The Dark Knight Joker Scars: Accidental; self inflicted?

[Marx]

To me it seems that you have a major change to the character if Batman isn't partially "responsible" for how the Joker appear the way he is.

If there is not personal connection between Batman and the Joker other than he's some homicidal maniac running around killing people, then to me Nolan ripped the heart out of these stories. Which is suprising considering how personal he made the conflict with Ras Al Ghul, from the first movie.

I get he doesn't want to do Nicholson Joker again, and I certainly don't blame him for that, just as Burton didn't want another Ceasar Romero version. But at the same time I think you need to keep the personal conflict between the characters the same.

You honestly could have had the chemical burn thing, without having him fully submerged.

The cut smile is just weak IMO. However I do like the idea of him cutting smiles in other people, much better than the "new and improved Joker products."

This time around I believe the twist is that the presence of Batman is what created the Joker. After all, you cannot have one without the other. So while Bats may not have physically created him a la chemical bath, etc. The very image of what Batman represents did instead. That's my take on it anyway.

 

[bassturd]

Batman is responsible for messing with the hierarchy of the mob and allowing the rise of the Joker. Right? For me, that is such a better reason than Batman accidently bumping Joker into a big vat of chemicals....oh noes!

 

[Sandouras]

To me it seems that you have a major change to the character if Batman isn't partially "responsible" for how the Joker appear the way he is.

If there is not personal connection between Batman and the Joker other than he's some homicidal maniac running around killing people, then to me Nolan ripped the heart out of these stories. Which is suprising considering how personal he made the conflict with Ras Al Ghul, from the first movie.

I get he doesn't want to do Nicholson Joker again, and I certainly don't blame him for that, just as Burton didn't want another Ceasar Romero version. But at the same time I think you need to keep the personal conflict between the characters the same.

You honestly could have had the chemical burn thing, without having him fully submerged.

The cut smile is just weak IMO. However I do like the idea of him cutting smiles in other people, much better than the "new and improved Joker products."

So, does every villain have to have a personal issue with batman to be a good villain?
After all, the chemical bath was an accident. i have never seen bruce beat himself over it and i think that the joker rarely if ever whines about how batman made him. If anything, its purely the joker's fault!
Bruce beats himself over Dent because he couldnt save him. He was a friend and a kindred spirit.

But in any case, the joker isnt batman's greatest villain because batman is partially responsible for his permawhite. Not at all!

EDIT: I dont get why Batman attracts all the freaks. If you are a freak and you want to break the law, you dont wait for a vigilante to appear and get permission. If anything, batman should attract superheroism and copycats and make potential law breakers think twice before they act. Lunatics will always break the law no matter what. But anyway, i hope Nolan explains why his joker has such a fixation with batman.

EDIT 2: The only reason Gotham flooded with lunatics and freaks after Batman's appearence is because its a comic book. The writer invents a superhero and floods his city with threats. Why else hasnt Darkseid attacked earth in 1800 or wait a hundred years for superman to die and walk all over us? He is a god isnt he? This is just like the yellow bat emblem or the powergirl cleavage arguements. Dont try to rationalise things from our world with arguements from their fantastical world. You gave powergirl a the boobage to sell to geeks. No need to explain it "baww i wish i could find an emblem to put there and cover it" and "the bat emblem is cheesy and yellow to attract bullets". No, its yellow because superheros in the 40ies were like the rainbow. The same with the rest!

 

[Sandouras]

Cause explaining giving a reason/function to something that works, like batman's gauntlet scallops is ok. But when you try to explain and give a reason to the ridiculous, then you ridicule it even more. If the emblem is cheesy for the 21st century, change it (which they did). We know the Powergirl cleavage is there to attract men (and we thank you for that) so dont try and pull that lame argument to rationalise how a woman fights crime with a swimsuit that has a huge hole on her chest! The same with Gotham magically flooding with lunatics right when batman appeared. This could only be applied to freaks that were actually attracted by batman (like bane who viewed that as a challenge) or others who were specialists who were hired to deal with this threat, like Deadshot. The joker would have snapped anyway. If not then, the following month.

 

[Crook]

Who the hell are you talking to?

 

[Sandouras]

Well i started replying to TonyStark when this whole arguement about batman attracting lunatics to gotham came to me and i thought i'd give it a spin.

 

[sglass03]

A personal relationship between Joker and Batman (a la Burton's Jack Napier) seems heavy-handed to me, like forcing more importance down our throat than is necessary. We know Joker is Batman's greatest foe - let's not hit the audience over the head with it by fabricating some "Batman caused Joker's appearance/madness" backstory.

Instead, and something I think Nolan is doing, is showing how utterly overwhelming Joker is for Batman through his actions. The audience thinks "This guy is his true nemesis," because he's able to cut a path of destruction through Gotham that Ducard could only dream of. Batman has the physical brawn, perhaps a bit more intelligence, and some luck - and that's how he usually beats Joker in the comics. Otherwise, they're equal pound for pound.

Interestingly enough, I think Nolan will handle this issue the same way he did the "origin" - through subtle dialogue. In the prologue, Joker states "Whatever doesn't kill you can only make you...stranger," hence gracefully hinting at his own past without coming out and ruining the mystery.

In the trailer, we get a similar treatment of Joker's relationship with Batman in (what I assume is) the interrogation scene: "You've changed things. Forever. There's no going back. See to them, you're just a freak...like me!" In one quick bit of dialogue, not only does Joker credit Batman for the responding madness/escalation (and his own rise to power), he also equates himself with Batman, saying they're basically two sides of the same coin. So already we get the impression that Joker is here as an even more bizarre response to the bizarre appearance of Batman.

 

[Psycho Clown]

Somebody said there is an article where it is explained that one of his Scars was not his own doing, does anybody have the link to that?

 

[metropolitanpsy]

this is such a stupid topic

why the hell would joker scar him self on purpose

i dnt think nolan would allow for such a stupid scenario, he's an intelligent film
maker, with a good understanding of the jokers character motivations !

i dnt think the joker is a masochist like this thread is trying to convey!

regardless my opinion is on the money!

 

[branwen]

this is such a stupid topic

why the hell would joker scar him self on purpose

i dnt think nolan would allow for such a stupid scenario, he's an intelligent film
maker, with a good understanding of the jokers character motivations !

i dnt think the joker is a masochist like this thread is trying to convey!

regardless my opinion is on the money!

Way earlier in this thread someone brought up the idea that one side of the Joker's face was scarred due to outside forces, and that he himself created the scar on the other side of his face to create his "smile". This is an interesting argument to me, b/c if you look at the pics of the Joker you will see that one side of his face is scarred rather haphazardly, while the other side of his face has a scar that is somewhat neater and quite smile-like. One of the arguments is that receiving the first scar was the last straw that drove him over the edge into Jokerdom, and he completed the transformation himself by adding the second scar. For what it's worth......

 

[Killing Joke926]

Way earlier in this thread someone brought up the idea that one side of the Joker's face was scarred due to outside forces, and that he himself created the scar on the other side of his face to create his "smile". This is an interesting argument to me, b/c if you look at the pics of the Joker you will see that one side of his face is scarred rather haphazardly, while the other side of his face has a scar that is somewhat neater and quite smile-like. One of the arguments is that receiving the first scar was the last straw that drove him over the edge into Jokerdom, and he completed the transformation himself by adding the second scar. For what it's worth......

Sounds believeable friend; though the only thing that remains uncertain is that which scar was accidental and which one was inflicted. From what I saw on the leaked police Joker pic it seems that the gash on the left side of his face looks like some sort of acid burn and on the right it looks like it was severed or cut somehow. And as some people said it seems Joker continues to get worse throughout the movie, so it's hard to tell. All should be revealed soon enough though, or at least I hope so.

 

[Psycho Clown]

My friend and I theorise that the gash is from where a bullet grazed his cheek. Notice I said "grazed", this is not the theory that both scars are entry and exit wounds because the other side is way to curvey and neat. This scenario works because the scar is just below his ear so the bullet wouldn't of taken half of that off. Acid would have melted his entire cheek off like Harvey Dent. The wound looks as if it may have been instanly cauterized and of course like the other one it has puss infection. So he gets grazed by a bullet that was obviously meant to kill him, and then being the Psycopath that he is he decides to carve the other side with a knife and make it look like one big smile, and this is what he means by "Whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you stranger." Oh by the way, I'm not your friend, buddy!

 

[branwen]

I know Nolan said no backstory on the Joker, but I really hope we will at least get hints as to the origins of the scars--nothing outright, but there can be hints that will lead the audience to put together two and two.

Also, I wonder exactly what Nolan means by no backstory--nothing as extensive as Burton's Joker origin I am sure, but I really do hope there are going to be some hints as to the scars. It can be done in a way that say Jim Gordon or someone speculates on their origin, just a passing line or two, something like that. I admit I will be somewhat disappointed if there's nothing like that at all. I know Saint said a long while ago that for him a character's backstory gives depth to a character, and I tend to feel the same way. Though certainly, I liked a Clockwork Orange and was intrigued by Alex though there was almost no backstory given to him at all......

 

[Killing Joke926]

My friend and I theorise that the gash is from where a bullet grazed his cheek. Notice I said "grazed", this is not the theory that both scars are entry and exit wounds because the other side is way to curvey and neat. This scenario works because the scar is just below his ear so the bullet wouldn't of taken half of that off. Acid would have melted his entire cheek off like Harvey Dent. The wound looks as if it may have been instanly cauterized and of course like the other one it has puss infection. So he gets grazed by a bullet that was obviously meant to kill him, and then being the Psycopath that he is he decides to carve the other side with a knife and make it look like one big smile, and this is what he means by "Whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you stranger." Oh by the way, I'm not your friend, buddy!

I could see that, makes more scense. But what do mean by I'm not your buddy?

 

[SpiderWill]

But what do mean by I'm not your buddy?

Don't worry, its a Terrance and Phillip reference... and a funny one at that.

 

[Killing Joke926]

Don't worry, its a Terrance and Phillip reference... and a funny one at that.

Oh, probably funny there, but not here.

 

[Nightmare]

"lets put a smile on that face" while looking in the mirror

 

[Rikxiepoo]

Also, maybe what he says to the bank manager means more than just a random line.

Think about it: 'What doesn't kill you, simply makes you stranger.' As in, hey look, it's me - remember? Yeah, that's right . . . I'm still alive *****.

This would be a little confusing though, unless they do some sort of flashback explaining how the Joker knew the bank manager. Is the prologue the opening scene of the film or is there something b4 it?

 

[Closerframe]

It looks like on one side of the Joker's face he was shot and on the other it was cut (which he most likely did himself).

 

[Sandouras]

Sounds believeable friend

I am not your fwend, guy!

Ok, people are going crazy over this with medical terms and crazy theories. I believe that a bullet would take a piece of flesh with it, if you were shot in the cheek.
But anyway the unsymmetrical smile:
1) is cooler than the symmetrical
2) looks better on his rotten, untidy face
3) you re not exactly standing still when they are giving you the chelsea smile. So dont expect it to be clean.

Furthermore, as i have said again, those bubbles that make the scar untidy are common to stitched cuts. Its like a med student did those and made them too tight. And when you leave the stitches on for too long, it doesnt heal properly and leaves this nasty bubbly scar.

Again, dont expect to see an explanation for any of this. I think that the most apparent reason for the untidy look of the scar is for it to be visible under the tons of makeup and maybe to gross us out a bit. Its not a scalpel cut, thats for sure.

Finally, if this is indeed a chelsea smile, the 50-50 theory doesnt apply. When they cut you up, they give you the whole thing! In addition to that, since the joker applies makeup to create his joker motif, why would he need to scar his other cheek? Simply putting makeup on it would suffice for the smile. I think you are reading too much on this and that the self-inflicted is too far fetched. The joker has never been a mazochist.

 

[branwen]

What's a mazochist?

 

[Tony Stark]

So, does every villain have to have a personal issue with batman to be a good villain?

No, but I think it makes for a more compelling story when it does.

 

[Sandouras]

What's a mazochist?

Yeah. sorry, its masochist. I made a mistake there.

From Online Dictionary:
masochism
1. The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.
2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by oneself.
3. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.

 

[Psycho Clown]

Oh, probably funny there, but not here.

Yeah I was simply making a reference to the last south park. We can be buddies, guy! LOLZ

 

[Killing Joke926]

Yeah I was simply making a reference to the last south park. We can be buddies, guy! LOLZ

Cool!