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

[StylishHokie21]

Yeah...I only wish they could have at least painted his neck white. These are the ones I like the most.

 

[Tyler1513]

i love the normal joker from the comics ever sicne i was 5 but, ledgers joker is the joker to me now like, when someones mentions joker thats the image i c. but i will always love all the joker concepts beside the joker from the batman tv show .

 

[JokerLedger]

I prefer Joker with make-up over permawhite.

 

[The Joker_1000]

It doesn't really matter to me, it's still the Joker regardless.

 

[cjblair]

I like the attention to detail, in the trailer you can see the stains on his hands from the face paint.

 

[nickyg641]

I prefer Joker with make-up over permawhite.

Now explain why.

 

[Micah12345]

I gotta say, now that im used to the joker wearing make-up, i can't see him being perma-white in TDK. It would just feel out of place. Too fantastical. This is a good compromise. I would like to see whoever takes over after chris nolan do a permawhite joker again though.

 

[cjblair]

Now explain why.

Personally, I like how the makeup rubs off, as if he's losing his sanity at the same time he's losing his makeup. Remember Joker '89 wore makeup as well, even if to look normal. Remember the scene when Vale splashed his face with a pitcher of water?

 

[nickyg641]

I gotta say, now that im used to the joker wearing make-up, i can't see him being perma-white in TDK. It would just feel out of place. Too fantastical. This is a good compromise. I would like to see whoever takes over after chris nolan do a permawhite joker again though.

I think I could imagine a permawhite Joker in TDK.

I don't think it's too fantastical for Nolan's world at all. Of course, it wouldn't be the straight-up, bright, pancake-makeup-white. I think a realistic permawhite would look a lot like this:

Pasty, a little vainy, a little inconsistant. In the ad, it's supposed to be the arm of a corpse, and I think that works perfectly for the Joker: the complexion of a corpse.

 

[Micah12345]

ha yeah I like the whole veiny bruised thing.

almost like he's diseased with insanity. but then that begs the question over whether or not to explain it, and I very much prefer no origin.

 

[Beanjuice]

Indeed, indeed. Though, there's the catch:

The coolness of the "new look" comes, for most people, I would say, from the red lipstick, and black eye-makeup. I don't think many would argue why the Joker looks better with half of his face flesh-colored.

So, I think the "new look" could have worked with permawhite. I've long suggested that it would be great if, in addition to permawhite and a sliced smile, the Joker wore the red and black makeup to heighten the effect. So, that way, even if you remove the makeup, you've still got the ghost white face staring at you.

To me, this would have been the perfect "Nolan-edge" to the character.

i like that idea,however,that would be too...i dunno i can t really think of the word maybe excessive?. while i agree the new look could work with perma white i think the appliance of makeup makes him even darker,and creepier. the acid bath story has been done so many times before so im happy to see something new for once and for once something new that actually works

 

[cjblair]

i like that idea,however,that would be too...i dunno i can t really think of the word maybe excessive?. while i agree the new look could work with perma white i think the appliance of makeup makes him even darker,and creepier. the acid bath story has been done so many times before so im happy to see something new for once and for once something new that actually works

Is there a chemical that makes a person an albino? An acid bath would normally just scar the skin.

 

[Beanjuice]

Is there a chemical that makes a person an albino? An acid bath would normally just scar the skin.

well you know what i mean by acid bath,just a figure of speech

 

[nickyg641]

Personally, I like how the makeup rubs off, as if he's losing his sanity at the same time he's losing his makeup. Remember Joker '89 wore makeup as well, even if to look normal. Remember the scene when Vale splashed his face with a pitcher of water?

But, eventually, that makeup will come off completely. And then, a human face is revealed; a relatively normal one.

And I don't like that. I like the idea that the Joker will never be like us, in any way. He's so monstrous, on the outside and in, and that will never change.

I think his "deteriorating sanity" can be represented in other ways, i.e. the state of his hair, the state of his clothes, hell, if you go by what I said earlier about my preferential Joker (black and red makeup ofver permawhite), you can still get the "drippy" effect (which I love, by the way), but without having to see fleshy splotches underneath.

ha yeah I like the whole veiny bruised thing.

almost like he's diseased with insanity. but then that begs the question over whether or not to explain it, and I very much prefer no origin.

I would have loved it if, while no origin is explored, they gave shadowy, vague references to an accident. I think one or two more lines like "Whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you stranger" would set the idea that something happened to him, something life altering, in every way.

Also, to give a small hint towards his origin, and reference the Joker's apparent invincibility, I would have loved a line from Fox that went along the lines of:

"There are chemicals that can do that to a man. But any normal human being would have died."

Just little things to get the imagination primed, without giving any real information about his identity, or how he really came to be. Just theories, vague references. That way, you don't have to repeat the acid bath story, and enough room is left for the imagination to wander, and form its own theories.

 

[Beanjuice]

I'm not even gonna watch the movie.

 

[Beanjuice]

I'm not even gonna watch the movie.

 

[ironwez20]

i sense someone is cofused in the boards

 

[Boom]

I think I could imagine a permawhite Joker in TDK.

I don't think it's too fantastical for Nolan's world at all. Of course, it wouldn't be the straight-up, bright, pancake-makeup-white. I think a realistic permawhite would look a lot like this:

Pasty, a little vainy, a little inconsistant. In the ad, it's supposed to be the arm of a corpse, and I think that works perfectly for the Joker: the complexion of a corpse.

I saw that DVD in Best Buy the other day and honest to God thought the same thing. That's how realistic permawhite skin could/should be done.

 

[adamwe]

Incredible. Over 700 messages debating whether the Joker should be permawhite or not in TDK. Well here's my take on it. In spite of what the fan boys want, Nolan can't make a permawhite Joker in his series. Why? Because everything in BB was plausible to some degree. His costume could realistically be made of body armor. The tumbler was actually a vehicle built for the movie. Even the material for his cape, while not known to exist, is not a scientific impossibility. All the elements are grounded in reality. (The only possible exception would be centered around the microwave emitter, it would have irradiated half the population before vaporizing the water supply) The idea of someone being immersed in chemicals powerful enough to render them pure white (while leaving their lips red) and turning their hair green (without burning a strand out), without killing them or at least causing permanent blindness is utterly ridiculous. After all, it been pointed out the numerous elements of the Batman mythos have been altered when presented in other mediums. 1966 Batman used a red phone instead of a "Batsignal". It also had an "Aunt Harriet" to deflect questions about Robin sexuality. Frank Miller defied the Batman legend by having James Gordon meet Batman long before he became commissioner. 1989 Batman had a build only slightly larger than Vickie Vale. And let's not mention Burton's Penguin. The point of all of this being that Nolan has to create a Joker that could exist in the real world, not the comic world. In the real world the only way the Joker could be permawhite head to toe is to have him visit Michael Jackson's dermatologist.

 

[nickyg641]

Incredible. Over 700 messages debating whether the Joker should be permawhite or not in TDK. Well here's my take on it. In spite of what the fan boys want, Nolan can't make a permawhite Joker in his series. Why? Because everything in BB was plausible to some degree. His costume could realistically be made of body armor. The tumbler was actually a vehicle built for the movie. Even the material for his cape, while not known to exist, is not a scientific impossibility. All the elements are grounded in reality. (The only possible exception would be centered around the microwave emitter, it would have irradiated half the population before vaporizing the water supply) The idea of someone being immersed in chemicals powerful enough to render them pure white (while leaving their lips red) and turning their hair green (without burning a strand out), without killing them or at least causing permanent blindness is utterly ridiculous. After all, it been pointed out the numerous elements of the Batman mythos have been altered when presented in other mediums. 1966 Batman used a red phone instead of a "Batsignal". It also had an "Aunt Harriet" to deflect questions about Robin sexuality. Frank Miller defied the Batman legend by having James Gordon meet Batman long before he became commissioner. 1989 Batman had a build only slightly larger than Vickie Vale. And let's not mention Burton's Penguin. The point of all of this being that Nolan has to create a Joker that could exist in the real world, not the comic world. In the real world the only way the Joker could be permawhite head to toe is to have him visit Michael Jackson's dermatologist.

Batman Begins was not realistic. Not even "to some degree". It's no more realistic than B'89. But it's the way in which the movie was presented that allowed you to suspend your disbelief. A Microwave Emitter? Would have fried the innards any human being within a mile. Batman attaching himself to the train? His arms would have been torn from their sockets (no matter how much "armor" was on his little rubber-clad body.) A grappling gun? No way anything that small could shoot a cable of the required thickness with such force, let alone be able to hold up a 200 lb. man.

The thing was, with all of these, what got you to believe them was the world and context it was set in. Because the world you saw looked believable, the things within it didn't seem so far-fetched.

Also, for the movie's most improbable of devices, they provided short, semi-scientific, "I'm going to use big words so it sounds like I know what I'm talking about" explanations. These were, of course, mostly BS, but the context in which they were presented allowed you to believe them.

I don't see why the same can't apply with permawhite. Give us a permawhite, adapted to the gritty context of the movie. Have a character who seems like he knows what he's talking about give a short, shadowy, vaguely- scientific "explanation" of the Joker's appearance. I guarentee you, you wouldn't have a single complaint.

That's really the thing with people who say permawhite doesn't work in "Nolan's vision"; had "Nolan's vision" included permawhite, no one would have said a word. In fact, you would probably be hearing things like "Nolan was a genius for having brought permawhite into the real world!"

 

[adamwe]

Batman Begins was not realistic. Not even "to some degree". It's no more realistic than B'89. But it's the way in which the movie was presented that allowed you to suspend your disbelief. A Microwave Emitter? Would have fried the innards any human being within a mile. Batman attaching himself to the train? His arms would have been torn from their sockets (no matter how much "armor" was on his little rubber-clad body.) A grappling gun? No way anything that small could shoot a cable of the required thickness with such force, let alone be able to hold up a 200 lb. man.

The thing was, with all of these, what got you to believe them was the world and context it was set in. Because the world you saw looked believable, the things within it didn't seem so far-fetched.

Also, for the movie's most improbable of devices, they provided short, semi-scientific, "I'm going to use big words so it sounds like I know what I'm talking about" explanations. These were, of course, mostly BS, but the context in which they were presented allowed you to believe them.

I don't see why the same can't apply with permawhite. Give us a permawhite, adapted to the gritty context of the movie. Have a character who seems like he knows what he's talking about give a short, shadowy, vaguely- scientific "explanation" of the Joker's appearance. I guarentee you, you wouldn't have a single complaint.

That's really the thing with people who say permawhite doesn't work in "Nolan's vision"; had "Nolan's vision" included permawhite, no one would have said a word. In fact, you would probably be hearing things like "Nolan was a genious for having brought permawhite into the real world!"

Again I agree the microwave (see my initial post) was over the top. I can't say no one could grab the side of a train without getting their arms ripped out the sockets. After all there are people who pulled a train using a bit held by their teeth (see Guinness Book of Records). As for the monofilament I don't fish but I'm pretty sure there are lines that could support the weight of an extra large fish. (I don't know what those limits are). The one thing I am certain about is that any chemical powerful enough to remove all the coloring out of a person's skin through accidental immersion would at least be powerful enough to cause permanent blindness on contact.

 

[Saint]

Do people really not know that there are chemicals capable of bleaching skin?

 

[nickyg641]

Again I agree the microwave (see my initial post) was over the top. I can't say no one could grab the side of a train without getting their arms ripped out the sockets. After all there are people who pulled a train using a bit held by their teeth (see Guinness Book of Records).

I'm talking about a man being yanked on a cable by a train going 100+ miles per hour. That's enough to tear him apart.

As for the monofilament I don't fish but I'm pretty sure there are lines that could support the weight of an extra large fish. (I don't know what those limits are).

What I'm saying is, there is no way a gun that small could shoot a cable that was the necessary size to hold a man (which, in the movie, it wasn't thick enough), plus be able to reel him up at such a high speed.

The Mythbusters did a test on superhero myths a few months ago, and grappling guns were one of those tested. It worked, but barely. And the grappling guns themselves were the size of crossbows.

The one thing I am certain about is that any chemical powerful enough to remove all the coloring out of a person's skin through accidental immersion would at least be powerful enough to cause permanent blindness on contact.

And, as I said, if these other real-life consequences can be ignored, why can't those of permawhite?

Please, tell me, honestly, had Nolan gone with permawhite, would you be sitting here, shaking your head, going "But that would cause at least permanent blindness! Bad move, Nolan. What a shame it couldn't have been makeup."

 

[Crook]

Looking at nicky, I've realized all it takes is for one poster to not read the whole thread, comment on realism, and for me to repeat my entire argument all over again. What has this thread done to us?

 

[nickyg641]

Looking at nicky, I've realized all it takes is for one poster to not read the whole thread, comment on realism, and for me to repeat my entire argument all over again. What has this thread done to us?

It has turned us into repetitive, babbling people. Though, I was already like that. I have a habit of repeating myself in speech.

Maybe that's why I like this thread. They repeat their babble, I repeat mine.

There. See? I've said "repeat" four times already.