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

[StylishHokie21]

Can someone please post the full size image?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Can someone please post the full size image?

 

[StylishHokie21]

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.

Well said as usual nicky!

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Well damn, you quick icecsm16!!!

 

[Sandouras]

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.

I thought his name was Edward Nygma. And its Chechens. They are from Chechnya, a nation seeking its independence from Russia. But their lands have a lot of oil....

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.

Its a gas mask in the comics as well i think. In BB he didnt just take a gas mask to use. He did stitch this thing up to scare the crap out of you when he gases you.

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.

Maybe the fact that he chose it means that he embraces it wholeheartedly rather than if it was being chosen for him. He could always have had plastic surgery. You can still wipe his makeup off, but i wouldnt recommend it..... You gonna get buttraped all the way to hell! Besides, isnt Bruce Batman without the mask, not to mention that you cant wipe his (the joker's) scars off?

 

[Symbiotic]

This is one of my favorite stills.

 

[TheBat812]

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.

The fact that he chooses to wear the makeup makes him more the Joker than if he was forced to become it, in my opinion. He obviously IS the Joker if it's his decision. I don't see your logic here.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

The fact that he chooses to wear the makeup makes him more the Joker than if he was forced to become it, in my opinion. He obviously IS the Joker if it's his decision. I don't see your logic here.

If he chooses to be the Joker, he could choose to be somebody else, too. But if fate made him the Joker somehow, that's the only option.

 

[deathfromabove]

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.

lip deformity?

 

[TheBat812]

If he chooses to be the Joker, he could choose to be somebody else, too. But if fate made him the Joker somehow, that's the only option.

And yet he chooses the Joker. That's more powerful in my opinion. If he hadn't chosen his Joker persona, he would STILL be the Joker, only without the makeup, not just some random psycho. His character would still be the Joker we know and love.

And just to clarify, nobody can really say which is the origin of the movie until we see it, and even then it may not be clear.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Well damn, you quick icecsm16!!!

I know.

 

[Crook]

To me, joker just....is there. That origin story just took away his divinity.

How was it an origin story when it was retconned out in the very same book?

And we can all pretend that Joker is some evil entity that emerged from the depths of hell, but we all know Joker came from somewhere. By adding elements that don't quite finish the entire puzzle, you add to the intrigue and mystery of the character. Having something just appear out of nowhere, with no hints to their past, is lazy and unimaginative.

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.

Well then you've missed the point of the character. His mischevious and outright digustingly horrid acts are sugarcoated under the guise of a clown visage, and that includes injecting a bit of sadistic humor and insanity. By taking out these elements, you don't have a "Joker".

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

You do realize Heath took that pose straight out of the comics? The early appearances of Joker had a very foreboding presence, and the slight hunch and raised shoulders contributed to that.

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.

.Jack came off as charming plenty of times. Not in the traditional sense of course, but he captivated the audiences with his presence. That's what I mean.

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.

I don't see how this pertains to evoking charm.

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

I was referring to Jack's freakish permagrin and Heath's scarred mouth. The traits you mentioned aren't off-putting in a "oh my god get away from me!" sense.

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.

Don't take it too literally. I didn't actually want Joker sweet-talking people into close range, and then snatching them into oblivion. Not what I meant at all.

 

[Closerframe]

I hate how people try to down all the people who have come to accept the idea of the Joker wearing make-up, people will continue to say it is one of the key elements of the character. This is true to a certain extent, for it has always been in the comics and animated shows, Joker has been permanently white. But this is wear people get confused this isn't the regular guy who likes to take everything directly from the comics, Nolan keeps the basic materials that makes the characters what they truly are. I remember people hating on how Scarecrow looked, but even though he wasn't dressed in full Scarecrow drags he was still the character at heart and by the end of the movie he wore something even better than a scarecrow outfit. What we've seen from the Joker thus far has been nothing but amazing, but I'll wait to see if this will truly be the best villain performance as everyone says it to be. Because I was disappointed by Venom in Spider-Man 3.

 

[Sandouras]

If he chooses to be the Joker, he could choose to be somebody else, too. But if fate made him the Joker somehow, that's the only option.

Okay i am going to use a quote from BF (which i loved) to make my point here. It might be more powerful this way:

"Poor fanboys. I am the Joker. Not because i have to be.....now....because I CHOOSE TO BE! "

 

[Dirt Like Me]

And yet he chooses the Joker. That's more powerful in my opinion. If he hadn't chosen his Joker persona, he would STILL be the Joker, only without the makeup, not just some random psycho. His character would still be the Joker we know and love.

And just to clarify, nobody can really say which is the origin of the movie until we see it, and even then it may not be clear.

I disagree with your preference, but I can at least see why somebody might lean that way.

One thing I want to clear up, though. I don't want to see an origin in TDK. My pefect scenario would have been just to have the Joker show up, permawhite, and start raising hell. Batman, Gordon and the rest of the city would have no idea who he is. The white skin would erase all remnants of whoever he had been in a way that I don't think the makeup could do. But, obviously, we'll have to see what happens.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Okay i am going to use a quote from BF (which i loved) to make my point here. It might be more powerful this way:

"Poor fanboys. I am the Joker. Not because i have to be.....now....because I CHOOSE TO BE! "

See, I think the Joker sees his persona as a gift. It's not something he has to be, or chooses to be, it's something he gets to be, "it's liberating".

 

[Sandouras]

How was it an origin story when it was retconned out in the very same book?
And we can all pretend that Joker is some evil entity that emerged from the depths of hell, but we all know Joker came from somewhere. By adding elements that don't quite finish the entire puzzle, you add to the intrigue and mystery of the character. Having something just appear out of nowhere, with no hints to their past, is lazy and unimaginative.

Okay i didnt know that. So what is his origin story in comics? Anyway, this joker has origins. They arent explored so much, but they are hinted. Do you have to see his wife crying to empathise with this man's mental scarring? He shows a part of his soul when he says that line to Fitchner.

Well then you've missed the point of the character. His mischevious and outright digustingly horrid acts are sugarcoated under the guise of a clown visage, and that includes injecting a bit of sadistic humor and insanity. By taking out these elements, you don't have a "Joker".

No, i got that. Some of his plots suck though, and are just lazy and unthoughtfull. And his appearence doenst help me much either.

You do realize Heath took that pose straight out of the comics? The early appearances of Joker had a very foreboding presence, and the slight hunch and raised shoulders contributed to that.

But not the current 21st century joker amirite? I also refer to his face, his eyes, mouth and general body shape. Its just the way they portray him. He isnt the silly looking joker anymore.

Also, wasnt jack's permagrin a deviation from the comics? To me that is worse, cause it makes him smile all the time and look like that.

 

[Sandouras]

I hate how people try to down all the people who have come to accept the idea of the Joker wearing make-up, people will continue to say it is one of the key elements of the character. This is true to a certain extent, for it has always been in the comics and animated shows, Joker has been permanently white. But this is wear people get confused this isn't the regular guy who likes to take everything directly from the comics, Nolan keeps the basic materials that makes the characters what they truly are. I remember people hating on how Scarecrow looked, but even though he wasn't dressed in full Scarecrow drags he was still the character at heart and by the end of the movie he wore something even better than a scarecrow outfit. What we've seen from the Joker thus far has been nothing but amazing, but I'll wait to see if this will truly be the best villain performance as everyone says it to be. Because I was disappointed by Venom in Spider-Man 3.

I agree. I also want to add that i think that the horse and straightjacket are from the comics. He did that in some issue i think.

Also, what you say is :

And yet, by having the Joker always appear with his facepaint throughout the movie, he is essentially permawhite. So it's a win win.

which i embrace

 

[Crook]

Okay i didnt know that. So what is his origin story in comics?

As you can see, nothing truly concrete, except the chemical bath.

Anyway, this joker has origins. They arent explored so much, but they are hinted. Do you have to see his wife crying to empathise with this man's mental scarring? He shows a part of his soul when he says that line to Fitchner.

I never indicated I wanted any sort of sympathetic origin. In fact I fully support quite the opposite, as found in Batman: Black & White.

No, i got that. Some of his plots suck though, and are just lazy and unthoughtfull. And his appearence doenst help me much either.

This applies to practically every single comic book character existing. When you've been around for decades, with featured stories that probably range in the hundred thousands right now.....you're gonna get a lot of crap.

So I don't see why this should be taken out on the character, when it's been proven he works as a "menacing clown", as oxymoronic as that might sound.

But not the current 21st century joker amirite?

The pose? No, I haven't seen it been around for quite a while. After seeing it translated on film though, that's probably the one thing I'd like for them to introduce back in the comics.

I also refer to his face, his eyes, mouth and general body shape. Its just the way they portray him. He isnt the silly looking joker anymore.

There are plenty of comics today that show a very non-silly looking Joker.

Also, wasnt jack's permagrin a deviation from the comics? To me that is worse, cause it makes him smile all the time and look like that.

Both Jack and Heath's are inaccurate in portraying the smile. Jack's has a connection to the source material though since it's essentially a translation of Gynplaine, a character that Joker is largely based off of.

Both are supposed to replace the incredibly wide grin found in the comics, but I never found that to be such an important factor. Heath already has a natural Joker grin anyway.

 

[nickyg641]

And yet he chooses the Joker. That's more powerful in my opinion.

But, no, he should't chose to be the Joker. Because he's no one else but the Joker. The Joker is part of him, that's all he is. I find permawhite further enforces this.

The Joker is just Joker, just as much as you are you. Permawhite just makes him the Joker phsyically, the same as he is inside. The person he was before doesn't matter, that man doesn't exist. For all intents and purposes, he never exists. He didn't choose to be that way, and no one made him that way. He was "born" that way.

If he hadn't chosen his Joker persona, he would STILL be the Joker, only without the makeup, not just some random psycho. His character would still be the Joker we know and love.

And just to clarify, nobody can really say which is the origin of the movie until we see it, and even then it may not be clear.

I don't see how a Joker without his clown appearance could still be considered the Joker. Any more than a Batman like this can be "the Batman we all know and love".

I disagree with your preference, but I can at least see why somebody might lean that way.

One thing I want to clear up, though. I don't want to see an origin in TDK. My pefect scenario would have been just to have the Joker show up, permawhite, and start raising hell. Batman, Gordon and the rest of the city would have no idea who he is. The white skin would erase all remnants of whoever he had been in a way that I don't think the makeup could do. But, obviously, we'll have to see what happens.

That would be my ideal situation, aslo.

 

[TheBat812]

But, no, he should't chose to be the Joker. Because he's no one else but the Joker. The Joker is part of him, that's all he is. I find permawhite further enforces this.

The Joker is just Joker, just as much as you are you. Permawhite just makes him the Joker phsyically, the same as he is inside. The person he was before doesn't matter, that man doesn't exist. For all intents and purposes, he never exists. He didn't choose to be that way, and no one made him that way. He was "born" that way.


I don't see how a Joker without his clown appearance could still be considered the Joker. Any more than a Batman like this can be "the Batman we all know and love".

That would be my ideal situation, aslo.

I don't know about you, but I choose to be who I am. I can be whoever I want to be, but I choose who I am. Which says something about me, and my personality. Just as the Jokers' does his. I respect your view, 8but we clearly have very different ones.

 

[Sandouras]

As you can see, nothing truly concrete, except the chemical bath.I never indicated I wanted any sort of sympathetic origin. In fact I fully support quite the opposite, as found in Batman: Black & White.

Oh right! Damn i had forgotten about that. The multiple choice origins!

This applies to practically every single comic book character existing. When you've been around for decades, with featured stories that probably range in the hundred thousands right now.....you're gonna get a lot of crap.

So I don't see why this should be taken out on the character, when it's been proven he works as a "menacing clown", as oxymoronic as that might sound.

Yes you are right. Good point. Maybe i just like this version more than the slimmer loonier one. I like the growling, the menacing looks, the manlier way he acts.


PS: I love this debate so much!

 

[deathfromabove]

It's funny how you compare Heath Ledger to a Francis Bacon portrait, when if anyone remembers it was a Francis Bacon painting that Jack's Joker left alone in Batman 89. When he tells Bob to "leave it" because he likes it...

Heres the painting

that quote comparing the joker to a francis bacon is from christopher nolan btw...

 

[deathfromabove]

Having something just appear out of nowhere, with no hints to their past, is lazy and unimaginative.

bill finger and bob kane...

brilliant yet lazy??

hmnnnn...

 

[The Guard]

Well then you've missed the point of the character. His mischevious and outright digustingly horrid acts are sugarcoated under the guise of a clown visage, and that includes injecting a bit of sadistic humor and insanity. By taking out these elements, you don't have a "Joker".

Agreed. I think that's missing the point of the character entirely. They may not like it, regardless, but the reasons for not liking it seem to have missed the point.