The Dark Knight Joker Scars: Accidental; self inflicted?

A reliable source tells me that Joker has an accident at home when cooking some beans on toast. Apparently, he forgets about the beans over-boiling, and then they explode onto his face...causing the scars. Surely there are better ideas than this?

Ha Ha, use this well funny. :D
 
I would doubt we would see Joker smoking through holes in his cheeks though, or having his lips safety pinned together.

I think it's just to add a sadistic smile to his face, representing the pain he causes with his smile.

You do know that Kakihara and Ichi are satire of the Joker and Batman and their relationship, right? Kakihara is a scarred psycopath who only derives pleasure from hurting people. His dream is to die painfullly at the hands of someone more twisted than he is, i.e. Ichi.
 
I think it looks pretty convincing, myself.

I gotta agree too. Guiellrmo's team is pretty efficient. The whole gun battle in the forest was done without any squibs, small explosives, or anything of that sort, because he didn't have permission. Just go back and look at those scenes, you can't even tell.
 
That cut looks fake as hell. They used CG on it and it doesn't look good at all.


Prostetics are MUCH better. Joker's look MUCH better.

Actually, that was prosthestic. The only computer work done there was a little bit of green screen removal to make it look like the cut went all the way through.

But I prefer the Joker's look as well.
 
i thought that cut looked pretty real, it made me flinch the first time i saw it...
 
I haven't seen many cut smiles like that so I guess that takes the cake in my book.
 
That scene always makes me cringe whenever I see it, and they wouldn't be able to get away with something like that in a PG-13 movie.. but they could show the back of his head or something when he's cutting the smile (if that's how he gets it) and it would work. I'd like to see something like that as well. Ever since I saw the pics of TDK Joker, that scene has made me think of him.
 
you could easily do a shadow and blood splatter against a wall cliche but gets the job done
 
If the Joker's facial scarring occurs during the film, I'm betting we won't see much of the actual trauma. He'll probably cover it with his hands. Then we'll skip ahead to where it's healed and scarred over, skipping the bloodiest part of the story.

After all, this will be a PG-13 movie.




.
 
You can get away with alot in a PG-13 movie these days. The MPAA's weird, too. You could get away with, say, a cut cheek that is shown, as long as its not a "meaty" looking cut with blood everywhere.
 
yeah. they have a problem with blood, but not violence. ALTHOUGH, i heard matrix initially got an R because of a hard kick to the head. "in real life that kick would kill some one." they pick and choose. the MPAA is messed up.
 
matrix is rated r though i remember seeing it with my parents.
 
i know. i'm just saying that i think the reason it got the r rating was only because of that kick and not anything else.
 
Well I think because of the excessive violence, well I don't know
 
it's always hard to tell. from dusk til dawn nearly got an nc-17 because of the amount of blood. but then they made the vampire blood green. mpaa had no problem with that. they have a problem with red blood. that's so stupid.
 
I don't know I think its a joke, they should actually make standards.
 
The MPAA are really very narrow-minded people and behind this time. Te organization should seriously be re-organized or sth.
 
you don't even have to follow them anyway. one last thing. assault on precinct 13. the real one. the carpenter one. he had a scene where a little girl gets shot in the chest with a shotgun. it's not even that brutal looking, but the idea of a little girl getting shot in the chest with a shotgun didn't sit well. automatic nc-17. his producer says to him "sh-t, john, just take the scene out, show it to them. then get the R and put the scene back in." and that's what he did. and there was no backlash. i think if you do stuff like that, and people don't complain to the MPAA, then you can't get in trouble for it. it was a ballsy move. but that's carpenter for ya.
 
Wow, good thinking. And to think i don't like Carpenter as a director. Not that that incident had anything to do with his directing skills.
 
For the whole rating thing, in America at least they need to enforce it if they are even going to use it.
 
you don't even have to follow them anyway. one last thing. assault on precinct 13. the real one. the carpenter one. he had a scene where a little girl gets shot in the chest with a shotgun. it's not even that brutal looking, but the idea of a little girl getting shot in the chest with a shotgun didn't sit well. automatic nc-17. his producer says to him "sh-t, john, just take the scene out, show it to them. then get the R and put the scene back in." and that's what he did. and there was no backlash. i think if you do stuff like that, and people don't complain to the MPAA, then you can't get in trouble for it. it was a ballsy move. but that's carpenter for ya.

Not to be a *****e, but it wasn't a shotgun-that would've been ALOT worse looking.
 
well ive been looking at all the photos we have of joker. idk if anyone else has seen, so forgive me if i sound stupid. but it looks like the left side was some kind of accidnet, perhaps the gunshot story(the zipline theory is rubbish) and the right looks much more clean, like he did it himself. so im thinking he gets scarred and hten wehn he assumes his joker persona he evens it out :yay:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"