The Dark Knight Joker Scars: Accidental; self inflicted?

That clip honestly just looks like Tobey Maguire smelled a fart.

And I actually like the idea of the Joker's goons holding him down and inflicting the cuts on him. As the chemical bath was his transformation in the comics, if we don't get the perma-white, perhaps this will be what jettisons him into being a psycho.


Like I've said before, the scars are a substitute for his freakishly large comic book SMILE. Not for the perma-white skin.
 
The zipline accident is probably the worst theory so far for this film. Not only is it incredibly stupid, its super unrealistic. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words, but I'm 99% sure that its not the zipline that gives him his smile.

YES! Thank you.

Im so sick of hearing people say the "zipline theory" is an actual THEORY. It is stupid.... totally unrealistic and not believable at all.
 
YES! Thank you.

Im so sick of hearing people say the "zipline theory" is an actual THEORY. It is stupid.... totally unrealistic and not believable at all.

I don't know if it is unrealistic, I mean there are some videos of metal tension cuts on the internet worth checking out.

But it still should not be called a THEORY it should really be referred to as nothing more than a rumor.

At least to help those people out that support it, does Joker have cuts in the IMAX photo???? Maybe they should start analyzing there and then come back with something other than -- so and so site reported it so it must be true.
 
Reading these past few posts makes me wonder if anyone even knows what "Theory" means.
 
A theory can be varified to some degree, at least from how I understand it. The whole zipline thing is just a prediction with not a shred of evidence for its authenticity.
 
Zipline started with Miranda, nothing else points towards it. She also said it was being reconsidered at the time. who knows who she was speaking to.
 
Well if anyone keeps up with Batman Confidential - in the origin there, Joker does in fact get his cut smile from Batman - and it's been said before that this origin is supposed to fit better with the movie... whether that's true I see no source to back it up -- but he does in fact cut his smile himself like it is done in the new movie.

Reading these past few posts makes me wonder if anyone even knows what "Theory" means.

[SIZE=-1]a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

---So maybe it's you who should re-read the definition and see if those "theories" match that at all... 'cause it certainly doesn't seem to apply make a random rumor with no evidence = theory... such is not the case.
[/SIZE]
 
How kind of you to exclude the many other definitions of the word. Here:
the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
The first 2 goes right along with the definition you posted, but the last 3 fit with what I was talking about. So once again, calling it the "zipline theory" isn't incorrect, since theories can be made up of ideas based on limited knowledge/evidence.
 
How kind of you to exclude the many other definitions of the word. Here:

The first 2 goes right along with the definition you posted, but the last 3 fit with what I was talking about. So once again, calling it the "zipline theory" isn't incorrect, since theories can be made up of ideas based on limited knowledge/evidence.

I accept that, I guess it really depends more on the background and profession we approach it from.

I come more from a mathematics background so I tend not to fall into the world that those definitions come from... but you have a legit point. It would fit in a couple of those definitions and even some professional fields as well. Not math and science, but economics and other soft-sciences. So it makes sense.

The more important issue though is in Batman: Confidential which has been re-telling the Joker origin to possibly fit better with this film, Batman causes his cut smile, NOT SELF MUTILATION, and Joker simply embraces it.
 
Well if anyone keeps up with Batman Confidential - in the origin there, Joker does in fact cut his smile - it's self inflicted and it's been said before that this origin is supposed to fit better with the movie... whether that's true I see no source to back it up -- but he does in fact cut his smile himself like it is done in the new movie.

he doesnt cut it himself. batman tosses a batarang that cuts one side, then boomerangs around and cuts the other. another great issue to whats a great arc thus far, though.
 
he doesnt cut it himself. batman tosses a batarang that cuts one side, then boomerangs around and cuts the other. another great issue to whats a great arc thus far, though.

I actually mean to clarify this more... but I left to apparently watch Balls of fury... no idea why... in any case, right, batman cuts it, and Joker has come to embrace it...

I was meaning to go back to our created argument earlier, and this giving more gas to toss into the fire of the people who claim Batman may cause the accident here, rather than self-inflicted.

I just started catching up on all the Batman Confidential issues... I don't know what I think so far compared to TKJ or any of the other origins.... But I should go back and fix my other posts.
 
Im so sick of hearing people say the "zipline theory" is an actual THEORY. It is stupid.... totally unrealistic and not believable at all.

Well, Batman "creating" the Joker is a huge part of their relationship, and the zip line theory is simply comic fans desperately trying to come up with some (albeit ridiculous) way to keep this aspect of the relationship intact WITHOUT the chemical bath.
 
Well, Batman "creating" the Joker is a huge part of their relationship, and the zip line theory is simply comic fans desperately trying to come up with some (albeit ridiculous) way to keep this aspect of the relationship intact WITHOUT the chemical bath.

I mean in the comics at the moment the creation element just seems to be in line with the zipline - I mean it is kind of IRONIC we are all talking about a "made up" zipline theory, then in the comics this batarang thing happens to give him his trademark smile.
 
I mean in the comics at the moment the creation element just seems to be in line with the zipline - I mean it is kind of IRONIC we are all talking about a "made up" zipline theory, then in the comics this batarang thing happens to give him his trademark smile.



I agree it deepens their relations^!t. But i dont think it has to happen to make them rivals. If out of 40 hostages Mr. J kills 30 and batman saves 10 thats more than enough motivation for bats to want put an end to Mr.J, Now If Bats saves 39 and stops Mr.J from whatever antics he had pland thats enough motivation for Mr. j to want to end batman in a very slow and cleaver way.
 
BATMAN: CONFIDENTIAL #9 definitely gives credence to Miranda's report about the Joker getting scarred during the course of THE DARK KNIGHT.

And wasn't there at least one report that claimed the Joker had stitches on his cheeks during one scene? Or was that debunked?
 
BATMAN: CONFIDENTIAL #9 definitely gives credence to Miranda's report about the Joker getting scarred during the course of THE DARK KNIGHT.

And wasn't there at least one report that claimed the Joker had stitches on his cheeks during one scene? Or was that debunked?

That report appears to have been debunked by about 8 other people who were there and didn't see stitches.

But yes I think BC9 gives heavy credence to Miranda's original report.
 
i think a batarang somehow miraculously slices both sides of the joker's face, causing his perma-grin
 
i think a batarang somehow miraculously slice both sides of the joker's face, causing his perma-grin

That was kind of weird, but it happened that way in the comic and this NEW origin is supposedly being made to be more in line with the new film.
 
or they could be kept completely separate.. which is what i'm hoping for, anyhow. that would be lame to see on film, IMHO.
 
How do we know that BC 9 is supposed to be more in line with the movie. Did DC comment about it ?
 
or they could be kept completely separate.. which is what i'm hoping for, anyhow. that would be lame to see on film, IMHO.

Right... they still could be SEPARATE it's just DC billed it as being more in line with the movie and thus the concern... and how it can help those still believing zipline and other theories.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"