The Dark Knight Percieved fauts with the Nolan movies:

Status
Not open for further replies.
actually I symapathize with everyone who's y'know...REAL,, besides I'm a christian, it's kinda of like..my job
so if your wife got horrendously murdered right in front of you or something of that nature your going to sympathize with the person responsible because they are real? (i dont know what you mean by real) you may be a christian *and thats perfectly fine* but you would not sympathize with the killer or forgive them for at LEAST a looooong time, thats just human nature.
 
so because it was perma white joker killing jason and crippling barbara makeup joker isnt capable of it?


hahaha, I never said that or implied it (smiles):woot: , but since were on the subject you just inferred that the Make-up Joker could do this as well, so if bothe versions of the Joker could do this, then why not put the Perma-clown in The Dark Knight,hmmmm.....what....not Reeeeaallll enough for you?
 
hahaha, I never said that or implied it (smiles):woot: , but since were on the subject you just inferred that the Make-up Joker could do this as well, so if bothe versions of the Joker could do this, then why not put the Perma-clown in The Dark Knight,hmmmm.....what....not Reeeeaallll enough for you?
I'm not saying I don't want perma-white or perma-clown or w/e in the movie, I just prefer the makeup for my own reasons just like you only vice versa, I just don't feel that perma-white or the clean look over the dirty look is really essential to the characters general look and psychosis.
 
so if your wife got horrendously murdered right in front of you or something of that nature your going to sympathize with the person responsible because they are real? (i dont know what you mean by real) you may be a christian *and thats perfectly fine* but you would not sympathize with the killer or forgive them for at LEAST a looooong time, thats just human nature.

True, I don't know how I'd feel it's never happened and it would be foolish for me to make an assumption, so I won't, but based on who I am (and trust me, I know myself remarkably, well, there would be aa point of a sympathy, pity (for someone who gets a kick out of taking human lives) and forgiveness, sure it would probably take a lot, but that's just who I am, your not gonna just alienate me for feeling this way
 
I'm not saying I don't want perma-white or perma-clown or w/e in the movie, I just prefer the makeup for my own reasons just like you only vice versa, I just don't feel that perma-white or the clean look over the dirty look is really essential to the characters general look and psychosis.


Why?
 
fcrowelle06, I'm not trying to diss on you or say my opinion is right and yours is wrong and me and the rest of the users are not trying to gang up on you or anything, I'm just saying I don't see myself giving sympathy for Joker because he wears makeup rather than a chemical accident in fact, it's vice versa I would sympathize MORE if it was an accident rather than something he chose and I just don't think people should point at Joker's from the comics past or TAS and say 'this is THE definitive joker, make him look like that' because there is no such thing as a definitive joker only an assortment of different incarnations of him and my preferred incarnation is this grungy psycho who chooses to embody this scary archetype, if that makes any sense. Don't get me wrong I also love the clean joker with perma white skin and green hair, I loved Nicholson's take and TAS' take.
 
fcrowelle06, I'm not trying to diss on you or say my opinion is right and yours is wrong and me and the rest of the users are not trying to gang up on you or anything, I'm just saying I don't see myself giving sympathy for Joker because he wears makeup rather than a chemical accident in fact, it's vice versa I would sympathize MORE if it was an accident rather than something he chose and I just don't think people should point at Joker's from the comics past or TAS and say 'this is THE definitive joker, make him look like that' because there is no such thing as a definitive joker only an assortment of different incarnations of him and my preferred incarnation is this grungy psycho who chooses to embody this scary archetype, if that makes any sense. Don't get me wrong I also love the clean joker with perma white skin and green hair, I loved Nicholson's take and TAS' take.


I never thought you were dissing me, I feel as if were having a friendly discussion that's all
 
I'm sorry you'll have to be more specific in what your asking so I can answer:yay:


Why do you (not someone else's opinion or feedback) but you personally, why do you like the look of a grungy make-up Joker, more than the Perma-clown look that's been here for over 70 years, and with the grungy one that was revealed at least 5 months ago? I want to know what's your reason for believing that the perma-clown look is less inspiring than it has been before this movie was made? Why do you believe the way you do?
 
Why do you (not someone else's opinion or feedback) but you personally, why do you like the look of a grungy make-up Joker, more than the Perma-clown look that's been here for over 70 years, and with the grungy one that was revealed at least 5 months ago? I want to know what's your reason for believing that the perma-clown look is less inspiring than it has been before this movie was made? Why do you believe the way you do?
I'll try to answer this best I can, I think I answered some of it in my last long post. I like the fact the he chooses to embody a clown like persona instead of a chemical accident, It just seems scarier to me and I would sympathize with a Joker who became what he is by accident before I would a Joker who chose to look like he does, I think the grungy look gives him more of an edge and a scarier looks rather than someone who is vain about how good and clean he looks, and when the look was fully shown the idea of a grungier makeup wearing joker seemed more original to me, something less conventional, something new and exciting rather than what we have already seen so many times before all these years. I hope that does the job.
 
Not this perma-white crap again. Arguing about Gordon's mustache was much more fun. :woot:
 
Why do you (not someone else's opinion or feedback) but you personally, why do you like the look of a grungy make-up Joker, more than the Perma-clown look that's been here for over 70 years, and with the grungy one that was revealed at least 5 months ago? I want to know what's your reason for believing that the perma-clown look is less inspiring than it has been before this movie was made? Why do you believe the way you do?

I have said this a million times but it looks like I have to continue to repeat myself.

The Joker, believe it or not, has had significant changes in his character for over 70 years. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, its a fact. Though I was too young to see a lot of these changes, hell I'm only in my mid twenties. But there as lots know I've said this story much, a man I've worked with that when he was a kid he started reading Bats in the late 40's and 50's. When I told him the changes of this Joker with Nolan, he laughed and said there has been significant changes to the Joker in other equally important aspects of the character. Originaly he was a zodiac mass murdering psycho, then they turned him almost 180 to nothing more to a harmless prankster that plays with toys.

Then Adams changed him again, and merged two aspects making him a half prankster half killer. In the 80's Miller made one of the most significant changes by making him not have perma aspect of red lips. Though you may say thats not important to that date everyone thought his lips were perma as well. Now thats not the case.

And Burton made a huge change that still made me cringe. He took away the mysteriousness of the Joker by giving him a name, a girl friend, I mean he took the spirit of the Joker which was an unknown entity and gave him a normal background. And that was a HUGE change to the spirit of the Joker.

Moore gave a huge change making him darker then any incarnation ever, where some would call him insanley sick. To that time that had never been a aspect of the Joker to that degree.

Though I do understand the importantce to some of the perma white, to me it matters not one way or another. Because A. Its a fact that this character has had other aspects changed about him for years. But then most argue well he's been permawhite for 70 years. I'm sure there were fans like us that complained that he was always a killer in the 40's. Or some said hey he's been a mysterious character with no name for 50 years!! When Burton released his movie.

Some try to see the length of something with held as the sole excuse to say they can't change it. While some and I agree artists or directors go....lets change it, mix it up some. As long as the spirit still remains of the character art changes. Its the way it has always happend. I mean some one brought up a good point yesterday. That they have significantly changed other villians and heroes. Look at Robin Miller made him a girl, whether you like that or not, it was seen by lots as a classic, meaning many accepted the change after a while.

Now we have Lee Berejmo making a graphic novel, with a Joker that looks like Heath's Joker, even though yes he did make it before they started filming, but to me that shows that well art does change, and transform. I'm one that gets tired of cookie cutter same thing after same thing. As long as the spirit is intact that is what matters most.

What I'm trying to say is that very important characters or aspects of the Joker have had significant changes, and this is just another one. Though that does not mean you have to like it. But I have a feeling that the majority will find it pretty cool. And with the general audiance if TDK is good, Lee's book could sell tons, and we may gain a whole new generation of fans that see this Joker as the Joker. Who knows. I see any Joker the Joker as long as the spirit of the character remains.
 
I have said this a million times but it looks like I have to continue to repeat myself.

The Joker, believe it or not, has had significant changes in his character for over 70 years. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, its a fact. Though I was too young to see a lot of these changes, hell I'm only in my mid twenties. But there as lots know I've said this story much, a man I've worked with that when he was a kid he started reading Bats in the late 40's and 50's. When I told him the changes of this Joker with Nolan, he laughed and said there has been significant changes to the Joker in other equally important aspects of the character. Originaly he was a zodiac mass murdering psycho, then they turned him almost 180 to nothing more to a harmless prankster that plays with toys.

Then Adams changed him again, and merged two aspects making him a half prankster half killer. In the 80's Miller made one of the most significant changes by making him not have perma aspect of red lips. Though you may say thats not important to that date everyone thought his lips were perma as well. Now thats not the case.

And Burton made a huge change that still made me cringe. He took away the mysteriousness of the Joker by giving him a name, a girl friend, I mean he took the spirit of the Joker which was an unknown entity and gave him a normal background. And that was a HUGE change to the spirit of the Joker.

Moore gave a huge change making him darker then any incarnation ever, where some would call him insanley sick. To that time that had never been a aspect of the Joker to that degree.

Though I do understand the importantce to some of the perma white, to me it matters not one way or another. Because A. Its a fact that this character has had other aspects changed about him for years. But then most argue well he's been permawhite for 70 years. I'm sure there were fans like us that complained that he was always a killer in the 40's. Or some said hey he's been a mysterious character with no name for 50 years!! When Burton released his movie.

Some try to see the length of something with held as the sole excuse to say they can't change it. While some and I agree artists or directors go....lets change it, mix it up some. As long as the spirit still remains of the character art changes. Its the way it has always happend. I mean some one brought up a good point yesterday. That they have significantly changed other villians and heroes. Look at Robin Miller made him a girl, whether you like that or not, it was seen by lots as a classic, meaning many accepted the change after a while.

Now we have Lee Berejmo making a graphic novel, with a Joker that looks like Heath's Joker, even though yes he did make it before they started filming, but to me that shows that well art does change, and transform. I'm one that gets tired of cookie cutter same thing after same thing. As long as the spirit is intact that is what matters most.

What I'm trying to say is that very important characters or aspects of the Joker have had significant changes, and this is just another one. Though that does not mean you have to like it. But I have a feeling that the majority will find it pretty cool. And with the general audiance if TDK is good, Lee's book could sell tons, and we may gain a whole new generation of fans that see this Joker as the Joker. Who knows. I see any Joker the Joker as long as the spirit of the character remains.

At what point do everyones efforts at explaining the theory interpretation and adaptation become fruitless efforts. I mean seriously, how many times can you guys argue this? They are all valid points that are getting nowhere.
 
I would PREFER the Joker to look like the Joker from TLH/Animated series/TKJ etc...
To me, Nicholoson looked closer to the comics. The thing is, I love what Nicholson did. When I heard Ledger was taking on the Joker i thought ok. Well at least they can do a more faithful version this time.
But in looks, its not. Now, i'm quite happy to watch ledger looking the way he did, it works for the character. But i would have PREFERED him to look closer to the comics. I a change is made from the comics, but its a good change, then i'm all up for that. For instance, making Joker the killer of waynes parants in B89, and Ra's wayne's teacher in BB was a stroke of genius. Those departues were welcomed by me.
I don't welcome Ledger look as much sley because i don't think it benefits the material any better than if he looked as he did in the comics. But, i will say, it works on film, it looks ok, and shouldn't harm it any. Only serious batfans might take offense at this and ask WHY? I found Nicholson's Joker believeable. the acid and what not. Its a little convaulted. but we're watching Batman. lol not some documentary on acid effects on human flesh. Its possible that what happened to jack could happen to someone.
No one was moaning in 89.

Hmm... I think that's fair. It's odd that you came on so strong when your opinion seems relatively neutral.

In discussing the "growing on me" sentiment, is that really such a bad thing? For something to grow on you rather than like it instantly? Things I love the moment I see/hear them usually lose their luster for me as I start to pick out flaws or get bored of them. Things I grow to like have more longevity. I always think of this in terms of music. The songs I find immediately catchy I usually grow to dislike. The songs that I skip the first dozen times usually because my favourite on the album. It's not brainwashing, I genuinely think there is strength in something catching you a bit off guard, and you having to learn to appreciate on its terms instead of my own. That probably doesn't work that way for everyone, but it works for me.

Besides, I honestly cannot imagine a live action Joker I would like better. I don't like the look of Jack's makeup because it actually gives off way more of a make-up vibe for me than Heath's. I like the splotchy, uneven thing, and I like the black around the eyes. While in some angles the cut smile looks a bit odd to me, there are times where it makes his grin look positively obscene and cartoony. And when that happens (like in the "Evening, Commissioner" scene) I think the look is spectacular. Because I think he looks simultaneous completely real and gritty, yet monstrously exaggerated and caricature-ish. And it's those moments that have really caused an increase in my appreciation for the look. It actually amazes me how well he incorporated a those two elements.

Also, in regards to Rachel, I hate recasting, but I would rather not have the rotating gallery of women like in the previous franchise. I prefer Rachel be back (and I prefer Maggie to Katie anyway) then substitute a new character in. You can't even take the other women seriously because you knew they would only be there for one movie then be replaced. You can't buy invest in one off flings. At least by keeping the Rachel character I feel like they are building up to something. Probably something pretty painful for Bruce.
 
At what point do everyones efforts at explaining the theory interpretation and adaptation become fruitless efforts. I mean seriously, how many times can you guys argue this? They are all valid points that are getting nowhere.

You are very true, I guess being bored has something to do with it lol.

But the fact of the matter is TDK is done in the can, and none of the complaining some do will change the fact it will make probably a lot of money. History repeats it self. I remember back in 03 when some did not like the new look of Doc Ock, and there was huge complaints and long threads like this one. And well when it came out there were some that still like to complain about it but the majority were happy.

It is just always this vicious cycle. lol
 
1. I already know your opinion Solidus, and this question was referred to Undying Soul for UNDYING SOUL's opinion

2. I wasn't talking about character, I was talking about look, and yes I know all about Lee Berejmo's graphic novel

and 3. Reason being for Me, not for you or anybody else but FOR ME, the Joker is scarier if he's permanently a clown, see if he wears make-up (splotchy make-up) at that, I know he's just a man underneath, sure there's a fear, but I still believe I could take him down just as a regular person, but with a perma-clown, I wouldn't approach him, I'd just start running crying for Batman, hearing his laughter in the background
 
I wasn't really arguing as much as I was just expeessing my opinion with fcrowelle06, I understand where he was coming from but there was just some thoughts I wanted to be out there.
 
Hmm... I think that's fair. It's odd that you came on so strong when your opinion seems relatively neutral.

In discussing the "growing on me" sentiment, is that really such a bad thing? For something to grow on you rather than like it instantly? Things I love the moment I see/hear them usually lose their luster for me as I start to pick out flaws or get bored of them. Things I grow to like have more longevity. I always think of this in terms of music. The songs I find immediately catchy I usually grow to dislike. The songs that I skip the first dozen times usually because my favourite on the album. It's not brainwashing, I genuinely think there is strength in something catching you a bit off guard, and you having to learn to appreciate on its terms instead of my own. That probably doesn't work that way for everyone, but it works for me.

Besides, I honestly cannot imagine a live action Joker I would like better. I don't like the look of Jack's makeup because it actually gives off way more of a make-up vibe for me than Heath's. I like the splotchy, uneven thing, and I like the black around the eyes. While in some angles the cut smile looks a bit odd to me, there are times where it makes his grin look positively obscene and cartoony. And when that happens (like in the "Evening, Commissioner" scene) I think the look is spectacular. Because I think he looks simultaneous completely real and gritty, yet monstrously exaggerated and caricature-ish. And it's those moments that have really caused an increase in my appreciation for the look. It actually amazes me how well he incorporated a those two elements.

Also, in regards to Rachel, I hate recasting, but I would rather not have the rotating gallery of women like in the previous franchise. I prefer Rachel be back (and I prefer Maggie to Katie anyway) then substitute a new character in. You can't even take the other women seriously because you knew they would only be there for one movie then be replaced. You can't buy invest in one off flings. At least by keeping the Rachel character I feel like they are building up to something. Probably something pretty painful for Bruce.

I've always felt the same way about it. Though I love Jack's Joker. It seemed so thick with make up. Where it just did not look really bleached, but just caked on.
 
1. I already know your opinion Solidus, and this question was referred to Undying Soul for UNDYING SOUL's opinion

2. I wasn't talking about character, I was talking about look, and yes I know all about Lee Berejmo's graphic novel

and 3. Reason being for Me, not for you or anybody else but FOR ME, the Joker is scarier if he's permanently a clown, see if he wears make-up (splotchy make-up) at that, I know he's just a man underneath, sure there's a fear, but I still believe I could take him down just as a regular person, but with a perma-clown, I wouldn't approach him, I'd just start running crying for Batman, hearing his laughter in the background
I understand where your coming from:woot:
 
I would PREFER the Joker to look like the Joker from TLH/Animated series/TKJ etc...
To me, Nicholoson looked closer to the comics. The thing is, I love what Nicholson did. When I heard Ledger was taking on the Joker i thought ok. Well at least they can do a more faithful version this time.
But in looks, its not. Now, i'm quite happy to watch ledger looking the way he did, it works for the character. But i would have PREFERED him to look closer to the comics. I a change is made from the comics, but its a good change, then i'm all up for that. For instance, making Joker the killer of waynes parants in B89, and Ra's wayne's teacher in BB was a stroke of genius. Those departues were welcomed by me.
I don't welcome Ledger look as much sley because i don't think it benefits the material any better than if he looked as he did in the comics. But, i will say, it works on film, it looks ok, and shouldn't harm it any. Only serious batfans might take offense at this and ask WHY? I found Nicholson's Joker believeable. the acid and what not. Its a little convaulted. but we're watching Batman. lol not some documentary on acid effects on human flesh. Its possible that what happened to jack could happen to someone.
No one was moaning in 89.


quite a fair statement
 
1. I already know your opinion Solidus, and this question was referred to Undying Soul for UNDYING SOUL's opinion

2. I wasn't talking about character, I was talking about look, and yes I know all about Lee Berejmo's graphic novel

and 3. Reason being for Me, not for you or anybody else but FOR ME, the Joker is scarier if he's permanently a clown, see if he wears make-up (splotchy make-up) at that, I know he's just a man underneath, sure there's a fear, but I still believe I could take him down just as a regular person, but with a perma-clown, I wouldn't approach him, I'd just start running crying for Batman, hearing his laughter in the background

I know dude, And I'm not saying you can't believe that. I was not really just replying to you, but there was this argument a few pages back. I just kinda hit quote on you, I was not singling you out lol :up:

But no dude I know I was not attacking you or nothing.
 
This has turned into just another Joker thread, take it there guys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"