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

[regwec]

What can I say? This mutilated, transvestite, bank robber in face paint looks really seedy and very creepy.

He isn't a character I recognize, however.

 

[Silver Souper]

What can I say? This mutilated, transvestite, bank robber in face paint looks really seedy and very creepy.

He isn't a character I recognize, however.

regwec- thumbs up to you. Like others- I can only get so close to these boards because they're filled with radicals on one side or the other. People who love or hate Nolan and seem to be short on reasons why. You however stick to your guns- even in the midst of so much premature and unsupported love for Nolan's joker- you prefer to keep an open mind and bother to support CHARACTER (and not just visuals like so many here). You and Guard are refreshing in that way.

As for me- I am optimistic about TDK, but not without reservations. You've cited a few of mine...

 

[The Guard]

Then you're gonna love me.

 

[Boom]

Then you're gonna love me.

This line reminds me of something I've been thinking/hoping lately.

Is there a chance that that line was recorded just for the trailer? I mean, when The Joker says, "A little fight in you. I like that," he's talking to Rachel, and Batman isn't in the room. When Batman says "Then you're gonna love me," he's suddenly there in front of The Joker.

Thoughts?

 

[StylishHokie21]

This line reminds me of something I've been thinking/hoping lately.

Is there a chance that that line was recorded just for the trailer? I mean, when The Joker says, "A little fight in you. I like that," he's talking to Rachel, and Batman isn't in the room. When Batman says "Then you're gonna love me," he's suddenly there in front of The Joker.

Thoughts?

I doubt Batman will just suddenly appear in front of the Joker. He'll probably jump down from the ceiling or something after Joker says "I like that."

 

[Figs]

This line reminds me of something I've been thinking/hoping lately.

Is there a chance that that line was recorded just for the trailer? I mean, when The Joker says, "A little fight in you. I like that," he's talking to Rachel, and Batman isn't in the room. When Batman says "Then you're gonna love me," he's suddenly there in front of The Joker.

Thoughts?

I think it was just the way the trailer was edited. In the actual film I'm sure Batman will say to in response to another line from the Joker.


Either that or he is saying "I like that" to Batman about something else. When he says that line, from what I can remember Rachel isn't in the shot. Neither is Batman, so we don't know for sure who he is looking at.

 

[Silver Souper]

This line reminds me of something I've been thinking/hoping lately.

Is there a chance that that line was recorded just for the trailer? I mean, when The Joker says, "A little fight in you. I like that," he's talking to Rachel, and Batman isn't in the room. When Batman says "Then you're gonna love me," he's suddenly there in front of The Joker.

Thoughts?

don't sweat it too much Boom. Those trailers are heavily edited. I promise you the words "why so serious" is not being said at the time they dub it over Joker in the trailer- it's from another part entirely. watch his lips.

During the Begins promos and trailers, I remember being similarly off-put by how comatose Wayne seemed. Even in the latest- "people are dying" and he seems like he's going to fall asleep. In the Begins trailers- that stuff was all sliced together from all over the movie. Bale ended up kicking ass as Bruce.

So- TDK may have problems, but likely not the weird things we're noticing from the trailers.

 

[nickyg641]

Alright, here's my final rebuttal, before this thread goes the way of the dodo and rock and roll (good rock and roll, at least).

Ledger, while turning in an excellent performance, for sure, I still find Nolan's creative decision to be a great risk. And, no I don't think I'll ever like it. I've come to dislike it less, of course, but it will always be Nolan's greatest nagging flaw, to me (I hope). I see it something of a missed opportunity. Permawhite, I find, has a great potential that could have been explored. Not explored as in an origin story, but in other ways.

In my opinion, permawhite has various levels to be explored. One being that the Joker is a monster inside and out, human being so far gone in every single way that he could almost be considered inhuman. That's something I think could go very deep. Also, I find this angle helps the idea that he's an "absolute". To me, the Joker being an "absolute" means he doesn't need to add anything, he doesn't need to change himself, he's all there, all Joker.

And, so, in a way, I think the makeup sort of defeats that idea.

Also, I think the white skin really much better represents the Joker's physical state, and further exemplifies his position in the world. It's out there-- to the point where it's almost illogical. How could he survive whatever made him this way? What the hell made him this way, anyway? It brings up so many questions, and leaves them unanswered. It's bizarre and unique, and it defies all reason--just like the Joker.

Plus, symbolically, it works on many levels. It presents him with the innocent visage of a clown--and that of a corpse. Perfect for the Joker, who is, himself, a contradiction. He's playful and funny, but, at the same time, a cold-hearted killer.

Also, with the makeup, there's the obvious problem of the makeup coming off at some point. I've long felt that this would be the equivalent of Batman being unmasked to every criminal in Gotham. For me, it would kill part of the illusion. Yes, he still has his psychosis, he's still the Joker on the inside. But the clown is gone, and you're left with a crazy man with scars.

I think this was confirmed today, with the image of

Spoiler

Ledger in scar makeup as the Joker in disguise.

But, that's the thing. I don't really see the Joker there. I see Ledger in scar makeup. One thing that I really liked about all images of the Joker thus far was that Ledger was virtually unrecognizable. And that was due very majorly to the makeup. And, now that that's gone, I think I won't be able to help but be somewhat disillusioned by that.

Not majorly, I'm not going to let any of this business ruin the film for me. Not at all. I love the new look of the Joker, and I think I'm going to love Ledger's performance. I already love what we've seen. But, as I said, it's still going to be that nagging little thing at the back of my head...

And, I'm not sure if anybody else feels this way, but, having seen the picture of

Spoiler

the dead batfake with a cut smile and a painted face

, I find the idea that there are others with the Joker's face, I dunno, I feel it cheapens the impact of the Joker's own appearance. Like it's something that's replicable. If the Joker were permawhite, and

Spoiler

painted and scarred the faces of his victims

like that, I don't think it would have that effect one me, because the Joker still cannot be replicated. He's like that all over, and it's not just facepaint. It would be like that old phrase: Often imitated, but never replicated.

And, as my closing statement for this message: The Joker in a nurse's outfit is brilliant. Simply brilliant.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I agree nickyg. I basically feel the same way. The white-face won't ruin the movie for me, heck I'll probably love the movie, but what Nolan did with the Joker will always annoy me. Even if the movie's great, I'll always think "yeah that was a great movie...but it's too bad that Nolan didn't make Joker Permawhite."

I really don't like having to do that. With BB I never felt like that. Were there things I would've liked differently in BB, of course, but nothing was big enough to make me really regret that Nolan didn't try to do it another way. With this Joker, no matter what happens, I'll always regret what Nolan did with him.

It's basically the way I've felt about Raimi's Spider-man films. I really enjoyed the first two, but I felt Raimi really missed key aspects of Spider-man and Peter's character. That flaw will always be a small nagging annoyance for me whenever I watch those movies, because I know that even though they were very good, they could have been so much better.

 

[Solidus]

Alright, here's my final rebuttal, before this thread goes the way of the dodo and rock and roll (good rock and roll, at least).

Ledger, while turning in an excellent performance, for sure, I still find Nolan's creative decision to be a great risk. And, no I don't think I'll ever like it. I've come to dislike it less, of course, but it will always be Nolan's greatest nagging flaw, to me (I hope). I see it something of a missed opportunity. Permawhite, I find, has a great potential that could have been explored. Not explored as in an origin story, but in other ways.

In my opinion, permawhite has various levels to be explored. One being that the Joker is a monster inside and out, human being so far gone in every single way that he could almost be considered inhuman. That's something I think could go very deep. Also, I find this angle helps the idea that he's an "absolute". To me, the Joker being an "absolute" means he doesn't need to add anything, he doesn't need to change himself, he's all there, all Joker.

And, so, in a way, I think the makeup sort of defeats that idea.

Also, I think the white skin really much better represents the Joker's physical state, and further exemplifies his position in the world. It's out there-- to the point where it's almost illogical. How could he survive whatever made him this way? What the hell made him this way, anyway? It brings up so many questions, and leaves them unanswered. It's bizarre and unique, and it defies all reason--just like the Joker.

Plus, symbolically, it works on many levels. It presents him with the innocent visage of a clown--and that of a corpse. Perfect for the Joker, who is, himself, a contradiction. He's playful and funny, but, at the same time, a cold-hearted killer.

Also, with the makeup, there's the obvious problem of the makeup coming off at some point. I've long felt that this would be the equivalent of Batman being unmasked to every criminal in Gotham. For me, it would kill part of the illusion. Yes, he still has his psychosis, he's still the Joker on the inside. But the clown is gone, and you're left with a crazy man with scars.

I think this was confirmed today, with the image of

Spoiler

Ledger in scar makeup as the Joker in disguise.

But, that's the thing. I don't really see the Joker there. I see Ledger in scar makeup. One thing that I really liked about all images of the Joker thus far was that Ledger was virtually unrecognizable. And that was due very majorly to the makeup. And, now that that's gone, I think I won't be able to help but be somewhat disillusioned by that.

Not majorly, I'm not going to let any of this business ruin the film for me. Not at all. I love the new look of the Joker, and I think I'm going to love Ledger's performance. I already love what we've seen. But, as I said, it's still going to be that nagging little thing at the back of my head...

And, I'm not sure if anybody else feels this way, but, having seen the picture of

Spoiler

the dead batfake with a cut smile and a painted face

, I find the idea that there are others with the Joker's face, I dunno, I feel it cheapens the impact of the Joker's own appearance. Like it's something that's replicable. If the Joker were permawhite, and

Spoiler

painted and scarred the faces of his victims

like that, I don't think it would have that effect one me, because the Joker still cannot be replicated. He's like that all over, and it's not just facepaint. It would be like that old phrase: Often imitated, but never replicated.

I hope this is not your final post. I enjoy conversing with you all the time!

But you know how I see it so I will not re-instate it much. But I do have a new post I have been writing about the constrictions of canon, and sometimes how much like religious dogma they can be.

And as for the fact that others with the Joker's face. In the comics Joker made many look like him, and it was easily replicated by the Joker himself. And still even if your a fan of the Joker, if you really lived in Gotham, I think cutting a scar into your mouth to look like him, would be extremely hard to do. Where 99.9999999999999% of people would not do it. And I don't think cutting a scar into ones face is an easy thing to do, no matter who you are.

But I do understand your points. But I see this as a gift, not a bad thing. I think Nolan has created new blood to an classic, and still kept the spirit the same, the deformation is different but that does not make it bad, and to me its still as deep and powerful as permawhite.

But yet again I hope your not leaving us.

 

[Solidus]

Now my post for the connection to canon. Hope you all enjoy.

Though this argument has been raging on for a while. To me I thought of it in a new light on how and why some are against the new version of the Joker. And truly it comes down to them seeing it not being DCU, or canon to the Batman universe. And my good friend regwec got me thinking on it more when he did not like the fact that it turns away from common DCU of the Joker.

I started thinking this a while back in terms of most religion, politics, and even science. The biggest problem with moving forward with a lot of ideas and new thoughts is dogma. Which to me is side by side with DCU (canon) Looking at it from religion on how strict it is especially in the medieval days of not allowing change, only following one path. Then as time went on finally some people stepped forward and changed many major religions from how they stand today, and some not. (No I'm not religious at all, I'm spiritual) Also the same with science, so many theories out there that are so good, but different, because some challenge Einstein's Theory of Relativity. When even on his 70th birthday Einstein said most likely his theory is wrong, and some one in a hundred years will prove it wrong, and he believed that. Yet science scorns anyone trying to do any new thing, and of course that mirrors what Catholics did to science during the Renaissance.

LOL sorry to get off on a tangent. But see to me what I'm trying to get at is that DCU has never held much sway for me personally. I don't think it should (in my opinion) for anyone. I think canon should be what you make of it. I have never seen Batman as a story, most never claim Batman to be a 70 year long story. Most will say, and this is how I see it, is that Batman is a Mythology. Just like the famous mythology of the Greeks, not everyone heard, or believed the same things of certain God's, there was a foundation, but it was easily flexible, and changed often.

And with the mythology in hand I just don't see many movies that could follow “canon”. Most of adaptations don't. Why? To me it seems simple, there is so much canon, and so much dogma, (poorly written in my opinion the Infinite Crisis stuff makes me roll my eyes sometimes) but with this dogma or canon no matter what a film maker did, he would always be yelled at for any change, and truly a movie would never be made if fans tried to make it. Because of conflict of dogma/canon just like all religions.

And with being so strict to Canon, to me you take away all the creativity that an artist could achieve. Now apparently TDKR is no longer canon, but does that mean people just don't pay attention nor admit that it changed the Batman verse, as well as is still loved. I just think canon is a weak thing to fall back on, because it changes it self so much, and most the time I think it is poorly done in story concepts and explanations sometimes. To me Batman is a mythology, there are principles that are foundations, but sometimes you can even make alterations to that. And create a new idea or mythology.

I see it thats what Nolan has done, he has taken what is the spirit of the character and made a twist. The cop picture is a replicant of Batman #1. And to me it just seems that he is taken from many comic books to make his own twist, and make something fresh and new, and not the same stale stuff stuck in the same context again and again.

Now please do not think I am trying to say that if you don't like the make-up you're a bad person, and a Nazi lol. By no means. I just am trying to suggest to break away from the strict rules of the canon just a tad, to see a new interpretation. Something fresh. And apparently 9/10 people really like it, so to me yes its a fresh bold new move, but it is one that seems to be loved. And it truly seems Heath has created his own icon of the character himself.
Now I heard regwec say its not a character I recognize. I understand that. But to me from that old post I put a while back, the structure is the same, it does have a huge twist. But to me it seems that twist is all ready popular, and that is what mythologies and especially comic books and movies do, they entertain. And if people are entertained I just don't see a problem with it. I love the new Joker's look. He is still the Joker to me through and through, though yes I would of loved to have a perma-white version. But this one has its own twist and I really enjoy it. I believe that after this movie comes out, many will right away recognize Heath's Joker as the Joker. And in 20 years that still may be a famous iconic picture of one way to represent the Joker.

And I am not saying one needs to listen to me by any means. I just see canon to be an anchor in creativity. I'm never saying to just throw it out, but once in a while big changes is what everything needs, even the tried and true good stuff. Its clear that to me Nolan really looked deep into the character of the Joker, and changed the deformation process but kept the spirit of him intact. And it seems a majority does love what the Joker looks like, a vast majority. Now I'm not saying that makes it right, but in all reality, it must have done something right, because lots of fans and general people love the new look and still see him as the Joker.

But yet again please do not think I'm attacking any of you, especially you regwec and nicky. I respect you guys too much to yell at ya. I'm just saying this is how I see it, and how I think the majority seems to see it as well. And just showing you how it looks through some peoples eyes. But by no means do I ever expect this to change your opinions. You guys have yours and that is beyond great, it makes for wonderful conversation does it not? Especially when regwec is drunk

 

[Solidus]

I agree nickyg. I basically feel the same way. The white-face won't ruin the movie for me, heck I'll probably love the movie, but what Nolan did with the Joker will always annoy me. Even if the movie's great, I'll always think "yeah that was a great movie...but it's too bad that Nolan didn't make Joker Permawhite."

I really don't like having to do that. With BB I never felt like that. Were there things I would've liked differently in BB, of course, but nothing was big enough to make me really regret that Nolan didn't try to do it another way. With this Joker, no matter what happens, I'll always regret what Nolan did with him.

It's basically the way I've felt about Raimi's Spider-man films. I really enjoyed the first two, but I felt Raimi really missed key aspects of Spider-man and Peter's character. That flaw will always be a small nagging annoyance for me whenever I watch those movies, because I know that even though they were very good, they could have been so much better.

And that is a good point. But still, there would be some one else that if they made Spider-Man the way you wanted it, that would complain, and seen the film ruined. No matter what decisions made. Some one will not like it. So this permawhite debate never surprised me. You truly can't please em all.

 

[Silver Souper]

And that is a good point. But still, there would be some one else that if they made Spider-Man the way you wanted it, that would complain, and seen the film ruined. No matter what decisions made. Some one will not like it. So this permawhite debate never surprised me. You truly can't please em all.

good stuff guys. well made points. this was the BEST. THREAD. EVER.

RIP this thread!

ps- i'm an unapologetic supporter of the permawhite.

 

[Solidus]

good stuff guys. well made points. this was the BEST. THREAD. EVER.

RIP this thread!

ps- i'm an unapologetic supporter of the permawhite.

*Plays Taps on a trumpet*

This twas a good thread. But it does seem to have run its course. It is clear what is going on, and no changing it. I will always love this Joker as well as my Comic Joker.

I just have so much love in my heart

 

[TheBat812]

I think ledger's performance will make you forget that it even is him.

 

[Octoberist]

I'll miss you, thread.

 

[The Battousai]

Only 48 posts to go

 

[The Shape]

I find the fact that the man who becomes the Joker takes on this persona himself VERY interesting. In the comics/B'89, a man came out of a chemical bath with a completely clownish appearance and said..."Der, I'm da Joker now!" Now, I love that origin, and I don't dislike the perma-white aspect at all, but that's the Joker in a nutshell, without delving into all of the other psychological issues and all that.

In TDK, however, this man's face is scarred somehow across the mouth. This event, similar to the chemical bath, must have put this man straight over the edge. With his twisted smile, he takes on the persona of the Joker, but creating the clownish image himself, rather than having it completely bestowed upon him. The comic and TDK versions only truly lack similarities in their appearances, but their "origins", and the ideas behind them, are very close. The Joker from the comics is perma-white, and can never change that, just as TDK has perma-scars, which will never fade. And just as the Joker loves his ghastly white appearance in the comics, it appears TDK Joker loves his scars, otherwise he would seek a surgical solution.

So, in conclusion, I don't mind the change, because the heart of the character is still there. What makes it even more interesting for me is that the Joker's makeup essnetially becomes his new face. He never takes it off and lets it rot on him until it nearly looks permanent. However, he did remove it to impersonate the police officer, but I don't see that as being much different from the Joker putting on flesh-colored make-up to impersonate or blend in the comics or B'89. As I said, they look different, but the principle behind them remains the same.

And in response toone of nickyg's points, the Joker loves people looking like him. If he could, he would turn the whole world into a bunch of deranged clowns. That's why in the comics he has his Joker venom, and why his goons commonly wear clown masks. This remains the same in TDK, with Joker painting his face all over Harvey Dent posters, his victims, etc. I don't feel that he can be replicated, because it's not only his appearance that defines him, but his actions.

 

[nickyg641]

And that is a good point. But still, there would be some one else that if they made Spider-Man the way you wanted it, that would complain, and seen the film ruined. No matter what decisions made. Some one will not like it. So this permawhite debate never surprised me. You truly can't please em all.

I get what you're saying, and I agree. You can't please everybody.

But I've said it before, if the Joker was permawhite, I don't think anyone would complain. In fact, it was basically taken for granted a year ago that the Joker would be permawhite. If someone mentioned the idea that he would be wearing makeup that long ago, he'd be laughed off the board.

I mean, think about it. This thread is 20,000 posts long. I doubt a thread like this would exist had Nolan maintained the permawhite. This is really the biggest thing people seem to have a problem with, one of the only things really (besides the suit.)

For many, TDK is near perfect, and I'm talking about those who don't really mind the change. For those who do, many say that TDK is going to be great, but there will always be that nagging problem. Had Nolan not gone in this direction, I think, for many, TDK would be very near perfect.

Plus, and I've said this before many times, too, I agree that the comics shouldn't be absolute, indisputable, unchanging dogma, but this is the only Joker we're probably going to get for many years. Can you blame people for wanting something that represents the wider range of comic continuity?

 

[Charlie The Red]

Make that 45. I can't wait to see this debate finally over with.

 

[Closerframe]

I get what you're saying, and I agree. You can't please everybody.

But I've said it before, if the Joker was permawhite, I don't think anyone would complain. In fact, it was basically taken for granted a year ago that the Joker would be permawhite. If someone mentioned the idea that he would be wearing makeup that long ago, he'd be laughed off the board.

I mean, think about it. This thread is 20,000 posts long. I doubt a thread like this would exist had Nolan maintained the permawhite. This is really the biggest thing people seem to have a problem with, one of the only things really (besides the suit.)

For many, TDK is near perfect, and I'm talking about those who don't really mind the change. For those who do, many say that TDK is going to be great, but there will always be that nagging problem. Had Nolan not gone in this direction, I think, for many, TDK would be very near perfect.

Plus, and I've said this before many times, too, I agree that the comics shouldn't be absolute, indisputable, unchanging dogma, but this is the only Joker we're probably going to get for many years. Can you blame people for wanting something that represents the wider range of comic continuity?

People will always complain. If he was infact permawhite people would move on to his hair length/color. Stating it's not green enough. This is a pointless discussion because people will continue to put what they want for the perfect Joker, but this isn't their movie it's Nolan and if he wants the Joker to wear make-up then don't complain about it it's a man's vision and idea for the character. Let it rest now.

 

[Saint]

So when you watched Batman & Robin, you said "It's Schumacher's movie and it's his vision and his idea for the character," and you didn't complain?

Not that I'm comparing Nolan to Schumacher; I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is that you think something being "a man's vision" makes it immune from criticism.

 

[Closerframe]

I'm not saying you can't complain all together it's just pointless since, the movie has already been filmed. And it's no point of complaining about what should have been done since it will not change the finale product. And I didn't complain about Batman & Robin because it was obvious the director wasn't taking a serious approach with Batman. Tim Burton at first I questioned why he made Penguin gross and nasty but I remembered it's Tim Burton's style. I like how we've had various aspects of how we look at Batman on film, like after Nolan is done with his movies, I'm sure someone else will come along and people will begin to complain, stating he is an insult to what Nolan has created and established.

 

[nickyg641]

People will always complain. If he was infact permawhite people would move on to his hair length/color. Stating it's not green enough. This is a pointless discussion because people will continue to put what they want for the perfect Joker, but this isn't their movie it's Nolan and if he wants the Joker to wear make-up then don't complain about it it's a man's vision and idea for the character. Let it rest now.

As I said in my posts, when this "one man's vision" is probably the only one we're going to get for 20 years, can you really blame people for wanting to see in it a trait that's as old as the character itself?

It's not going to ruin the movie for me, but I can't help but thinking it would have been better, and a lot les controversial, if permawhite were included. Even many of the people who don't mind it say they would have liked permawhite.

 

[Charlie The Red]

The Joker being permawhite is unrealistic, fantastical, and doesn't fit in the slightest when placed in the real world.

The Joker applying make-up does.

People are complaining about this just like they were with the Scarecrow three years back. Let it go.

The Joker, as we know him from the comics, is not realistic. Falling in a vat of chemicals and coming out with bleached skin, green hair, and ruby red lips just doesn't happen. Nolan is sacrificing elements of the character so that the viewer can be further convinced and immersed in the world of Gotham City.

What would you rather have? A motion-picture set in the real world, with realistic characters and valid stories, or a motion-picture set in the fantastical realm of DC Comics, where characters are colorful, extravagant, and outrageous?

If you want the latter, then stop posting here, because you're not going to get it from Nolan.