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

[Bat-Mite]

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!"

Great post. I'm always baffled whenever I see someone here claim that Batman Begins was "realistic". If it was, I wouldn't like the film even half as much as I do. Like Blade Runner, it seems realistic because of the world it created, though neither film is realistic by any means. Whatever the reason is that Nolan chose to have the Joker wear makeup, it doesn't (or at least, it shouldn't) have anything to do with "realism". I will reserve my final judgment until I see the film, because I still believe there could be a twist involving the Joker. But if he's just some crazy guy that paints his face up a bit, then it will be a shame, especially since his personality seems to be perfectly in line with the character from the comics. I'll always look at it as a "what could have been" situation - a superficial (but extremely important) feature that prevented us from having a perfect Joker.

 

[adamwe]

I don't understand how common sense factors into a decision to make a comic book character who has historically had white skin into a comic book character who applies makeup to get his white skin.

Personal taste? Maybe. Common sense? I'm not seeing it.

I guess the same common sense that dictated that Batman should glide through the city with his winged cape rather than swing on a batrope like Tarzan. Both are unrealistic, but I would accept Bats catching a breeze jumping off a building better than having an endless supply of grappling hooks.

 

[Crook]

Joker dancing to Prince is not realistic.

I think you need to look up what the word "realistic" means.

I also think you need to point out what exactly Joker dances to.

Thanks.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Joker dancing to Prince is not realistic.

THIS MAN IS RIGHT! JOKER WOULD NEVER DANCE TO PRINCE,

he's an N*Sync man all the way.



Seriously though, that is in no way unrealistic. Joker could get a CD player and start dancing to anything if he wanted to, wherever he wanted to. And he probably would because he's a nut case like that.

 

[The Guard]

Joker killing a guy buy throwing, and I repeat, throwing a feather at a guys neck is not realistic.

It wasn't a feather. It was a weapon disguised as a feather. And if you don't think poison spikes and spikes that can kill you exist, you're kidding yourself.

The batcave was not realistic.

It wasn't completely outside the realm of possibility.

The parade was not realistic.

How so?

Joker dancing to Prince is not realistic.

?

Anyway, apparently lost on you is the fact that BATMAN was never intended to be extremely realistic. Probably because the source material didn't tend to be.

 

[Sandouras]

I'm near certain nicky referenced 100 mph simply as a round number, designed to imply a high rate of speed. Pinpointing the exact speed of the train is largely irrelevant. The fact is that the train was moving rapidly enough to cause definitive injury if someone latched a grapple to it from a stand-still position, regardless of what body armor he was wearing. It's movie magic.

Ok, first of all, its good to be back. I ll be nicer from now on.

Secondly, the force applied to Batman's arms is irrelevant to the speed that the train is going.

Because F= m * a, where F is force, m is mass and a is the acceleration.

So, its not a matter of how fast the train was going, but rather, how fast it was accelerating. Batman grappled on it while it was still going slow and it was slowly accelerating. If he had grappled on to it while it was doing 40mph his speed would instantly rise from 0 to 40 in a second, thus ripping his arms off. But he grappled on to it while it was still going slow. From then on, the only acceleration was the train's and lets face it, trains dont accelerate like Ferraris.

Finally, the velocity of the train only matters when its too high, because then the drag produced by batman's shape going through the air would be too great for him to be able to hold on.

For me, Bruce's arms should have been ripped off when he saved Rhas from that cliff. Or isnt it convenient that while there were those huge metal loops to support the train tracks on air, that the lines were only attached to one side of said loop, so that batman can be dragged along side the train and not get tangled up?
But lets face it, its a batman film. You dont want to drop it too much into reality or it wont be a batman film.

 

[Nightwatcher11]

OMG this whole argument over realism is getting ridiculous. Really. I can't even begin to laugh at the whole thing but I'm not poking fun at you guys, just saying MY opinion on this topic.

 

[StylishHokie21]

It wasn't a feather. It was a weapon disguised as a feather. And if you don't think poison spikes and spikes that can kill you exist, you're kidding yourself.



It wasn't completely outside the realm of possibility.



How so?



?

Anyway, apparently lost on you is the fact that BATMAN was never intended to be extremely realistic. Probably because the source material didn't tend to be.

Well said TG.

 

[ronny]

Seriously though, that is in no way unrealistic. Joker could get a CD player and start dancing to anything if he wanted to, wherever he wanted to. And he probably would because he's a nut case like that.

Let's view it as it is. That dancing bit is advertising. Simple as. Prince brings out a new song and not only is it in the soundtrack (Which is fair enough) but the villain has to dance to it.
You know, Jack Nicholson got messed around in so many ways. If they ever want to do The Dark Knight Returns it would be a perfect chance to bring Nicholson back. But without that stupid permanent smile, with a costume that works and with the same killer lines he had in 89.
Because, let's be honest, he was the perfect choice for the role and because of Burtons vanity he had to dance like a moron. You get a great actor in and make him dance to Prince? Lunacy.
And in terms of realism I feel that it is not necessarily important. As long as I can believe something could possibly exist I'll be happy. That's why Killer Croc works and Clayface doesn't. Because as long as it's feasible and not too cliched it's fine. Take Batman himself. I fully believe he could do what he does because he has the funds for it. Whereas the Spiderman character just seems like some nerd fantasy (super strong, genius, married to a supermodel).
Realism isn't the key here, it's all about moderation. Making things fantastical enough to be enjoyed whilst not so grounded that it is stripped of its appeal.

 

[The Guard]

You've never seen The Joker dance around and make a fool of himself in the comics?

 

[ronny]

You've never seen The Joker dance around and make a fool of himself in the comics?

Certainly not for the purposes of advertising.
It's not the dancing that bugs me, it's the song and the reason for using that song.

 

[Symbiotic]

Prefix! Let's broaden our minds - Laurence . . .

*cue Partyman*t:

 

[Crook]

Certainly not for the purposes of advertising.
It's not the dancing that bugs me, it's the song and the reason for using that song.

It's not like they had "Buy Prince's Album, in stores NOW!" plastered on the screen. It's a song, it was fun, light, and it fit Joker's persona perfectly.

 

[ronny]

It's a song, it was fun, light, and it fit Joker's persona perfectly.

How? How on Earth do those qualities fit The Nicholson Joker?

 

[Crook]

I just told you.

It was a silly and fun song. Jack's Joker prides in having the time of his life, and the song reflects that.

 

[ronny]

But the "Homicidal Artist" appraoch to the character required a song that was a bit more grandiose. Jack's Joker, unlike that in The Dark Knight, was very vain. He may have been a horribly deformed freak but he was also a total dandy.
I don't think he'd listen to any old thing, let alone Prince. Come on, Prince? It didn't fit the Nicholson Joker at all.

 

[Prefix]

The scene was a form of ironic humour. He is listening to pop music while breaking the law, after he had just killed everyone in the museum. Why not Prince?

 

[ronny]

The scene was a form of ironic humour. He is listening to pop music while breaking the law, after he had just killed everyone in the museum. Why not Prince?

Because he was egocentric and had a discerning taste?

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The Joker would listen to Rammstein. Heath's Joker, at least.

 

[Prefix]

Because he was egocentric and had a discerning taste?

It wasn't about whether he liked the music or not. It's the ridiculousness of the music itself.

In TDK, The Joker will dress up in a nurses uniform. Does this mean he is into cross-dressing? No. He does it because its inappropriate.

 

[Micah12345]

I'm pretty sure joker would listen to music like Mr. Sandman

 

[nickyg641]

How? How on Earth do those qualities fit The Nicholson Joker?

Well, it was the Joker's bizzarre taste in music. It's eccentric, it's weird, and it's a very danceable song.

^ What Prefix said. It was totally ridiculous, it was silly. Anything bright or pop, that would have fit the Joker.

 

[ronny]

The Joker would listen to Rammstein.

Or maybe long haired teenagers who put their musical tastes onto fictional characters.

 

[Prefix]

He doesn't even have to like it. The fact it is completely ridiculous is enough for him.

 

[The Joker_1000]

Screw all who opposes Prince, he's a god.