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

[TheBat812]

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 three or four times throughout the course of the day.

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.

So did I, most notably with the inclusion of 'I feel' and 'personally.'

 

[Crook]

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.

Who says he didn't? There is no definable approach in bringing the Joker to life.

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

And what do you think this entire forum is founded on? Discussion for simpletons? 99% of the subjects covered in every single thread are based on nitpicking a detail. It's only made manageable by intelligent debate.

Wait until you see the look in its entirety

I....already have. I don't need to see the movie to see what he looks like.

Wait till you see the performance in its entirety.

What does this have to do with anything? I'm debating make-up/permawhite. That has absolutely nothing to do with Heath's performance.

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.

Not the same case at all. Make-up is easily discernable, and if it isn't proven to be otherwise, anyone indicating such, is an idiot.

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.

Why? It's essentially a skin color, that doesn't detract a person from giving off expressions.

If I saw Jack's Joker I would not go near him. Same with Heath.

But then again, both had very off-putting features from the get-go.

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.

Jack's take isn't the only way to go about the gentleman-turned-killer-at-a-switch interpretation. In the same way Miller's Batman isn't the only way to do a cold and dark, bitter vigilante.

Had Heath been given less grotesque makeup, he could've still given a very powerfully aggressive take (as we saw in the trailers), with the addition of possibly adding a "gentleman" aspect of the character.

 

[TheBat812]

"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.

So automatically I hate the comics? No, the truth is that I appreciate a new take on the Joker that actually expands on a classic character and adds a new complexity and takes a different direction. On the other side, we have people who automatically disqualify Nolan's take on the character because it 'isn't faithful.' I love the fact that the makeup is likely a choice the Joker himself makes out his insanity. As Nolan says, he represents anarchy, and in that sense he obviously will remain the same throughout the same. People have argued that having the Joker be permawhite is more powerful character development because he has no choice in the matter, but I disagree. That, to me, should come from Harvey Dent's story, whereas the Joker should always choose to be evil. He just IS evil, and that's where the strength of his character comes from. You may disagree, but I love this take, and I'm glad we'll be getting a different take on teh character this summer. And yet, by having the Joker always appear with his facepaint throughout the movie, he is essentially permawhite. So it's a win win. But go ahead, complain, and complain about the innaccuracy, or be mature about it and accept it, even if it isn't your preferred vision. I'm not saying you have to compromise your own, but at least try to understand the changes made and the reasons for them. Obviously, all of this is speculation until we see the movie, but so what?c

 

[Joker]

It's not adding to the character though, it's taking away from. He took away his most notable feature, and his entire motivation, to make him evil for no reason other than "ooohhhh, he's EEEEVIL!"

 

[Damiean Dark]

Heath isnt my first chioce but i feel he would have excelled far more as joker if they did the clean cut gentelman appraoch he has the look and build im not keen on his voice acting skills though.

And to accuse Jack of not absorbing himself is silly an actor doesnt have to immerse himself to the brink of self harm to produce a great performance jack was a fan of the character and was eager to do it thats enough for me.

 

[ronny]

Jack's take isn't the only way to go about the gentleman-turned-killer-at-a-switch interpretation.

Jack wasn't really a gentleman. Before his accident he was boorish, arrogant and even had the balls to sneer at Batman. He was a thoroughly nasty piece of work and that's why Nicholson's best work in that movie is before he truly becomes The Joker. See his face, a whole range of emotions there. He's a guy whose face instantly tells a story, he's got that rare quality.
And they covered it up. A total shame.

 

[Damiean Dark]

You dont have to be a fan of the comics but it really does help to understand other fans views on the subject of Joker.

 

[TheBat812]

It's not adding to the character though, it's taking away from. He took away his most notable feature, and his entire motivation, to make him evil for no reason other than "ooohhhh, he's EEEEVIL!"

how does that in any way take away from his character? The point of the Joker in this take is for him to be the one driving force for chaos. What besides being evil, do you want him to be? You want to empathize with him? Why? That's what Dent is for.

 

[ronny]

It's not adding to the character though, it's taking away from. He took away his most notable feature, and his entire motivation, to make him evil for no reason other than "ooohhhh, he's EEEEVIL!"

The Joker needs no motivation. But the chemical bath story does help as he can go in an unexpected direction and try to get pity out of unsuspecting rubes/juries/Batman. You know, crying about his cruel hand whilst secretly loving every second of being so totally out of his mind.
But I personally like the idea that he came from nowhere, the city spat him out.

 

[Joker]

how does that in any way take away from his character? The point of the Joker in this take is for him to be the one driving force for chaos. What besides being evil, do you want him to be? You want to empathize with him? Why? That's what Dent is for.

He doesnt need to be empathized with, no. But I would much preffer to have a little bit of human grounding for his insanity other than him being an arch, cardboard cut out villain.

 

[SpiderB]

I'm really not sure why so many people are shocked by the changes made to the Joker for this film. Didn't you all see Batman Begins? All the villains were toned down and made more "real". Just look at how they presented Scarecrow. Did you really expect the Joker to be exactly like he is in the comics?

Heck, Nolan has stayed much truer to the Joker of the comics than I thought he would. I wasn't even expecting him to have the purple suit and all that. I was expecting him to be very toned down and non-clownish. And I would have been happy with that, because I liked how the subdued approach to the characters worked in Batman Begins. So, knowing how he treated the characters in that film, you should probably all be thankful he stayed as true to the comic version as he did in this case.

Personally, I'm not interested in seeing direct translations from comic books to movies. That's boring. I go to see live action movies based on comic books because I want to see a human interpretation of those stories and characters. I want to see them not as superheros and supervillains, but as real people. Otherwise, I'd go read the comics or watch an animated movie about them.

Whatever happened to "In Nolan We Trust"?

 

[ronny]

Wait, wait, wait, how was Scarecrow toned down? He wore a sack mask, he hallucinated people, he turned out to be a total wimp. He was totally faithful to the comic, it's just that he was starting out in the criminal world and did not yet have his freakier leanings.
And Ras al Ghul was pretty much the same apart from a few differences in his motivations. I mean, in the comics isn't it more about protecting the Earth (In an enviromental sense) than hobbling human decadence? In any case, the two are linked and can easily be changed around if need be. But the character was done well, his costume worked better than that monstrosity they have him wearing in the comics and they got the best actor to play him.
Nolan has done a great job thus far, but he needs to set the stones for his successors. Namely by introducing characters who will become villains. Like, Edward Nashton (Riddler) working as a delivery guy. Poison Ivy and other eco-warriors doing deals with other characters (Like the Chechyns in The Dark Knight). Jervis Tetch working at a computer in some office block.
Give them the smallest of introductions and let it be taken from there.

 

[Joker]

I think he still had his freakier leanings...he was working for Ra's so he could get the stuff to make his gas so he could do experiments on the inamates with it...

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

And to accuse Jack of not absorbing himself is silly an actor doesnt have to immerse himself to the brink of self harm to produce a great performance jack was a fan of the character and was eager to do it thats enough for me.

Are you implying that Heath Ledger immersed himself to the brink if self-harm in order to create this performance.

Screw the make-up and what he looks like....

Look in my opinion.. when i watch that trailer i see the joker, not heath.

When i watch Batman 89, i see jack Nicholson in white make-up!

 

[SpiderB]

Wait, wait, wait, how was Scarecrow toned down? He wore a sack mask, he hallucinated people, he turned out to be a total wimp. He was totally faithful to the comic, it's just that he was starting out in the criminal world and did not yet have his freakier leanings.

He also only wore a suit and tie, and his mask was actually a gas mask used only for brief moments at a time to protect himself and to make sure the people he gassed saw something scary once the gas took effect.

He was not a costumed "supervillain" like in the comics. He was an asylum director who happened to be secretly corrupt and a criminal. That was it. And it worked. That's how he was toned down.

 

[ronny]

But even in the comics he's not really a supervillain is he? He's just a loser who drugs people to get in their minds.

 

[JokerLedger]

he is also really freaking awesome to look at, if i might add. I just love the way he looks in that pic where batman is standing behind him. His face structure is that of a normal man's, doesnt even remind us of the classic jokeresque elongated face and yet he is the joker. And those washed up wrinkles and those black rotting eyes are perfect!

For the first time i love how joker looks. I can now take him more seriously and all that because of the normal facial structure. Yeah, yeah there are people that look like that and there are comics where he looks good, but he always looked a bit ridiculous to me. I can see all that threat, madness and death on his face now. And its not because of heath, nolan or whatever. He just looks awesome to me!

right there with you brother!

 

[Sandouras]

I always knew that the joker was permawhite, but i never found it such a huge issue. Apart from liking this joker more in appearence i will say that he is still scarred and that's still the reason why some bolts came loose in his head.

Now, to some the permawhite issue is like having Dent apply makeup. I can see where you are coming from. I havent dwelled or cared much of the events that made joker who he is (although i have read the killing joke), so maybe thats why i dont care so much. To me, joker just....is there. That origin story just took away his divinity.

We have yet to see how this interpretation pans out, but from what we ve been hearing, this joker is more than a mass murderer with a clown fixation and a bad taste of humour. This one really seems to stand for a force. He seems to be the living avatar of chaos, anarchy and death.

I could never really stomach the fact that a character so dark and serious as the batman has to go out and fight a villain as looney as the joker. TO ME, and i repeat: to me, he never looked anything else but ridicoulous. Whatever his schemes, his plans, his death count, i could never stomach the fact that the goddamn Batman is dealing with this ridicoulous man. I always wanted a more human look for him and a scarier way of operating. I dont care how iconic he is, when his plan is to get a standup comedy award he didnt get before becoming the joker, i cant take it seriously. Flash has villains that have plots like that and they suck. Sure he is a lunatic, but when he stands for something so clearly as nolan says that his does, then its like he becomes a symbol of that. Excuse me but Nicholson's joker didnt stand for anything. He was just a megalomaniac pervert. Make that, a fat megalomaniac pervert.....sorry....make that Jack Nicholson!

Anyway, when joker is just a buffoun who always laughs its just not my cup of tea. I like some of his great moments in comics but i cant help but ask for more. Dont get me wrong, i liked the Killing Joke, but its always the same damn thing that joker has a funny plan and in the end he gets all beat up with teeth falling off and his nose bleeding while he argues with batman about his various ethics, philosophies and stuff.

I just hope Ledger can give batsy some good kicks, maybe a sneaky knife to the leg while he is laughing and growling like a lion, something like that. Not that the joker can ever match Batman in fighting prowess. It would just be refreshing to NOT see him get beat while talking in Hamil's voice.

The comics joker didnt even have the physical presence to pull this off. When i look at ledger here:

i feel like i am looking at a freaking tornado, Darkseid, a great white shark! He has a serious and threatening presence, without losing the jokes and fun part of the character. I am sure heath will laugh a lot and will also give us jokeresque moments (dressing up as a nurse anyone?). Its just different seeing him in a nurse's outfit that seeing the comics joker in a nurse's outfit. None can foul you if you look at their face, but the comics one seems to be having fun, while this one seems to be having fun while eating your eyeballs and doing your mom!

Thats just me of course.

 

[guitarkhero311]

Why? It's essentially a skin color, that doesn't detract a person from giving off expressions.

Yes but the red lips and green hair are also factors of the chemical bath. And those aren't necessarily normal. In the real world it would be hard for a person to convey all of these factors into a charming demeanor. In a cartoon or comic, it can be done farely easy, they don't have to take into account the extreme amount of muscle use it takes for a real human to make a facial expression. This is my best reasoning as to why we do not see this take in a movie, its hard for a sadistic looking clown to look, as well as act, charming.

But then again, both had very off-putting features from the get-go.

Just like the comics, green hair, red lips, white face, huge smile, etc.

Jack's take isn't the only way to go about the gentleman-turned-killer-at-a-switch interpretation. In the same way Miller's Batman isn't the only way to do a cold and dark, bitter vigilante.

But in all reality thats as close as you can get in a movie, and still make the character seem real. A bunch of people being charmed into death by a clown isn't too believeable, especially when Gothamites know there is a deranged clown killer on the loose.

Had Heath been given less grotesque makeup, he could've still given a very powerfully aggressive take (as we saw in the trailers), with the addition of possibly adding a "gentleman" aspect of the character.

As I said before, the green hair, white face, red lips are the Joker's trade mark attributes, all of which are grotesque in a varying degree. And since we haven't seen the movie, we have no idea if the scars and "war paint" have an affect on the Joker's methods, and if they were not present, they could very well take away from the story that Nolan and his desgin team did not write. They have adapted the Joker the best way they know how to fit the story that we know nothing about.

 

[guitarkhero311]

Why? It's essentially a skin color, that doesn't detract a person from giving off expressions.

Yes but the red lips and green hair are also factors of the chemical bath. And those aren't necessarily normal. In the real world it would be hard for a person to convey all of these factors into a charming demeanor. In a cartoon or comic, it can be done farely easy, they don't have to take into account the extreme amount of muscle use it takes for a real human to make a facial expression. This is my best reasoning as to why we do not see this take in a movie, its hard for a sadistic looking clown to look, as well as act, charming.

But then again, both had very off-putting features from the get-go.

Just like the comics, green hair, red lips, white face, huge smile, etc.

Jack's take isn't the only way to go about the gentleman-turned-killer-at-a-switch interpretation. In the same way Miller's Batman isn't the only way to do a cold and dark, bitter vigilante.

But in all reality thats as close as you can get in a movie, and still make the character seem real. A bunch of people being charmed into death by a clown isn't too believeable, especially when Gothamites know there is a deranged clown killer on the loose.

Had Heath been given less grotesque makeup, he could've still given a very powerfully aggressive take (as we saw in the trailers), with the addition of possibly adding a "gentleman" aspect of the character.

As I said before, the green hair, white face, red lips are the Joker's trade mark attributes, all of which are grotesque in a varying degree. And since we haven't seen the movie, we have no idea if the scars and "war paint" have an affect on the Joker's methods, and if they were not present, they could very well take away from the story that Nolan and his desgin team did not write. They have adapted the Joker the best way they know how to fit the story that we know nothing about.

 

[Rezzo]

Can someone please post the full size image?

 

[Joker4Halloween]

If I saw this guy walking down the street I'd be nervous. I think the look is great.

 

[Sandouras]

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.

I just hope that things invented by the movies can be incorporated in the comics if the audience and fans embrace them. I am not talking about the joker, since there probably is a huge difference between the two, but remember Burton's grapple gun?

Stuff like that. If heath sports a new gadget or prank, it would be nice to see it in comics as well. Or new dynamics of someone's personality of course that the comic writers havent thought of exploring yet.

 

[Sandouras]

So automatically I hate the comics? No, the truth is that I appreciate a new take on the Joker that actually expands on a classic character and adds a new complexity and takes a different direction. On the other side, we have people who automatically disqualify Nolan's take on the character because it 'isn't faithful.' I love the fact that the makeup is likely a choice the Joker himself makes out his insanity. As Nolan says, he represents anarchy, and in that sense he obviously will remain the same throughout the same. People have argued that having the Joker be permawhite is more powerful character development because he has no choice in the matter, but I disagree. That, to me, should come from Harvey Dent's story, whereas the Joker should always choose to be evil. He just IS evil, and that's where the strength of his character comes from. You may disagree, but I love this take, and I'm glad we'll be getting a different take on teh character this summer. And yet, by having the Joker always appear with his facepaint throughout the movie, he is essentially permawhite. So it's a win win. But go ahead, complain, and complain about the innaccuracy, or be mature about it and accept it, even if it isn't your preferred vision. I'm not saying you have to compromise your own, but at least try to understand the changes made and the reasons for them. Obviously, all of this is speculation until we see the movie, but so what?c

I will tattoo this one! Thats how much i like it!!!!

It's not adding to the character though, it's taking away from. He took away his most notable feature, and his entire motivation, to make him evil for no reason other than "ooohhhh, he's EEEEVIL!"

I disagree. He changed the way of his disfigurement. He didnt just make him evil for the sake of doing so. And you know what? People get mutilated each day. Not all become 2Faces and jokers.

He doesnt need to be empathized with, no. But I would much preffer to have a little bit of human grounding for his insanity other than him being an arch, cardboard cut out villain.

"Whatever doesnt kill you, simply makes you....stranger!". I suppose that the reason this joker doesnt have a sobbery origin story is because we already had batman's and will have dent's. Its also been done before by a huge actor and even trees remember that. You can still see that this is a tortured man. And who knows? Maybe you ll see some flashbacks.

 

[nickyg641]

how does that in any way take away from his character? The point of the Joker in this take is for him to be the one driving force for chaos. What besides being evil, do you want him to be? You want to empathize with him? Why? That's what Dent is for.

Permawhite does not imply empathy of any sort, because the character does not feel sorry for himself. Unlike Dent, the Joker is a villain with a deformity who doesn't regret it. It's an asset to him.

I don't like the idea that the Joker chose this appearance, because, to me, he cannot truly embody the Joker. He can't be a symbol, he's just putting on the mask. To me, the makeup means that this clown image is not really a part of him, as it should be. It's an image he chooses to wear, rather than just being the Joker.

The chemical bath gave him that appearance, and now it's him. The person he was before is of no consequence. He doesn't matter. It's who he is now. And, now, he is the the Joker. Physically and mentally. He doesn't need makeup to match the man he is on the inside.

With Nolan's Joker, I have a hard time seeing the makeup as just being him. He's a crazy man who picked a clown gimmick. He plays on that gimmick, because that's his personality. But it's still a gimmick. You could wash off the makeup and take away his purple jacket, and he'd be a crazy man with a lip deformity.