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

[Solidus]

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.

I still disagree with this. The Joker, I believe did choose to be what he was, after his deformation process, either it be scaring, or permawhite.

In TKJ which I just re-read the very nicely re-colored 20th Anniversary Edition, *recommend it * But reading it, Joker talks about it "madness" being an emergency exit. To me that means, like most philosophy that you can show some one a door, but they have to walk through it. To me that was even the Joker claiming himself, he chose to walk through the "emergency" exit. And took on the murdering persona and the insane one.

The whole point of TKJ was he was trying to make Gordon like him, showing some one normal, and break them. But Gordon choose not to become a killer, or throw away his beliefs even after such a "bad day". He told Bats to bring him in by the books.

And the famous frame of the Joker turning around and going "Why Aren't You Laughing?" he was screaming at Batman, and was confused, he was telling Batman in a way that you and I are alike, very alike,....why don't you see the world as a Joke like I do? Why? Because Batman choose a different path. Same as Joker. Just because something deforms one either mentally or physically the person still has the choice.

But Joker chose the life of being a force of nature, and he did transform into pure evil.

Thats just how I see it.

 

[guitarkhero311]

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.

Well it seems that Heath has captivated many people from what I have seen and heard. The trailer dropped jaws. And he isn't permawhite.

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

Brad Pitt can charm a girl with a mask on. Everyday guys like you and me have to work at it, you know give them the smile and wink. It takes alot of facial movement to be charming, not just words, its an attitude, a style. It is easy to convey all of those things in comics and cartoons, but not in real life, like a movie. I don't think a girl, or anyone for that matter, would exactly be charmed by a guy with red lips, green hair, and a white face, no matter how white his teeth are. It's not feasible in a real life situation.

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.

So if the Joker sat next to you at the pub and ordered a pint, it wouldn't phase you? Let's be reasonable.

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.

Well thats how I interpreted charrming and then devilish. Do explain.

 

[Sandouras]

So if the Joker sat next to you at the pub and ordered a pint, it wouldn't phase you? Let's be reasonable.

I shat bricks!

 

[guitarkhero311]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA thats genius.

 

[branwen]

That is awesome! I love it!!!!

 

[Damiean Dark]

great manipulation, for once i am impressed.

 

[Carnotaur3]

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

It's not supposed to be. Nolan is good at making his vision seem different from Burton's just as Schumacher made his vision of Gotham seem different as well.

Burton chose to have Gotham's degredation be seen ARCHETECTURALLY, rather than through the people of Gotham. That's why the film seems more fantasy like and seperate from our world. There's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with Nolan's approach to Gotham where the people are the degredation of the City. The city, structurally has no bearing, except that it feels grounded into our world and it's beauty counteracts the ugliness of its people.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

HAHAHA
that is quite possibly the best manip i have ever seen in my entire life.

 

[Crook]

bill finger and bob kane...

brilliant yet lazy??

hmnnnn...

In that aspect of creating the character, yes. How is it not? It's so easy to just plop someone in the middle of nowhere, and say, "here he goes", without explaining anything about him.

Now of course, if little bits and pieces are revealed throughout the years, then it doesn't apply.

Well it seems that Heath has captivated many people from what I have seen and heard. The trailer dropped jaws. And he isn't permawhite.

Anton Chigurh captivated audiences. Would you say he's charming

Brad Pitt can charm a girl with a mask on. Everyday guys like you and me have to work at it, you know give them the smile and wink. It takes alot of facial movement to be charming, not just words, its an attitude, a style.

Exactly. It's encompassed by so many things, so why place a focus on his clownish visage?

It is easy to convey all of those things in comics and cartoons, but not in real life, like a movie.

You act as if it's rarely seen. People are charming in real life, and obviously not everyone is going to exude it. This is why we cast good actors.

I don't think a girl, or anyone for that matter, would exactly be charmed by a guy with red lips, green hair, and a white face, no matter how white his teeth are. It's not feasible in a real life situation.

I'm not saying girls are getting their panties wet over him, just that Joker is known to have an alluring affect on people (but not everyone).

So if the Joker sat next to you at the pub and ordered a pint, it wouldn't phase you? Let's be reasonable.

I'm from New York City, so you're not really gonna get too far with this point.

But seriously, if a guy with white skin, green hair, and ruby lips sat next to me, I'd notice him no doubt. But would I freak or move away in terror? No, not really. Heath's Joker on the other hand? There's not even a doubt in my mind I'd have chills at first glance.

This is what I mean when I originally said Joker shouldn't have that sort of immediate effect. Weird and strange, maybe, but terrifying people should come from his actions and behavior.

It's not supposed to be. Nolan is good at making his vision seem different from Burton's just as Schumacher made his vision of Gotham seem different as well.

Burton chose to have Gotham's degredation be seen ARCHETECTURALLY, rather than through the people of Gotham. That's why the film seems more fantasy like and seperate from our world. There's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with Nolan's approach to Gotham where the people are the degredation of the City. The city, structurally has no bearing, except that it feels grounded into our world and it's beauty counteracts the ugliness of its people.

Never said otherwise.

 

[deathfromabove]

In that aspect of creating the character, yes. How is it not? It's so easy to just plop someone in the middle of nowhere, and say, "here he goes", without explaining anything about him.

Now of course, if little bits and pieces are revealed throughout the years, then it doesn't apply.


Anton Chigurh captivated audiences. Would you say he's charming
.

and anton chigurh had no ****ing origin in the movie or in the book and i would say the character was brilliant. he came out of nowhere and "bam, boy-o"

is cormac mccarthy lazy too? should they take his pulitzer prize back?

(im not going to waste my breath defending finger or kane becuase without them and their lazy writing you or i wouldnt be discussing this )

 

[nickyg641]

I still disagree with this. The Joker, I believe did choose to be what he was, after his deformation process, either it be scaring, or permawhite.

In TKJ which I just re-read the very nicely re-colored 20th Anniversary Edition, *recommend it * But reading it, Joker talks about it "madness" being an emergency exit. To me that means, like most philosophy that you can show some one a door, but they have to walk through it. To me that was even the Joker claiming himself, he chose to walk through the "emergency" exit. And took on the murdering persona and the insane one.

The whole point of TKJ was he was trying to make Gordon like him, showing some one normal, and break them. But Gordon choose not to become a killer, or throw away his beliefs even after such a "bad day". He told Bats to bring him in by the books.

And the famous frame of the Joker turning around and going "Why Aren't You Laughing?" he was screaming at Batman, and was confused, he was telling Batman in a way that you and I are alike, very alike,....why don't you see the world as a Joke like I do? Why? Because Batman choose a different path. Same as Joker. Just because something deforms one either mentally or physically the person still has the choice.

But Joker chose the life of being a force of nature, and he did transform into pure evil.

Thats just how I see it.

I suppose that's a good point. I guess I like the idea that he was already off his rocker and, when he emerged from the vat, his inner demons were released, and channeled into the form of the Joker. I prefer the idea that he doesn't want to be or he doesn't have to be, he just is. Like Dirt said, he gets to be the Joker. Fate presented him with an opportunity, and he took it, and there's no going back. After that, the Joker was all there. In his mind, and represented physically by his clownlike appearance. It was all permanent, and he can't be rehabilitated.

Another thing I find about makeup is that it almost makes the Joker seem...well, delusional. Like he's convinced himself that he is this clown. Reminds me of Francis Dolarhyde, who thought he was "becoming" the Great Red Dragon. Where with permawhite, the Joker is all there, it's concrete, he is the clown (in my opinion).

Now, I know what you're going to say. And I can see your point. The Joker isn't exactly the Joker yet, he puts on the purple suit, gains the crazy gadgets, whatever. But I disagree.

When the Joker was "born", when he came into being, he was all very much there, IMO. He had the deranged psyche, newly released, and he had the appearance. He saw his new face, and, then and there, the Joker was complete. To me, his purple suit, his crazy gadgets, these are all accessories to his Joker persona, because the core is there: his permanently clown-like visage, and his insane mind.

As evidenced in Arkham Asylum. The character works even without his pranks and his clothes.

Whereas, with TDK's Joker, you take away the purple suit and wash off the makeup, you have a crazy man with scars. Half of him is still there. But the other core essentials are gone.

 

[guitarkhero311]

Anton Chigurh captivated audiences. Would you say he's charming

I am not trying to be rude, but wtf. I said that Jack wasn't charming, you said not in the normal sense, he just captivated audiences. I said Heath captivated audiences as well while not being perma-white and your definition of charming. Now this bewildering analogy. No Anton wasn't charming, he was scary and ruthless as fuk.........just like Heath. I do not know where you are going with this.

Exactly. It's encompassed by so many things, so why place a focus on his clownish visage?

A clown would not be charming in real life, especially one with white skin, green hair, and red lips. Maybe if you had down syndrome or you were 3 years old he would be charming, but I know I wouldn't go near him. And if he was, he would be just like Penguin.

You act as if it's rarely seen. People are charming in real life, and obviously not everyone is going to exude it. This is why we cast good actors.

It's rare that I have never seen a charming homicidal clown, yes. In fact I never have............

I'm not saying girls are getting their panties wet over him, just that Joker is known to have an alluring affect on people (but not everyone).

In the comics maybe, but if you saw a movie with Gothamites being lured by the Joker you would yell "******S" at the screen. People in real life wouldn't do that.

I'm from New York City, so you're not really gonna get too far with this point.

But seriously, if a guy with white skin, green hair, and ruby lips sat next to me, I'd notice him no doubt. But would I freak or move away in terror? No, not really. Heath's Joker on the other hand? There's not even a doubt in my mind I'd have chills at first glance.

This is what I mean when I originally said Joker shouldn't have that sort of immediate effect. Weird and strange, maybe, but terrifying people should come from his actions and behavior.

Jack already did that, I want to see The Dark Knight, not Batman 89.

 

[Crook]

and anton chigurh had no ****ing origin in the movie or in the book and i would say the character was brilliant. he came out of nowhere and "bam, boy-o"

is cormac mccarthy lazy too? should they take his pulitzer prize back?

Not the same thing. Anton was a one-shot character, in a one-shot book.

I was talking in terms of comic book lore, when you have recurring characters, no origin and "just being there" leads to no development.

I am not trying to be rude, but wtf. I said that Jack wasn't charming, you said not in the normal sense, he just captivated audiences.

Captivated audiences with his quirky charm and his likable personality.

I said Heath captivated audiences as well while not being perma-white and your definition of charming.

I don't think I brought permawhite into this whole charm angle. Heath is captivating in a totally different way.

Now this bewildering analogy. No Anton wasn't charming, he was scary and ruthless as fuk.........just like Heath.

Ok, exactly.

A clown would not be charming in real life, especially one with white skin, green hair, and red lips. Maybe if you had down syndrome or you were 3 years old he would be charming, but I know I wouldn't go near him. And if he was, he would be just like Penguin.

You're undermining your previous points. Did you not just state that it was more than aesthetics, and involves a lifestyle and attitude?

It's rare that I have never seen a charming homicidal clown, yes. In fact I never have............

Clearly you're missing my point, or blatantly avoiding it to make a joke.

In the comics maybe, but if you saw a movie with Gothamites being lured by the Joker you would yell "******S" at the screen. People in real life wouldn't do that.

I made an effort to make sure I said "not everyone". Would it help if I said SOME people found him INTERESTING? Does that get the point off better?

Jack already did that, I want to see The Dark Knight, not Batman 89.

We've had a good argument, why fall back onto that typical crutch? What I mentioned wasn't a Jack thing, it was a Joker thing. You can't really bring the whole "I don't want B89" angle, since it doesn't indicate such a thing. It's simply a translation of the character from the source material.

 

[guitarkhero311]

Captivated audiences with his quirky charm and his likable personality.

Heath is quirky, his exchange with Rachel seemed pretty humorous, like Vale and Joker in the art museum. He just wants to scare the crap out of people while doing it.

I don't think I brought permawhite into this whole charm angle. Heath is captivating in a totally different way.

By not being charming and old, trying something new, but I respect what you want to see.

Ok, exactly.

Exactly what.....that you won't see a charming Joker, just a killer badass one.

You're undermining your previous points. Did you not just state that it was more than aesthetics, and involves a lifestyle and attitude?

Yes I did, but if my ass was my face, it wouldn't matter about style, my charm goes out the window. A person can not truely relay charm if no one will come near him because they look like a sadistic clown. In the comics and cartoons is where you can get away with that, not a serious movie. Which was my whole point.

Clearly you're missing my point, or blatantly avoiding it to make a joke.

I'm not trying to make a joke, just solidifying my belief that a killer clown wouldn't be viewed as charming to real people.

I made an effort to make sure I said "not everyone". Would it help if I said SOME people found him INTERESTING? Does that get the point off better?

If those people were also interested in their own death.

We've had a good argument, why fall back onto that typical crutch? What I mentioned wasn't a Jack thing, it was a Joker thing. You can't really bring the whole "I don't want B89" angle, since it doesn't indicate such a thing. It's simply a translation of the character from the source material.

This arguement has been great, we both have had good points, but its the truth, I want something new, you want something thats been done before.

 

[Solidus]

I suppose that's a good point. I guess I like the idea that he was already off his rocker and, when he emerged from the vat, his inner demons were released, and channeled into the form of the Joker. I prefer the idea that he doesn't want to be or he doesn't have to be, he just is. Like Dirt said, he gets to be the Joker. Fate presented him with an opportunity, and he took it, and there's no going back. After that, the Joker was all there. In his mind, and represented physically by his clownlike appearance. It was all permanent, and he can't be rehabilitated.

Another thing I find about makeup is that it almost makes the Joker seem...well, delusional. Like he's convinced himself that he is this clown. Reminds me of Francis Dolarhyde, who thought he was "becoming" the Great Red Dragon. Where with permawhite, the Joker is all there, it's concrete, he is the clown (in my opinion).

Now, I know what you're going to say. And I can see your point. The Joker isn't exactly the Joker yet, he puts on the purple suit, gains the crazy gadgets, whatever. But I disagree.

When the Joker was "born", when he came into being, he was all very much there, IMO. He had the deranged psyche, newly released, and he had the appearance. He saw his new face, and, then and there, the Joker was complete. To me, his purple suit, his crazy gadgets, these are all accessories to his Joker persona, because the core is there: his permanently clown-like visage, and his insane mind.

As evidenced in Arkham Asylum. The character works even without his pranks and his clothes.

Whereas, with TDK's Joker, you take away the purple suit and wash off the makeup, you have a crazy man with scars. Half of him is still there. But the other core essentials are gone.

Good points as always nicky.

I guess it is very subjective. Because as I saw in TKJ, is that the falling in the chemicals was not the only thing that made him the Joker. There was much psychological scaring. In TKJ, so many bad things happened to him one day. Thats why he kept telling Batman, that something horrible must of happened to him, even suggesting some one was killed close to him. He never suggested that Batman had a physical deformation like he did.

To the Joker it seems in my eyes, even to him self, is that the chemical bath, or the scaring *as I talked before two different deformations* was just the cherry on top of a bad day that transformed him. I think the majority of what happened to the Joker was psychological, whether it be a life of crime as Jack Napier, or a comedian that had a horrible day by losing his wife, to me it seems more of the events that pushed him so close to the edge of insanity. And the deformation whether it be chemical or scaring, was just the straw that broke the camels back.

So if we took away the bad day of the Red-Hood, comedian, or criminal pre-Joker, and just had him get scarred, or get bleached white, all you have regardless, is a white albino guy, and a dude with scary scars. Technically they are not the Joker. Just deformed freaks. There to me is much more behind the Joker then just his look, like 99% more, now not by any means am I saying take away the Joker's look, not at all. I'm just saying is the look though essential having a deformation, a majority of the changing of the Joker to me seemed to be the horrible psychological scarring of that "one bad day"

And also I see choice intertwined with fate, to me your choice makes your fate. And yea Joker's fate is to be the Joker but as I always have seen it, it was a choice by him none the less, yet it was fate.

But yet again thats just how I see it, and great points nicky.

 

[Crook]

Heath is quirky, his exchange with Rachel seemed pretty humorous, like Vale and Joker in the art museum. He just wants to scare the crap out of people while doing it.

Yes, he may very well have some of that funny quirkiness. But I maintain his grotesque features overshadow that.

Exactly what.....that you won't see a charming Joker, just a killer badass one.

Yes. Did I indicate Heath wasn't going to be that?

Yes I did, but if my ass was my face, it wouldn't matter about style, my charm goes out the window. A person can not truely relay charm if no one will come near him because they look like a sadistic clown. In the comics and cartoons is where you can get away with that, not a serious movie. Which was my whole point.

Well then it's the difference of mindsets on Joker's appearance. I personally don't think his comic book appearance alone is enough to scare people off at first glance, much in the same way that Heath would.

I'm not trying to make a joke, just solidifying my belief that a killer clown wouldn't be viewed as charming to real people.

Only if he doesn't exhude any semblance of charm. People like Manson and Dahmer were horrible human beings, yet they still caught people's interests despite the fact that these people knew what they had done.

If those people were also interested in their own death.

I'm not suggesting people invite him over for a private dinner and have tea. People like psychologists take interest in these types of people, and I wouldn't say they're interested in their death. Simply they want to delve deep into their psyche to find the roots of their current mental state.

This arguement has been great, we both have had good points, but its the truth, I want something new, you want something thats been done before.

What makes you think I don't want something new? What I've always been suggesting is taking a new angle on an old convention. And really, that's what every "original" film does. Nothing has been truly new and original.

There are many things in BB that you found in previous Batfilms, but because their interpretation took it in a different route, it did not come off as being a copycat or retreading old ground.

 

[guitarkhero311]

Yes, he may very well have some of that funny quirkiness. But I maintain his grotesque features overshadow that.

Well we agree to disagree.

Yes. Did I indicate Heath wasn't going to be that?

No, but the Chigurh analogy threw me off course. It doesn't make sense. It could be me, I make mistakes.

Well then it's the difference of mindsets on Joker's appearance. I personally don't think his comic book appearance alone is enough to scare people off at first glance, much in the same way that Heath would.

Well then your a ballsy mofo.

Only if he doesn't exhude any semblance of charm. People like Manson and Dahmer were horrible human beings, yet they still caught people's interests despite the fact that these people knew what they had done.

Yes Manson attracted disaffected youth, Dahmer druged his victims so that can not be used. Its one thing to be interested in someone, another to think they aren't harmful and fall into a trap when all the signs are there.

I'm not suggesting people invite him over for a private dinner and have tea. People like psychologists take interest in these types of people, and I wouldn't say they're interested in their death. Simply they want to delve deep into their psyche to find the roots of their current mental state.

Yes but would these people actually be lured be a pyscopath, esspecially when they are in the mental health field.

What makes you think I don't want something new? What I've always been suggesting is taking a new angle on an old convention. And really, that's what every "original" film does. Nothing has been truly new and original.

There are many things in BB that you found in previous Batfilms, but because their interpretation took it in a different route, it did not come off as being a copycat or retreading old ground.

Star Wars had Jedis in all the films yet each was original, of course all Batfilms will have something in common, they have the same source material, and all chose to follow it somewhat.

 

[Sidepocket]

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.

Bingo.

It is about the audience perception of today. People can stretch, but there is only so far you can stretch unless its a parody, total fantasy or just plain broken in film.

Sure Kevlar and Nomex has it's limits, there are no magnetic grapple hooks and the Batmobile can not do all of its stuff in only one version of itself. However, all of these things do have very solid basis in real life. We do have grappling guns now, clothing that can deflect bullets and cars that can jump and break speed records. Since the audience can relate to them at a basic level, it allows them to suspend disbelief to the stretching that occurs as long as they do not stretch so far that it snaps.

Good example are the Batarangs. I find it funny that the past movies made them into plastic high-tech complicated do-hickies when all they did for BB was Bruce had training by Ninjas. Ninjas use shurikens. Bruce has a Bat theme so that his fear can share his dread. BAM! Small Metallic Batarangs.

With the Joker, it would make much more sense that it was "war paint". Reason is that anyone who had High School chemistry knows that there is no chemical on the planet that can bleach your skin white, turn your head green, make your lips ruby red AND have you have an impossibly large grin planted on your face. The only thing that comes close is Mercury Poison of the skin and it cannot do all the other stuff.

Hell to just prove the point, the target audience of this film is my generation right? Guess what? As a small child I groaned constantly at Jack's Joker yet I very much like this one? I think that might be the reason. This is for the generation that grew up on The Dark Knight Returns and The Long Halloween than it is with Batman VS The Man With Ten Eyes of yore.

I must mention though, one of the things that I like what they did with this new Joker is not only return him personality wise to his roots but did the exact opposite with Jack's Joker. The '89 Joker was perma-white on the outside but was very human inside. While in this one, he is just "a man" on the outside but "perma-white" on the inside.

I personally find that much more disturbing and scary. t:

 

[nickyg641]

Bingo.

It is about the audience perception of today. People can stretch, but there is only so far you can stretch unless its a parody, total fantasy or just plain broken in film.

Sure Kevlar and Nomex has it's limits, there are no magnetic grapple hooks and the Batmobile can not do all of its stuff in only one version of itself. However, all of these things do have very solid basis in real life. We do have grappling guns now, clothing that can deflect bullets and cars that can jump and break speed records. Since the audience can relate to them at a basic level, it allows them to suspend disbelief to the stretching that occurs as long as they do not stretch so far that it snaps.

Good example are the Batarangs. I find it funny that the past movies made them into plastic high-tech complicated do-hickies when all they did for BB was Bruce had training by Ninjas. Ninjas use shurikens. Bruce has a Bat theme so that his fear can share his dread. BAM! Small Metallic Batarangs.

With the Joker, it would make much more sense that it was "war paint". Reason is that anyone who had High School chemistry knows that there is no chemical on the planet that can bleach your skin white, turn your head green, make your lips ruby red AND have you have an impossibly large grin planted on your face. The only thing that comes close is Mercury Poison of the skin and it cannot do all the other stuff.

Hell to just prove the point, the target audience of this film is my generation right? Guess what? As a small child I groaned constantly at Jack's Joker yet I very much like this one? I think that might be the reason. This is for the generation that grew up on The Dark Knight Returns and The Long Halloween than it is with Batman VS The Man With Ten Eyes of yore.

I must mention though, one of the things that I like what they did with this new Joker is not only return him personality wise to his roots but did the exact opposite with Jack's Joker. The '89 Joker was perma-white on the outside but was very human inside. While in this one, he is just "a man" on the outside but "perma-white" on the inside.

I personally find that much more disturbing and scary. t:

*Sigh*

Again?

I'm not even going to go into this. I just did this four or five pages back. Can someone do it for me?

 

[Sandouras]

Bingo.

It is about the audience perception of today. People can stretch, but there is only so far you can stretch unless its a parody, total fantasy or just plain broken in film.

Sure Kevlar and Nomex has it's limits, there are no magnetic grapple hooks and the Batmobile can not do all of its stuff in only one version of itself. However, all of these things do have very solid basis in real life. We do have grappling guns now, clothing that can deflect bullets and cars that can jump and break speed records. Since the audience can relate to them at a basic level, it allows them to suspend disbelief to the stretching that occurs as long as they do not stretch so far that it snaps.

Good example are the Batarangs. I find it funny that the past movies made them into plastic high-tech complicated do-hickies when all they did for BB was Bruce had training by Ninjas. Ninjas use shurikens. Bruce has a Bat theme so that his fear can share his dread. BAM! Small Metallic Batarangs.

With the Joker, it would make much more sense that it was "war paint". Reason is that anyone who had High School chemistry knows that there is no chemical on the planet that can bleach your skin white, turn your head green, make your lips ruby red AND have you have an impossibly large grin planted on your face. The only thing that comes close is Mercury Poison of the skin and it cannot do all the other stuff.

Hell to just prove the point, the target audience of this film is my generation right? Guess what? As a small child I groaned constantly at Jack's Joker yet I very much like this one? I think that might be the reason. This is for the generation that grew up on The Dark Knight Returns and The Long Halloween than it is with Batman VS The Man With Ten Eyes of yore.

I must mention though, one of the things that I like what they did with this new Joker is not only return him personality wise to his roots but did the exact opposite with Jack's Joker. The '89 Joker was perma-white on the outside but was very human inside. While in this one, he is just "a man" on the outside but "perma-white" on the inside.

I personally find that much more disturbing and scary. t:

You have some good points. One of them is that this generation is different from the previous one. Superman no longer slaps wifebeaters. He takes on Darkseid.

Other than that, well, not everything has to be realistic to be believable. Just take a look at StarWars. Where did they mine all that metal to make the DeathStar and Cruisers?

Other than that, on the glider arguement, well i think that the cape solution looks cooler, gives him greater mobility, and seeing him span his cape is always awesome. Tarzan is old...

*Sigh*

Again?

I'm not even going to go into this. I just did this four or five pages back. Can someone do it for me?

Thats what he believes. You dont HAVE TO press anyone to think your way.

 

[Saint]

It's funny listening to everyone talk about how brutal and super-mega-violent the Joker is supposedly going to be. Some people seem to think the Joker will be worse than South Park's Woodland Critters, but there is only so much you can cram into a PG-13 rating.

 

[Crook]

No, but the Chigurh analogy threw me off course. It doesn't make sense. It could be me, I make mistakes.

It was probably the misinterpretation of the charm/captivation argument somewhere.

Well then your a ballsy mofo.

No, just from New York. Big cities attract big crazies, as I always say. And with that comes desensitization to the abnormal.

Yes Manson attracted disaffected youth, Dahmer druged his victims so that can not be used.

I'm pretty sure Dahmer was described as a man that knew "how to talk", and that was partly why his victims were drawn to him. I may be wrong.

Its one thing to be interested in someone, another to think they aren't harmful and fall into a trap when all the signs are there.

I'm also talking from the perspective of a first glimpse of Joker, so you wouldn't *know* he was a mass-murdering maniac. I don't think his facade really gives off a serial killer vibe, until he makes the point of smiling at you.

Yes but would these people actually be lured be a pyscopath, esspecially when they are in the mental health field.

Yes, but you don't necessarily have to be in the field to take interest, in the same way I don't need to be in the movie business to love cinema. People have their own tastes that aren't necessarily reflected by their occupations.

Star Wars had Jedis in all the films yet each was original, of course all Batfilms will have something in common, they have the same source material, and all chose to follow it somewhat.

Exactly my point. So why would you assume that a somewhat theatrical, fun, and charismatic Joker; traits that have defined the character for decades, would imply a retread just because B89 had it?

*Sigh*

Again?

I'm not even going to go into this. I just did this four or five pages back. Can someone do it for me?

I admit I felt compelled to respond with my own essay, lol. Thanks for saving me the 15 minutes.

 

[nickyg641]

You have some good points. One of them is that this generation is different from the previous one. Superman no longer slaps wifebeaters. He takes on Darkseid.

Other than that, well, not everything has to be realistic to be believable. Just take a look at StarWars. Where did they mine all that metal to make the DeathStar and Cruisers?

Other than that, on the glider arguement, well i think that the cape solution looks cooler, gives him greater mobility, and seeing him span his cape is always awesome. Tarzan is old...


Thats what he believes. You dont HAVE TO press anyone to think your way.

It's just that, we've been arguing the realism thing over an over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And then one more time. It's just maddening. I'm sorry that came off rude (well, actually, I was being rude, so...), but we've pretty much established that realism probably isn't the root of Nolan's decision.

 

[Solidus]

It's funny listening to everyone talk about how brutal and super-mega-violent the Joker is supposedly going to be. Some people seem to think the Joker will be worse than South Park's Woodland Critters, but there is only so much you can cram into a PG-13 rating.

Of course it is not going to be ultra violent. But there are PG-13 movies that get pretty violent. Watch Return of the King. I mean the orcs are flinging human heads over the wall, and it shows them. In today's world PG-13 can get away with a lot.

Yet of course this is not going to be like Saw or anything, but as Nolan said early on, I wish I could re-find the quote, some one just posted it a while ago, but Nolan said this is not for little kids. And even from the trailer, that is obvious.

 

[Saint]

But there are PG-13 movies that get pretty violent. Watch Return of the King. I mean the orcs are flinging human heads over the wall, and it shows them. In today's world PG-13 can get away with a lot.

The ratings treat fantasy violence differently than they treat realistic violence.