The Dark Knight Joker Scars: Accidental; self inflicted?

[Crook]

you know what i think i believe what doesnt kill you simply makes you stranger, i think at the end of the dark knight joker might fall in a bath of chemicals bleaching his skin so it would be permanent

That'd be utterly redundant.

Batman would never do that intentionally. This is lame but i suppose those who like the theory will love it.

Never do what intentionally? His only rule is to never kill.

 

[-Crusher-]

Never do what intentionally? His only rule is to never kill.

true enough. and theres plenty of proof that hes not afraid to use excessive force.

 

[DaddyGrayson]

true enough. and theres plenty of proof that hes not afraid to use excessive force.

Yeah but scar someone's mouth on purpose and permanently disfigure them? Doesn't seem very Batman to me...

 

[Sandouras]

That'd be utterly redundant.


Never do what intentionally? His only rule is to never kill.

yeah, he goes around not killing people but scarring their faces. I have read many batman comics and not even in Miller's DKR where he breaked bones and ribs on purpose have i seen Batman intentionally scarring someone. He always targets key points of the body to disarm or temporarily paralyse a hand or a leg.

And that pic is definately a shop or a painting by someone cause: "I'm the goddamn batman". Really?

Also, could someone please go through the zipline theory once again for me? How the hell did you people get him tangled up in Batman's grapple line?

 

[DaddyGrayson]

yeah, he goes around not killing people but scarring their faces. I have read many batman comics and not even in Miller's DKR where he breaked bones and ribs on purpose have i seen Batman intentionally scarring someone. He always targets key points of the body to disarm or temporarily paralyse a hand or a leg.

And that pic is definately a shop or a painting by someone cause: "I'm the goddamn batman". Really?

Also, could someone please go through the zipline theory once again for me? How the hell did you people get him tangled up in Batman's grapple line?

Ever read All-Star Batman?

 

[Crook]

It's not my favorite moment of the story, but I don't really get the big deal. It's a Batman on his first year or so as a vigilante, and he's being dealt with an unprecedented threat like Joker. I the the writer was trying to point out just how naive Bruce was about this entire thing.

Plus, it's nowhere near as out-of-character like the scene in BB where Bats LETS the villain die...

 

[DaddyGrayson]

It's not my favorite moment of the story, but I don't really get the big deal. It's a Batman on his first year or so as a vigilante, and he's being dealt with an unprecedented threat like Joker. I the the writer was trying to point out just how naive Bruce was about this entire thing.

Plus, it's nowhere near as out-of-character like the scene in BB where Bats LETS the villain die...

I can agree with that, kinda. It's still outta character, but good point.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't know. I mean, Batman intentionally ripping someone's mouth open? That seems too sadistic for Batman.

Now, I could see him being in the middle of a fight and forearm a guy, which would lead his gauntlets to gash his face, but I can't see Batman cutting someone's mouth for the express purpose of cutting their mouth.

There's a big difference between that and the stuff Miller had Bat's do in DKR. Yeah, Batman broke bones and all that, but in each situation it was to incapacitate the villain. Cutting someone's mouth doesn't put them out of action like breaking their leg would, it only puts them in lots of pain, but they would still be very able to fight.

 

[-Crusher-]

i dunno. if i had my mouth ripped open i would probably be on the floor screaming my lungs out.

 

[-Crusher-]

also most of us hasnt actually read the comic all the way through. we dont know what happened before or after that page, so joker could of been doing to twisted s**t that pissed bruce to the point of going overboard.

 

[BatSpider]

I don't know. I mean, Batman intentionally ripping someone's mouth open? That seems too sadistic for Batman.

Now, I could see him being in the middle of a fight and forearm a guy, which would lead his gauntlets to gash his face, but I can't see Batman cutting someone's mouth for the express purpose of cutting their mouth.

There's a big difference between that and the stuff Miller had Bat's do in DKR. Yeah, Batman broke bones and all that, but in each situation it was to incapacitate the villain. Cutting someone's mouth doesn't put them out of action like breaking their leg would, it only puts them in lots of pain, but they would still be very able to fight.

I agree, that would just not be right at all

 

[DaddyGrayson]

i dunno. if i had my mouth ripped open i would probably be on the floor screaming my lungs out.

You're not as badass as the Joker then.

 

[-Crusher-]

You're not as badass as the Joker then.

awh dang

 

[BatSpider]

You're not as badass as the Joker then.

 

[Crook]

also most of us hasnt actually read the comic all the way through. we dont know what happened before or after that page, so joker could of been doing to twisted s**t that pissed bruce to the point of going overboard.

He gutted open a girl that Bruce was falling for. Right in front of him.

The mouth slice wasn't to cause pain or to incapacitate, it was to send a permanent message that "the fight wasn't over". Bruce was acting in the heat of the moment, an act of passion if you will.

 

[Infinity9999x]

You're not as badass as the Joker then.

Or the dude from Pan's Labyrinth

 

[Superwoman Prime]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2300/jokeroriginoc6.png

This page is funky. The cheek in the first panel (facing us) is missing the huge gash that would make it consistent with the next panel.... and also in the first panel, it looks like most the blood is coming from the side of the face which hasn't been cut yet....

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Plus, it's nowhere near as out-of-character like the scene in BB where Bats LETS the villain die...

Hence: Batman BEGINS.

He is beginning. He is learning. He may even go on to regret letting Rah's die, but I have seen this argument bounded around too much and it's starting to get rather tiresome.

 

[Crook]

Hence: Batman BEGINS.

He is beginning. He is learning.

That was my entire point in defending the cutting batarang.

Regardless, I think it's a poor excuse anyway. By that reasoning, Bats could do practically anything out of character, and it would be "ok" simply because it's his first year.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

That was my entire point in defending the cutting batarang.

Regardless, I think it's a poor excuse anyway. By that reasoning, Bats could do practically anything out of character, and it would be "ok" simply because it's his first year.

Not really, because Bruce gave Rah's the chance to live even after learning of his sadistic plan to destroy Gotham. Sure, the act of letting Rah's die was out-of-character because Batman would never do that in the comics, but for the purposes of the story, it is totally justified, because I'm sure that we, as an audience, can relate to Bruce letting Rah's die.

If Bruce picked up a knife and stabbed Rah's in the throat, I couldn't have related to that. So no, Batman couldn't have "done anything", because "doing anything" is not always relatable to an audience.

 

[Crook]

Not really, because Bruce gave Rah's the chance to live even after learning of his sadistic plan to destroy Gotham. Sure, the act of letting Rah's die was out-of-character because Batman would never do that in the comics, but for the purposes of the story, it is totally justified, because I'm sure that we, as an audience, can relate to Bruce letting Rah's die.

Ok, so you've conceded that it IS out of character. Why are we arguing?

If Bruce picked up a knife and stabbed Rah's in the throat, I couldn't have related to that. So no, Batman couldn't have "done anything", because "doing anything" is not always relatable to an audience.

It has nothing to do with that. I'm targeting the excuse of "it's his first year, he's just learning".

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Ok, so you've conceded that it IS out of character. Why are we arguing?

Because people sell the act as a bad thing...

It has nothing to do with that. I'm targeting the excuse of "it's his first year, he's just learning".

Uh...you were the one who said that Batman could have done "anything", but still gotten away with it because it was his "first year", when this clearly isn't the case.

 

[Crook]

Because people sell the act as a bad thing...

It may not be a big deal to you, but surely you can see why something being out of character, wouldn't be considered a good thing.

Uh...you were the one who said that Batman could have done "anything", but still gotten away with it because it was his "first year", when this clearly isn't the case.

No, I was saying that OTHER people would use that excuse. I already told you I'm not a fan of that mentality.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

It may not be a big deal to you, but surely you can see why something being out of character, wouldn't be considered a good thing.

I don't think that a character misjudging a situation is good or bad -- it's about whether it is right for the story, and Bruce letting Rah's die was right for the story. He saved him once, and gave him a chance to rethink his morals, yet he still insisted on returning, just to make a mockery out of the Wayne foundation.

I, as a viewer, can totally relate to Bruce letting Rah's die, and that is all that matters, IMO. Perhaps Bruce made a mistake? Perhaps he will learn from that mistake in TDK? Only time will tell...

Hell, one could even make an argument that the original interpretation of the character used to kill for fun.

No, I was saying that OTHER people would use that excuse. I already told you I'm not a fan of that mentality.

That's a bit of a strange argument...

 

[Crook]

I don't think that a character misjudging a situation is good or bad -- it's about whether it is right for the story, and Bruce letting Rah's die was right for the story. He saved him once, and gave him a chance to rethink his morals, yet he still insisted on returning, just to make a mockery out of the Wayne foundation.

Either decision would've fit the story. Bruce choosing to save Ra's once again would've taken his character development a different way, but it would still have fit the story. Only difference is this specific plot point was out of character. I'm not denying it "worked" in the film's context.

I, as a viewer, can totally relate to Bruce letting Rah's die, and that is all that matters, IMO. Perhaps Bruce made a mistake? Perhaps he will learn from that mistake in TDK? Only time will tell...

That I can buy, if it takes a toll on him in TDK. If not, wasted opportunity.

Hell, one could even make an argument that the original interpretation of the character used to kill for fun.

And no one cares for that interpretation anymore.

That's a bit of a strange argument...

Ok.