The Dark Knight So, anyone still upset that...

hegele

Sidekick
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
1,262
Reaction score
14
Points
58
SPOILERS (not really)

.... MR. J isn't perma-white? The epic arguement i think can be put to rest. I honestly think that if The Joker was all white somehow, and gave a multiple-choice situation as to how he obtained it (like the scars), it would have taken away a lot of what makes Heaths Joker so damn scary. He is a very real threat. The make-up not only worked, but improved the character for this story. I'm glad Nolan took the risk, and lived with the fear of fan persicution for over a year.

0003ka9c-1.jpg
 
I think it was awesome seeing the Joker as the cop with out the make-up but with the scars. Even though that seen flew by it was awesome!

I don't know why but I like the fact that he applies make-up to his face. idk.....
 
I was always a fan of the make-up, it makes The Joker seem more of a real threat, more real. To me it makes it seem that anyone in real life that if pushed too far can become The Joker.
 
Honestly I wouldnt have even noticed if he was prema white the only difference there would of been instead of Joker talking bout his scars he would of talked about the bleach bath???

Yeah Nolan knows what hes doing trust me you dont miss that he isnt bleached hell you wouldnt even notice it if it wasnt for this fourm lol
 
to anyone who is still upset, no offense or anything, but you are an idiot. whoever is out there, still angry about it, either really, really can't let things go or is just a blithering, drooling moron. or both.
 
I never really thought about him not being perma-white while I was watching the movie, until it got to that cop scene, I wanted to see him talk without the make-up, he just looked so...............different
 
I knew when I saw the trailers I would love this Joker and that the permawhite wouldn't bother me one bit... And I was right.
 
Absolutely not upset about it. It was a great choice. Heath's Joker was the truest and most iconic portrayal of him and he did it all without being perma-white. All the make-up haters can shove it.
 
Certainly it would have been great to have him have that unnatural looking white skin--I mean, in a world with microwave emmiters and sonar survailance, is it REALLY that big of a stretch? But, Ledger still knocked the ball out of the park despite that great detail of the character's missing.
 
I think the real reason Nolan changed the perma-white was because he wanted to show he could do it........I really don't think it has anything to do with "realism"
 
I'm really still upset about it and I think some of you will back me up here. The Joker should be permawhite, use gimmicky weapons and not really kill anyone. He's a harmless prankster and that's the only way he should ever be portrayed in any film.
How dare Christopher Nolan rape the character!
 
funny how the arguments about the suit and the permawhite seem so trivial now.
 
I'm really still upset about it and I think some of you will back me up here. The Joker should be permawhite, use gimmicky weapons and not really kill anyone. He's a harmless prankster and that's the only way he should ever be portrayed in any film.
How dare Christopher Nolan rape the character!
:funny: :funny:
 
I hate that he wasnt perma white because of Nolans "realism" trip (sorry but the Bat sonar was not realistic)

but it worked and i didnt really care while watching. I didnt think it was gonna bother me anyway
 
I hate that he wasnt perma white because of Nolans "realism" trip (sorry but the Bat sonar was not realistic)

I agree. Heath Ledger wasn't the right choice for the character. No one should have ever tried to outdo Jack Nicholson because he was permawhite and had a lethal joy buzzer.
 
I agree. Heath Ledger wasn't the right choice for the character. No one should have ever tried to outdo Jack Nicholson because he was permawhite and had a lethal joy buzzer.

Ledger did fantastic. Way better than jack, and I love Jack in general. jack was just being Jack. Ledger was the Joker. Im being to think that your only experience witht the Joker is the animated series and the 89 movie.

I dont hate permawhite because it SHOULD be permawhite, I hate permawhite because it is part of the realism that is halting the use of Freeze, Clayface, and Bane in their true forms.
 
I agree. Heath Ledger wasn't the right choice for the character. No one should have ever tried to outdo Jack Nicholson because he was permawhite and had a lethal joy buzzer.


:woot:

I agree, but you forgot his XTC-pills AND the Prince-music.
 
Ledger did fantastic. Way better than jack, and I love Jack in general. jack was just being Jack. LEdger was the Joker. Im being to think that your only experience witht the Joker is the animated series and the 89 movie
I think someone is messing with you :up:
 
I preferred it this way.

It brings a much more realistic feel to the character. And I like the reference to "war paint" that was made early in the movie. He paints his face to intimidate his victims.

He puts on the face paint because he has the personality of a crazy, clown'like person..and it just amplifies his character more. Better then him falling into a chemical that just so happens to turn his face into a clown IMO. Better for this type of Batman movie at least.
 
Ledger did fantastic. Way better than jack, and I love Jack in general. jack was just being Jack. LEdger was the Joker. Im being to think that your only experience witht the Joker is the animated series and the 89 movie

Ledger did not do "fantastic" because he wasn't the right version of the character. If he was he would have been a perfectly sane man who become completely evil because he falls into a vat of chemicals whilst wearing a phallic red helmet.
Watch Batman '89 again and you will see that Nicholson was completely comic accurate. Even the permanent smile was accurate to the comics. Whereas Heath Ledger was not. In fact, his lack of bleached skin has put me off The Dark Knight completely. Who cares about how well he acts? I'm boycotting this film because he didn't become The Joker after falling into a vat of chemicals whilst wearing a penis shaped helmet.
Also, Batman should have a cloth suit.
The Dark Knight sucks and so does anyone who doesn't accept that Nicholsons Joker is the only version that ever needs to be seen by fans.
 
SPOILERS (not really)

.... MR. J isn't perma-white? The epic arguement i think can be put to rest. I honestly think that if The Joker was all white somehow, and gave a multiple-choice situation as to how he obtained it (like the scars), it would have taken away a lot of what makes Heaths Joker so damn scary. He is a very real threat. The make-up not only worked, but improved the character for this story. I'm glad Nolan took the risk, and lived with the fear of fan persicution for over a year.


I think, IMO, that Nolan chose to have the Joker in makeup rather than perma-white was to prove the point that underneath the makeup, he's just a normal (demented, but normal) guy... just like Batman/Bruce Wayne is :brucebat:....

If you think about it, Mr. J is simply doing the same thing that Bruce Wayne is doing. They both have get-ups that masks their normal beings.. I know that in the case of the Joker, with or without the makup he's going to do the same stuff.. But Bruce also goes along those same lines.. When he's not in the batsuit, he's still trying to do the right and just things

Creating these villians that are genetically changed just seems to take away from the fact that at one point they were normal people.. and I think the scene where
the people on the ferry have to choose
proves that point..
 
I don't see what the release of the film has to do with it. I preferred bleached skin before I saw; I prefer bleached skin after I've seen it. Beyond that, I don't recall anyone stating that the film would be entirely ruined for them based on this aesthetic choice. They could have given mention to Joker's 'origin' playing out as the books reference, chemical bath and all, and it wouldn't have meant a damn if the actual portrayal was worthless. God knows this point was stated several times over by several different people.

If anyone is "an idiot or a blithering, drooling moron" it's those that are somehow too dense to understand that a simple preference doesn't dictate wholesale evaluation of a role. That was never the argument.
 
Ledger did not do "fantastic" because he wasn't the right version of the character. If he was he would have been a perfectly sane man who become completely evil because he falls into a vat of chemicals whilst wearing a phallic red helmet.
Watch Batman '89 again and you will see that Nicholson was completely comic accurate. Even the permanent smile was accurate to the comics. Whereas Heath Ledger was not. In fact, his lack of bleached skin has put me off The Dark Knight completely. Who cares about how well he acts? I'm boycotting this film because he didn't become The Joker after falling into a vat of chemicals whilst wearing a penis shaped helmet.
Also, Batman should have a cloth suit.
The Dark Knight sucks and so does anyone who doesn't accept that Nicholsons Joker is the only version that ever needs to be seen by fans.

the Joker didnt have a perma smile in the comics until recently when Morrison had him shot in the face. He was just crazy and had big red lips. And Joker has been seriously sadistic in the stories that were really good like Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum.
 
I’d have personally preferred him a bit more accurate…but that’s me. I don’t think the make-up really took much away, but I’ll naturally always be protective of the comic versions. Calling someone an idiot because they wanted bleached skin is uncalled for. Plus the Joker uses gimmicks to this very day and they’re written far from harmless. Comic accuracy does not mean he’s suddenly tame.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
201,153
Messages
21,907,315
Members
45,704
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"