The Dark Knight The Man Who Laughs: The Joker Thread 2.0

[donk70]

Everything I see and hear of Ledger's Joker tells me that he is the Joker of the comics. He has the personality and the attitude of the Joker of the comics, and yet people are still hung up on how different his look is (OMG, HE ISN'T PERMAWHITE HE WEARS MAKEUP!! OMG HE DYES HIS HAIR GREEN!! OMG HE HAS A SCAR FOR A SMILE!!). Talk about missing the forest through the trees.

Go troll someplace else

 

[donk70]

You folks just don't understand my point, do you? Ok, here it is spelled out yet again:
The Joker
-has green hair
-has perma white skin
- does not dress like a hobo
- does not have scars on the side of his face

Nolan/Ledger's Joker goes against all that I have just pointed out above. I don't care if Ledger has the persona nailed down, that's only one aspect of the character. If this was a radio show then that would be all that mattered, but it's not. This is a movie. There is a visual involved. Nolan/Ledger get an F for visuals in the gradebook. Simple as that.

 

[Beanjuice]

Go troll someplace else

he has a valid point though. people are ignoring the characterization in the sense of acting opposed to the concerns of his look

 

[donk70]

Firstly, this Joker's got green hair. Secondly, the Joker wears a long purple coat in the comics, and sometimes a waist-coat and tie. And thirdly, Lee Bermejo's Joker's got a cut smile... and that's from the comics.

Continue.

No
The Joker has green hair. This Joker has a barely green wash in his hair

The Joker of the comics has a sense of style to him, this one looks more like a hobo that anything.

I don't care if Lee what's his name draws a Joker with a cut smile in the comics. If he does, he's wrong and DC editors should be admonished for letting into a comic book. I reiterate: The Joker does not have scars on the side of his face.

Personally, I think it's DC/WB trying to make the scars cannon so it would be accepted by the fans. If you notice, Grant Morrison did the same in the Joker story he wrote last year. If this is the case, I think the whole Batman mythos needs a reboot.

 

[donk70]

he has a valid point though. people are ignoring the characterization in the sense of acting opposed to the concerns of his look

Did you not read my other post? This is a movie. There is a visual involved. The visual is wrong.

 

[donk70]

There a few pictures out there where Heath's Joker's hair is incredibly green, in some others, it looks less green - but that's down to either the lighting or the incosistency of the character in general. Take your pick.

There should be no inconsistencies with the Joker. He is a constant, remember? Nolan even said that himself. And what is consistent with the Joker is that he has green hair.

Next you'll be complaining that the Joker never wears a clown-mask in the comics...

Good Lord, quit being so melodramatic, would you?

Right, so a guy who dresses in pure purple, wears a waist-coat and tie, dyes his hair green, has no sense of style or theatricality?

Incredible...

Face it, the colors don't match. The pants are a different shade of purple that the trench coat, the blue hex shirt doesnt match anything, the suit jacket under the trench coat is blue, and the shoes are worn and brown. Hardly a sense of style matching the classic Joker.

It's just a shame for you that DC are publishing the comic-book.

I reiterate, the Joker's got a cut smile in the comics.

And I reiterate, these changes were made after after TDK went into pre-production.

 

[donk70]

The original design for the Joker is that his hair wasn't all green. The light determines how green the Joker's hair is - well, that's how it was with Bill Finger's Joker, anyhow. The Joker in which Heath's Joker is based on...

If this is the Joker that he's based on, then why isn't his skin perma white? Where is the cut smile?

Nice try.

I'm being told to quite being melodramatic by a guy who says that Heath's Joker's hair isn't green enough...

Yeah you're right. I'm telling you his hair isn't green enough. Since when does the Joker have mousy brown hair?

Please tell me you aren't being serious? You are now complaining that Heath's Joker wears a different shade of purple to which comic-book Joker wears? Quit being so melodramatic, would you?

No I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that his clothes in the movie don't match, they clash with each other-i.e. 2 different shades of purple. Worn brown shoes

So how many people do you see walking around with green hair, purple coat, tie, waist-coat, purple trousers, brown, clown-like shoes, and multi-coloured socks?

Good lord, keep this in perspective.

If the Joker has no style or theatricality, then what does he have? Also, the original Joker, from the 1940s, was never about "style" - he was a much more dark and serious character than what he became later on.

We're not debating the actions of the character here, we're debating the look. Nolan's/Ledger's Joker does not look anything like the 1940's Joker that you say he was based on. Period.

Actually, you'll find that Nolan saw Bermejo's Joker illustration, and then stole his idea for the movie. Bermejo had already planned to release his graphic novel before TDK even had a name...

Right, I read that too. But I don't buy it.

 

[ronny]

I agree with that also. I mean, this seems more realistic to have a disfigured man gone crazy and paints his face to look like a clown, as opposed to a man who falls into a vat of acid and comes out with a permanent smile on his face.

But thats the whole ideal of the joker. he is forever laughing and it drives him insane. While i do love heath's joker and i agree its much more realistic. it still doesnt have the same effect as the original

I'll grant you that The Joker laughs a lot. That's part of his character. But the permanent smile is not a part of the character. The Joker's disfigurement did not make him have a fixed grin. It was that kind of crap that ruined Nicholson's Joker in '89. How could they have made Jack Nicholson wear that God awful prosthetic. And then not even giving him a decent tie. It boggles the mind. You have the same guy who tore up the screen in The Shining and you cover up his most vital tool, the face, in this terrible device. Burton got so much right but this was unforgivable.
The Joker does not smile all the time. In his first appearance there is a shot of him tenting his fingers, frowning and in deep thought. The Killing Joke, "Why aren't you laughing?" See his face? He's unhappy, NOT SMILING. When he shoots Gordon's wife in No Mans Land, he walks out without a word, completely indifferent, almost disappointed.
Again, let's agree on it. HE DOES NOT HAVE A PERMANENT SMILE.
Should I keep repeating this until it sinks in to some of you?

 

[donk70]

They haven't fully based the appearance on the original Joker. Christ. In terms of the black around the eyes, the wrinkles, the long purple coat, the more "serious" Joker - that's all from the original Joker. The cut smile was influenced by Lee Bermejo, who is, um, a comic-book artist.

I will go back to my original observation of the Joker for this:

He has green hair
He doesnt have a cut smile
And I'll throw in the "he doesn't have a Kool Aid mustache

The make-up idea was an artistic choice by Nolan. That's one of the few things that this Joker doesn't have in common with the comics.

Nolan is wrong in this, and there's a few others that will echo my sentiments.

The original Joker, and even the Joker from TAS, has only a FEW shades of green - black being the predominant colour. I'm sure Nolan can be forgiven for trading the black for brown.

The Jokers hair has always been green. What you're seeing are shadows and hilights. They are different values of color. What Nolan have us is mousy brown hair with a green rinse.

And for the record, I don't think that TAS should be taken seriously, or do I think that it's a good inspiration for a film.

Well, you are clearly suffering from some sort of paranoia. Hey, what about the red around his lips? Isn't it more crimson than the Joker's red lips from the comics? Hey, what about Gordon! His moustache is longer than what it is in the comics! What the heck, what about Gotham City! It's got a shade of blue, and that blue is NEVER there in the comics!

Nolan, you destroyer of worls! I am finished!

Just want I always wanted for a Friday: To be psycho analyzed by someone that sits behind a computer. Nice try, Mr. Melodrama

You don't see anyone walking around like that, do you?

Apart from the Joker, of course.

It was the drugs, wasn't it?

Apart from the black around the hair, the white colored face, and all of the wrinkles, and the long purple coat? Yeah, nothing in common, what-so-ever...

Again, and this is getting monotinous

He has green hair

He is perma white

He doesn't have scars on his face

He doesn't have a Kool Aid mustace

 

[donk70]

The Joker's hair is just as green as Bill Finger's Joker's hair. Point being?

Lee Bermejo's Joker has a cut smile, and he is a comic-book artist. Thus, the Joker does have a cut smile in the comics. When the book is finally released, it will be 100% official that the Joker's got a cut smile in the comics. And what's a Kool Aid moustache?


I beg to differ. I love that the Joker applies make-up, since it makes him more of a mirror-image of Batman. It shows that the Joker understands the power of theatricality and the notion of becoming "more than just a man". He knows that Gotham City deserves a better class of criminal - a criminal who is willing to travel that extra mile in order to oppose the Batman.

If you put him in a room with a bunch of criminals, the Joker is going to look by far the most scariest and methodical criminal - someone who looks genuinely threatening and devoted to criminology and anarchy. And the best part is: this is what the Joker chooses to become, physically speaking. In the comics, it is thrust upon him, and then the Joker CHOOSES to become a clown - in TDK, the idea to become a clown wasn't handed to him on a plate like it was in the comics, it's derived from the cut-smile, and the Joker has simply filled in the gaps to create this symbol.

He is a symbol, just like a Batman - of terror.


Bill Finger's Joker can never be seen with a full head of green hair - it is always left ambiguous as to whether all of his hair is green. To look at him, there isn't much green in his hair - the same can be said for Heath's Joker.

So what's the problem?


I am only mirroring the ridiculousness of your gripe. The Joker's coat's a different shade of goddamn purple? Jesus Christ. I could rant on all day about the color differences in the films from the comics, but I won't, because I'm not ******ed.


Tut tut tut. One of the basic rules of argumentation is that you always attack the argument, not the person.

Work on that.


The Joker's hair is just as green as Bill Finger's Joker.

No, he's not permawhite - one of the few things that this Joker doesn't have in common with comic-book Joker. We've already established that, and you keep saying it like it gives you some higher ground in the debate. It doesn't.

The Joker WILL have scars on his face in the comics, once Bermejo's graphic novel hits. An idea that was conjured before any Heath Ledger pictures were officially released. So it was an entirely original idea from Bermejo, and there's even an interview on BOF where he explains why he gave the Joker a cut-smile. And guess what? He drew absolutely no inspiration from Heath's Joker, because he didn't even know that he was going to be impaled with a cut smile. This shows that a comic-book artist/writer gave the Joker a cut smile, thus the Joker's got a cut smile in the comics. This statement will be official come the end of 2008.

And what is this moustache you speak of, Larry?

1st of all, don't call me Larry. Do not address me by a 1st name that's not mine. I find this insulting and in very bad taste on your part. As for the the "One of the basic rules of argumentation is that you always attack the argument, not the person.", that's they only way I can go with this. I don't know what your trying to achieve by this because you don't make any sense.

I'm not trying to achieve high ground in this debate by keep on saying that he's perma white. That is my argument. This is not the Joker from the comics, this Nolan's/Ledger's Joker. I can't say that his action match with what we have in the comics because I haven't seen the picture yet, but I do know what he looks like and it's not the same Joker in the comics. As for the cut smile being retconned in the comic, if it is then DC/WB has their heads so far entrenched up their rectums that there will be no turning back for this character.

By arguing that his character is the only thing that matters in this is utter balderdash. The Joker is as much visual as he is a menacing character. By not following the classic lines that the creators have established over 65+ is an insult to them and the people who drew and wrote them over the years.

 

[Ryudoz]

As for the the "One of the basic rules of argumentation is that you always attack the argument, not the person.", that's they only way I can go with this.

Then you're not really making an effective argument attacking the person. It brings you down to interject such statements. You'd be better served not saying them at all.

I'm not trying to achieve high ground in this debate by keep on saying that he's perma white. That is my argument. This is not the Joker from the comics, this Nolan's/Ledger's Joker.

I think it's pretty obvious that this isn't the Joker from the comics. It is, as I stated a while back, an adaptation of the Joker that makes him recognizable (albeit different in appearance) to the character he is adapted from.

I can't say that his action match with what we have in the comics because I haven't seen the picture yet, but I do know what he looks like and it's not the same Joker in the comics.

You're right. It's not the same Joker in the comics, but neither is this the Batman from the comics, or the Gordon or Dent or Rachel etc. etc.

As for the cut smile being retconned in the comic, if it is then DC/WB has their heads so far entrenched up their rectums that there will be no turning back for this character.

If DC so chose to retcon a cut smile into the Joker's history, then they have that right as he is their property. Quite a few things are changed in the history of comics (almost on a whim) and I can point you directly at how Marvel is messing with Spider-Man at the moment. Change happens. Some like it, others don't. I seriously doubt, that despite this change (were it to be introduced across the board for the Joker) that it would kill the character.

By arguing that his character is the only thing that matters in this is utter balderdash. The Joker is as much visual as he is a menacing character. By not following the classic lines that the creators have established over 65+ is an insult to them and the people who drew and wrote them over the years.

You're right, the Joker is a very visual character. But in this, you have all sorts of adaptations based on different artistic points. Why would we want to see a carbon-copy iteration of the Joker on the big screen if we can just read him in the comics? As for it being an insult, last I checked, most of those involved with the Batman mythos via the comics have had very little negative things to say. And they're the ones who direct that characters future and maintain his past in the comics (a medium you seem to hold in high regard).

I think of it this way. Emulation is the sincerest form of flattery. So even if the writers at DC responsible for stories with a cut smile Joker began developing their stories after Nolan and Co. began production, then they must think it's okay. I argue that this type of adaptation is acceptible due in part to the support it seems to have gained within the community of those that direct the character.

 

[Aidan2209]

^

 

[Ace of Knaves]

donk70 while i respect that you prefer how the joker looks in the comics i have to disagree with almost everything you have had to say. i think that you have completely missed the point. the joker that nolan has visualised is just one of many takes on a world famous character. has anyone noticed that the batman looks completely different than the one in the comics? i dont think it makes any difference atall. as i said before some people including yourself prefer the joker with green hair and permawhite skin which is fine by me but when you start saying that TDKs joker isn't the joker like thats the be all and end all of the matter is quite annoying. my opinion is that this joker, a man who purposly highlights and plays on his deformaties with the make up is a far more disturbing and insane portrayal.

 

[titan101]

We're not debating the actions of the character here, we're debating the look. Nolan's/Ledger's Joker does not look anything like the 1940's Joker that you say he was based on. Period.

to me , this joker's look is the perfect combination of the bob kane's joker , lee bermejo's joker and dave mckean's joker .

+

+

=

but that's just me .

 

[The Joker]

I still think Brian Bolland draws the perfect Joker:

 

[Ryudoz]

I still think Brian Bolland draws the perfect Joker:

Bolland's Joker is epic. I love it as well, as it is my favorite portrayal.

 

[Eggyman]

Agreed with the two fine chaps above

 

[batman11]

I still think Brian Bolland draws the perfect Joker:

I dunno though, the purple bow tie is a little dull, and doesn't match the blue tint on his suit. Kinda makes him look like a hobo.

 

[Judson Caspian]

If this is the Joker that he's based on, then why isn't his skin perma white? Where is the cut smile?

Nice try.

First of all, it's not clarified whether he's permawhite in Batman #1 or not. However, I personally think it's weird why the TDK Joker is not white all over, which is a different issue. He's the first Joker ever to be like that.

Second, the TDK Joker is based on the comic book character. Not ripped off.

Nice try.

 

[donk70]

Then you're not really making an effective argument attacking the person. It brings you down to interject such statements. You'd be better served not saying them at all.



I think it's pretty obvious that this isn't the Joker from the comics. It is, as I stated a while back, an adaptation of the Joker that makes him recognizable (albeit different in appearance) to the character he is adapted from.



You're right. It's not the same Joker in the comics, but neither is this the Batman from the comics, or the Gordon or Dent or Rachel etc. etc.



If DC so chose to retcon a cut smile into the Joker's history, then they have that right as he is their property. Quite a few things are changed in the history of comics (almost on a whim) and I can point you directly at how Marvel is messing with Spider-Man at the moment. Change happens. Some like it, others don't. I seriously doubt, that despite this change (were it to be introduced across the board for the Joker) that it would kill the character.



You're right, the Joker is a very visual character. But in this, you have all sorts of adaptations based on different artistic points. Why would we want to see a carbon-copy iteration of the Joker on the big screen if we can just read him in the comics? As for it being an insult, last I checked, most of those involved with the Batman mythos via the comics have had very little negative things to say. And they're the ones who direct that characters future and maintain his past in the comics (a medium you seem to hold in high regard).

I think of it this way. Emulation is the sincerest form of flattery. So even if the writers at DC responsible for stories with a cut smile Joker began developing their stories after Nolan and Co. began production, then they must think it's okay. I argue that this type of adaptation is acceptible due in part to the support it seems to have gained within the community of those that direct the character.

I see who you are now. I'm not going to be baited any longer by a person who was already banned once for trolling

Nice try

 

[donk70]

First of all, it's not clarified whether he's permawhite in Batman #1 or not. However, I personally think it's weird why the TDK Joker is not white all over, which is a different issue. He's the first Joker ever to be like that.

Second, the TDK Joker is based on the comic book character. Not ripped off.

Nice try.

Cmon, are you serious? I mean really? The second or 3rd Joker story revealed that he was perma white when he was knocked unconscious. This is the same Joker from Batman #1. So yes, he was perma white in Batman #1.

And where did I say ripped off?

 

[donk70]

donk70 while i respect that you prefer how the joker looks in the comics i have to disagree with almost everything you have had to say. i think that you have completely missed the point. the joker that nolan has visualised is just one of many takes on a world famous character. has anyone noticed that the batman looks completely different than the one in the comics? i dont think it makes any difference atall. as i said before some people including yourself prefer the joker with green hair and permawhite skin which is fine by me but when you start saying that TDKs joker isn't the joker like thats the be all and end all of the matter is quite annoying. my opinion is that this joker, a man who purposly highlights and plays on his deformaties with the make up is a far more disturbing and insane portrayal.

If you find my opinion annoying, then why do you read it?

 

[titan101]

And where did I say ripped off?

i think what he's trying to say is that nolan and ledger are trying to be original and not completely and totally ripping off the comics , but apparently that's exactly what people like you want .

 

[Eggyman]

If you find my opinion annoying, then why do you read it?

He wouldn't know until he's read it

 

[BatSpider]