SKIN, PERMANENT OR OTHERWISE, ALL THOSE INTERPRETATIONS ARE EQUALLY VALID. BECAUSE AS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, THERE IS NO WAY TO ABSOLUTELY, EMPIRICALLY PROVE AN INTERPRETATION OF HIM. If he was real, then we could go up to him and see beyond any shadow of a doubt what his real skin colour was. But he's not. HE EXISTS ONLY IN IMAGINATION AND WORKS OF IMAGINATION. Okay?

No one's arguing about what The Joker CAN be. They're arguing what has been written about him. What has been written about The Joker IS real. That is the issue here. No one is arguing that you cannot change the nature of a character in your own interpretation.

Who determines what the person in the painting is afraid of, other than the actual creator of the painting? If someone from a painting organization comes out, and puts forward their analysis on what the person in the painting is screaming at, then how is their interpretation any more valid than my own? It doesn't matter whether this hypothetical person's analysis is presented as a "truth" by some painting company, due to the analysis being "logical", because it is what it is: an interpretation, just as I can interpret what the person in the painting is screaming at...

With something like this painting, where there simply isn't much to go on, sure, things can be subjective. With something like the Batman mythology, where there's a hell of a lot more "direct" facts about characters in the Batman mythology in regard to their motivations, etc, than there are in that painting, no, the role of interpretation becomes somewhat lessened.

Again. No one's arguing that any one take on a character is more definitiive or valid. Just that one has been shown to be actual "canon" in the comic book universe.

 

[The Guard]

And I wouldn't say STEEL was "nothing like Steel". It was just...terrible.

 

[MadeManifest]

I'm sorry, but I'm still confused.

Isn't BILL FINGER, the one who came up with the chemical bath, one of the creators of the Joker?

 

[Mr. Socko]

There is definitely a 'canon,' and there are things each version should, if not must, adhere to. This includes Batman wearing a suit and cowl.

There are also elements of the Joker that should always remain, he must have the appearance of a clown. The 'permawhite' skin is a staple of the character, but he's obviously doing without it in this version. But the basis of it, Joker with a white clown face, still remains.

 

[The Guard]

Hmm...

THE MAN BEHIND THE RED HOOD
Originally presented in Detective Comics #168, Feb 1951
Writer: Bill Finger Penciller: Lew Sayre Schwartz Inker: George Roussos

 

[Mr. Socko]

Yes, that is correct. The Joker fell into a vat of chemicals that turned his skin white and it was written by Bill Finger himself. In every version of pre-Joker, his dip into the chemicals has been constant, Batman was there in the factory when it happened. It's very much canon and it has been played no other possible way. I find there isn't much to argue on that end.

As I said before, we know the Joker isn't making up the chemical factory part because Batman was there when it happened, Batman's been present in every version as well. What's up for debate is who the Joker was before he went into that factory.

 

[The Joker]

Yes, that is correct. The Joker fell into a vat of chemicals that turned his skin white and it was written by Bill Finger himself. In every version of pre-Joker, his dip into the chemicals has been constant, Batman was there in the factory when it happened. It's very much canon and it has been played no other possible way. I find there isn't much to argue on that end.

Fact