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

[Damiean Dark]

People can go into deep philosophical debate on the benifits of Heaths makeup all they want but to me a full white joker with ruby red lips will always rule over the shock for shocks sake scarred face of Heaths Joker. TDKR joker is one of the creepyist most disturbed joker of them all imo but his skin is basic white with red lips the writers reiled on a good story for the rest. TDK Joker fits in too well in Nolans world imo i wanted a complete contrast to a dark grimy gotham.

 

[Crook]

Nolan's Gotham isn't even that dark and grimey.

As much as I despise the direction they've went, I still think Joker provides a contrast to the city set in Nolan's world. His entire look represents anarchy and psychoticness, which is far from the norm.

As for the nice interpretation of the make-up, it was a never a question for me of the quality or integrity of this artistic decision. Clearly it gives a good psychological insight on Joker, that perhaps may have not been explored in the mythos. However, it is still a deviation I find unnecessary for the simple fact that permawhite also provides an intriguing concept, on it's own accord. The only difference being that it is more faithful to the source.

 

[Damiean Dark]

BB Gotham isnt the terrible B89 gotham (still the best interpretation) but it was dark enough, Joker fits in far to well there is no contrast at all between the dark of batman and the on the surface light of the joker.

 

[Crook]

How in the world does Joker fit at all? Apart from the bank scene where he's diguised to "blend in", the guy looks completely out of place. From his disheveled make-up, sloppy hair, grotesque scars, raggedy clothing, to his insane behavior, it's all far from normal.

Hell, place him in any city or public area, and anyone would be able to point him out.

 

[StylishHokie21]

How in the world does Joker fit at all? Apart from the bank scene where he's diguised to "blend in", the guy looks completely out of place. From his disheveled make-up, sloppy hair, grotesque scars, raggedy clothing, to his insane behavior, it's all far from normal.

Hell, place him in any city or public area, and anyone would be able to point him out.

Well said. I would be keeping my distance if I saw someone like that.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Do me a favor... look at this and tell me what you see??

It not Heath Ledger, its not 'Chris Nolan vision of the character'... Its THE JOKER!!!

Why does make-up even become a debate here?

 

[Damiean Dark]

No the darkness and the light has always been part of the joker/batman dynamic. joker looks far to dark he should (on the outside) look light i dont want him to look like someone i would immediatly run away from i would rather someone who could get close with there charm accent and good manners but a minute in his company would set the alarm bells ringing. an example is In TDKR, you see Joker handing out poisen candy (classic joker lol) to kids at a fairground i just cant see Heaths joker getting anywhere close enough to do something like this.

 

[Damiean Dark]

Do me a favor... look at this and tell me what you see??

It not Heath Ledger, its not 'Chris Nolan vision of the character'... Its THE JOKER!!!

Why does make-up even become a debate here?

Also the shabby cloths and snarling speech it IS an interpretation of joker just not MY interpretation of joker.

 

[Crook]

Do me a favor... look at this and tell me what you see??

It not Heath Ledger, its not 'Chris Nolan vision of the character'... Its THE JOKER!!!

Why does make-up even become a debate here?

....because it's a debate about which better fits the Joker. Did you not read any of the posts in this thread?

No the darkness and the light has always been part of the joker/batman dynamic. joker looks far to dark he should (on the outside) look light i dont want him to look like someone i would immediatly run away from i would rather someone who could get close with there charm accent and good manners but a minute in his company would set the alarm bells ringing. an example is In TDKR, you see Joker handing out poisen candy (classic joker lol) to kids at a fairground i just cant see Heaths joker getting anywhere close enough to do something like this.

The Joker/Batman dynamic was never about light and darkness. Don't know where you pulled that out from. It has always been the harmony vs. chaos, or a derivative of the two.

While I agree that my preferred Joker is someone that can instantly change from looking charming to devilish, this was not the original point I was combating. Heath's Joker still looks out of place, no matter his exterior.

 

[Mister J]

Do me a favor... look at this and tell me what you see??

It not Heath Ledger, its not 'Chris Nolan vision of the character'... Its THE JOKER!!!

It's entirely Christopher Nolan's vision of the character.

Why does make-up even become a debate here?

Because bleached white skin has been an intact attribute of the character since Spring 1940. There are those of us that would have liked to have seen it represented in the coming film, as we feel it's more than a simple aesthetic inclusion, but rather one that speaks to Joker's existence, characterization and motivations, among other traits.

And debate on the issue is kinda at the crux of this thread.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

It about time i aired my opinion about this... and to myself quite frankly -


At least Nolan/ in particular Ledger tried to REALLY bring this character to life...

Its seems as if Heath Ledger put effort into this performance... Jack Nicholson simply had fun with it!, and wanting on big paycheck!!

Its time to move on from Nicholson and accept a new version - make-up, grungy hair and all. This is simply one of many versions.


Its one vision of the character... What's wrong with trying something new??, especially when the people crafting it seem to have nothing but respect for the character.

 

[TheBat812]

Because bleached white skin has been an intact attribute of the character since Spring 1940. There are those of us that would have liked to have seen it represented in the coming film, as we feel it's more than a simple aesthetic inclusion, but rather one that speaks to Joker's existence, characterization and motivations, among other traits.

I feel Nolan's interpretation is a more interesting one, personally.

 

[Crook]

At least Nolan/ in particular Ledger tried to REALLY bring this character to life...

Yes, everyone else before them simply did nothing with the character and was a poor attempt of an adaptation.

Its seems as if Heath Ledger put effort into this performance... Jack Nicholson simply had fun with it!, and wanting on big paycheck!!

No, both actors simply chose 2 polar approaches to bringing the character to life. Both are valid interpretations of the Joker. And make no mistake, just because Jack inserted his trademark mannerisms into his performance, that did not erase the fact that he was still playing a psychotic, mass-murdering clown.

Moreover, for the simple fact that comics don't even dictate how a character physically sounds, talks, and moves.... you cannot say Nicholson did not act like Joker because he chose to attribute his own personality into the role. They're entirely independent of each other.

Its time to move on from Nicholson and accept a new version - make-up, grungy hair and all. This is simply one of many versions.

Wow, you should have came into this thread sooner. Clearly all the posters here have wasted their time in intelligent debate, when they should have accepted things and chose to "just move on".

 

[Mr. Superhero]

The Joker applying war-paint makes for a much more interesting character, IMO...as opposed to falling into a bath of chemicals and emerging crazy as a coot.

The Joker choosing his own image is a different approach, but it's also a great evolution of the character. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more comic-book writers have the Joker apply make-up after the release of TDK.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Yes, everyone else before them simply did nothing with the character and was a poor attempt of an adaptation.

Not at all... But Nolan is attempting to bring something fresh to the Batman world, while also trying to remain faithful - I personally believe that HIS version of the Joker expresses this perfectly.

No, both actors simply chose 2 polar approaches to bringing the character to life. Both are valid interpretations of the Joker. And make no mistake, just because Jack inserted his trademark mannerisms into his performance, that did not erase the fact that he was still playing a psychotic, mass-murdering clown.

Moreover, for the simple fact that comics don't even dictate how a character physically sounds, talks, and moves.... you cannot say Nicholson did not act like Joker because he chose to attribute his own personality into the role. They're entirely independent of each other.

Yes, i agree... don't get me wrong. I love Nicholson and his performance, but i really wished he would have absorbed himself into it a bit more.

Wow, you should have came into this thread sooner. Clearly all the posters here have wasted their time in intelligent debate, when they should have accepted things and chose to "just move on".

In my opinion... It beyond intelligent debate, Its simply nitpicking now. Enjoy it for what it is.

Wait until you see the look in its entirety
Wait till you see the performance in its entirety.

Who knows?...Maybe Nolan will treat it just as Ras al Ghul. meaning, he is ambiguous and leaves it up to the audience to decide if Ras is actually immortal.

 

[guitarkhero311]

While I agree that my preferred Joker is someone that can instantly change from looking charming to devilish, this was not the original point I was combating. Heath's Joker still looks out of place, no matter his exterior.

Its easy for a drawing to look innocent and then change to a more deranged demeanor. Even if the drawing is lifelike as possible, its easy to give the illusion. Now with the human face that would be hard to accomplish, especially with make up or perma-white skin. If I saw Jack's Joker I would not go near him. Same with Heath. They both are frightening, especially to see in real life. The whole Hannibal Lecter aspect has been played already, with the gentleman who turns out to be a cannibal. Plus John Gacy already did the whole nice clown thing to lure kids and stuff. There going for something new.

 

[guitarkhero311]

While I agree that my preferred Joker is someone that can instantly change from looking charming to devilish, this was not the original point I was combating. Heath's Joker still looks out of place, no matter his exterior.

Its easy for a drawing to look innocent and then change to a more deranged demeanor. Even if the drawing is lifelike as possible, its easy to give the illusion. Now with the human face that would be hard to accomplish, especially with make up or perma-white skin. If I saw Jack's Joker I would not go near him. Same with Heath. They both are frightening, especially to see in real life. The whole Hannibal Lecter aspect has been played already, with the gentleman who turns out to be a cannibal. Plus John Gacy already did the whole nice clown thing to lure kids and stuff. There going for something new.

 

[Eggyman]

I've accepted the make-up now . . . but I've still got this thing in the back of my head that says: Nolan likes twists in his films, and if there is a twist they would lead us to believe the opposite so that the twist is actually a twist. If you get what I mean?

 

[Nightwing1977]

Its time to move on from Nicholson and accept a new version - make-up, grungy hair and all. This is simply one of many versions.

Word. There always going to be new version of a iconic character with different film that has no connection with the previous one.

 

[Mister J]

I feel Nolan's interpretation is a more interesting one, personally.

You mean the interpretation that, by and large, we know nothing about?

I'll need to wait until after I see the film to form an opinion on how interesting a dude decked out in Maybelline, ratty clothing and sporting a gashmouth is versus dozens of stories that I've read that go toward highlighting the character.

There are new dynamics that can be created by the changes Nolan has embraced, but I'm not willing to give them much credence until I see how they're executed, certainly not in excess of those dynamics that I already know to be intriguing.

 

[TheBat812]

You mean the interpretation that, by and large, we know nothing about?

I'll need to wait until after I see the film to form an opinion on how interesting a dude decked out in Maybelline, ratty clothing and sporting a gashmouth is versus dozens of stories that I've read that go toward highlighting the character.

There are new dynamics that can be created by the changes Nolan has embraced, but I'm not willing to give them much credence until I see how they're executed, certainly not in excess of those dynamics that I already know to be intriguing.

And yet I still find it more interesting. Oh ****!

For reasons, see Mr. Superhero's response on the page before it.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

And yet I still find it more interesting. Oh ****!

That's almost worthy of a pwnage, but it's much too subtle.

 

[The Joker_1000]

So, what's up with you guys?

 

[Mister J]

I've accepted the make-up now . . . but I've still got this thing in the back of my head that says: Nolan likes twists in his films, and if there is a twist they would lead us to believe the opposite so that the twist is actually a twist. If you get what I mean?

I would love that. Not for my own feelings on the film's change; I gave up on the good ol' effects of a chemical bath a long time ago. I just want to see the reversal of field some people employ in the wake of the matter. Similar to the ones shown which it was initially declared that it was too 'cartoony', 'comicy' or 'not realistic' for the Joker to wear purple, then became a further testament to Nolan's brilliance when we saw Heath sporting something familiar to usual Joker garb.

I'll have to make sure my lunch is extra tasty that day, so I don't really mind experiencing it three or four times throughout the course of a relatively short period of time.

And yet I still find it more interesting. Oh ****!

Fascinating. Good thing I made sure that remark was reflective of an individual's point of view, as opposed to speaking for the general population.

 

[Joker]

And yet I still find it more interesting. Oh ****!

For reasons, see Mr. Superhero's response on the page before it.

"I know nothing about what Nolan is doing, but I'm still going to praise him regardless! The comics suxxx!!!"

That's about what I see there.