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

[Crook]

I struggle to think of a Joker story I have enjoyed in which he uses these weapons. As well as that, I find it hard to suspend my disbelief when he uses this stuff.

I can see that occurring, but only if it's truly "out there". Jack electrifying someone into a burning corpse from a handbuzzer comes to mind. Or any of the gags pulled during the Dick Sprang era. That's when it crosses the line of believability for me.

I know the character likes to appear sily and fun but whilst I can believe that a guy dresses up like a clown and basicaly terrorises a city I find it hard to stomach the idea of him using gimmicky weapons. It feels cheap and tawdry to me.

That's his shtick though. To be a twisted clown. His physical appearance is self-explanatory, but he "dresses" up and acts like what one would expect a dark clownlike maniac to be. If you're going to refer to his utilities as a gimmick, you minds as well call out Batman on the same thing. He's the very definition of taking a symbol to extreme means.

I don't mind it in some respects, perhaps the most twisted Joker moment was the cotton candy incident in TDKR, and I can see your point here Crook. But the character holds such a level of fear amongst the heroes and villains of the DC world that I cannot abide by him using silly gag weapons.

Well it should never be about what it is, but how it's executed. For example, no one considers a pen to be a threat. But once you see someone get stabbed with it in a very gruesome manner, I'd hardly think the ridiculous nature of the act will make you comfortable.

Take the so-called silly weapons. Put yourself in a real-world situation. If you see anyone use an acidic flower to burn someone's face, and you can easily hear the painful screams, you'd be bothered would you not? I'll even go a bit further just for the sake of the argument and say that you're in a cheerfully bright environment (say a park), with jolly music playing ("It's a Small World") in the background, and a fairly popular children's figure (Spongebob) is the one with the flower. Now just picture Spongebob squirting acid from a flower onto a person's face, right in front of you. On paper, it sounds ludicrous and laughable, but honestly, no sane person would react anything short of horrified at that sight. No matter the circumstances. Again, it's not about "the what", but "the how".

Now obviously I've stretched the variables here to prove a point, which I'm sure you can see. And really, this isn't even a new concept. Tons of horror stories and terrifying imagery are often a play on fond memories from our childhood. Chucky the evil doll, being a good example on the twist of innocence present in various forms of bad/evil.

 

[Saint]

As usual, I am at a loss as to how adapting clown gags or toys to serve as weapons is silly. Seems pretty horrific to see some murdered by an acid spraying flower. That is the Joker; taking the innocent and silly, and using it as something really awful and terrifying.

I really, honestly, do not understand how someone can say "I love the Joker, but hate the gags." The Joker is, at his core, a large scale expression of the exact same gag expressed in his lethal devices. The Joker is the clown gimmick, and that is everything that he is: the absolute expression of his basic belief the innocence is a facade and violence is the truth of everything.

I don't understand how one can dislike the toys on the grounds of silliness and not have the same fundamental dislike of the Joker himself, because he and his toys are no different. They are exactly the same as his jokes, his demeanour, his appearance, and his mentality. They are an extension of his personality like all these other elements, and a disagreement with them is a fundamental disagreement with his personality. If the toys are silly, the Joker is silly. If the toys are "cheap and tawdry," the Joker is cheap and tawdry.

I'm not trying to antagonize anybody; loving the Joker but hating the toys is something I just can't reconcile. It's contradictory. Not because the toys are necessary to his character (they aren't), but because they express an important aspect of his character--and even though that aspect is still present without them, disliking them suggests a dislike of that aspect of the character, and therefore a dislike of the Joker. It's sort of like saying "I like Batman but hate the batstuff; trying to scare criminals seems silly." Both instances are a major disagreement with a definitive quality of the character. Batman is about using fear against criminals. Joker is about using innocence against everybody.

 

[CaptainBeaver91]

As usual, I am at a loss as to how adapting clown gags or toys to serve as weapons is silly. Seems pretty horrific to see some murdered by an acid spraying flower. That is the Joker; taking the innocent and silly, and using it as something really awful and terrifying.

I really, honestly, do not understand how someone can say "I love the Joker, but hate the gags." The Joker is, at his core, a large scale expression of the exact same gag expressed in his lethal devices. The Joker is the clown gimmick, and that is everything that he is: the absolute expression of his basic belief the innocence is a facade and violence is the truth of everything.

I don't understand how one can dislike the toys on the grounds of silliness and not have the same fundamental dislike of the Joker himself, because he and his toys are no different. They are exactly the same as his jokes, his demeanour, his appearance, and his mentality. They are an extension of his personality like all these other elements, and a disagreement with them is a fundamental disagreement with his personality. If the toys are silly, the Joker is silly. If the toys are "cheap and tawdry," the Joker is cheap and tawdry.

I'm not trying to antagonize anybody; loving the Joker but hating the toys is something I just can't reconcile. It's contradictory. Not because the toys are necessary to his character (they aren't), but because they express an important aspect of his character--and even though that aspect is still present without them, disliking them suggests a dislike of that aspect of the character, and therefore a dislike of the Joker. It's sort of like saying "I like Batman but hate the batstuff; trying to scare criminals seems silly." Both instances are a major disagreement with a definitive quality of the character. Batman is about using fear against criminals. Joker is about using innocence against everybody.

Ah...I can't argue with that.

 

[laudanum09]

As usual, I am at a loss as to how adapting clown gags or toys to serve as weapons is silly. Seems pretty horrific to see some murdered by an acid spraying flower. That is the Joker; taking the innocent and silly, and using it as something really awful and terrifying.

I really, honestly, do not understand how someone can say "I love the Joker, but hate the gags." The Joker is, at his core, a large scale expression of the exact same gag expressed in his lethal devices. The Joker is the clown gimmick, and that is everything that he is: the absolute expression of his basic belief the innocence is a facade and violence is the truth of everything.

I don't understand how one can dislike the toys on the grounds of silliness and not have the same fundamental dislike of the Joker himself, because he and his toys are no different. They are exactly the same as his jokes, his demeanour, his appearance, and his mentality. They are an extension of his personality like all these other elements, and a disagreement with them is a fundamental disagreement with his personality. If the toys are silly, the Joker is silly. If the toys are "cheap and tawdry," the Joker is cheap and tawdry.

I'm not trying to antagonize anybody; loving the Joker but hating the toys is something I just can't reconcile. It's contradictory. Not because the toys are necessary to his character (they aren't), but because they express an important aspect of his character--and even though that aspect is still present without them, disliking them suggests a dislike of that aspect of the character, and therefore a dislike of the Joker. It's sort of like saying "I like Batman but hate the batstuff; trying to scare criminals seems silly." Both instances are a major disagreement with a definitive quality of the character. Batman is about using fear against criminals. Joker is about using innocence against everybody.

i love the gags. he never just pulls out a rubber chicken or shakes someones hand with a buzzer without the result of death or maiming. my only issue is, seeing everything we've seen from the dark knight, there are only a few sorts of gags I see working. Unfortunately, no acidic flower...I really hope the pencil trick isnt the ultimate, perhaps only penultimate of this joker's 'gags'. I'll of course live without them and stick to the dynamite, gunpowder, gasoline, stabbings and facial scarring.

although it'd be pushing it slightly considering bats has something similar, but razor tipped cards would be awesome...anything with a slight sense of humor would be rad...there was something about the bank scene that felt like a bit 'gagish' as well.

 

[JayCaz]

just saw the "you remind me of my father" clip - good stuff!


when the Joker is apprehended initially ("clothing is custom" etc) and he's sitting there looking non-plussed does it remind anyone else of when Kevin Spacey gives himself up in Seven?

 

[Nivek]

As usual, I am at a loss as to how adapting clown gags or toys to serve as weapons is silly. Seems pretty horrific to see some murdered by an acid spraying flower. That is the Joker; taking the innocent and silly, and using it as something really awful and terrifying.

I really, honestly, do not understand how someone can say "I love the Joker, but hate the gags." The Joker is, at his core, a large scale expression of the exact same gag expressed in his lethal devices. The Joker is the clown gimmick, and that is everything that he is: the absolute expression of his basic belief the innocence is a facade and violence is the truth of everything.

I don't understand how one can dislike the toys on the grounds of silliness and not have the same fundamental dislike of the Joker himself, because he and his toys are no different. They are exactly the same as his jokes, his demeanour, his appearance, and his mentality. They are an extension of his personality like all these other elements, and a disagreement with them is a fundamental disagreement with his personality. If the toys are silly, the Joker is silly. If the toys are "cheap and tawdry," the Joker is cheap and tawdry.

I'm not trying to antagonize anybody; loving the Joker but hating the toys is something I just can't reconcile. It's contradictory. Not because the toys are necessary to his character (they aren't), but because they express an important aspect of his character--and even though that aspect is still present without them, disliking them suggests a dislike of that aspect of the character, and therefore a dislike of the Joker. It's sort of like saying "I like Batman but hate the batstuff; trying to scare criminals seems silly." Both instances are a major disagreement with a definitive quality of the character. Batman is about using fear against criminals. Joker is about using innocence against everybody.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here. From what I've read here the last 3 years, some people wouldn't bat a lash if the Joker was a guy in a leather trenchcoat with an Uzi, facepaint optional. I never understood how someone can be a fan of a character but not like main aspects of the character. It's like saying you love ice cream, but hate cold foods.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

As usual, I am at a loss as to how adapting clown gags or toys to serve as weapons is silly. Seems pretty horrific to see some murdered by an acid spraying flower. That is the Joker; taking the innocent and silly, and using it as something really awful and terrifying.

I really, honestly, do not understand how someone can say "I love the Joker, but hate the gags." The Joker is, at his core, a large scale expression of the exact same gag expressed in his lethal devices. The Joker is the clown gimmick, and that is everything that he is: the absolute expression of his basic belief the innocence is a facade and violence is the truth of everything.

I don't understand how one can dislike the toys on the grounds of silliness and not have the same fundamental dislike of the Joker himself, because he and his toys are no different. They are exactly the same as his jokes, his demeanour, his appearance, and his mentality. They are an extension of his personality like all these other elements, and a disagreement with them is a fundamental disagreement with his personality. If the toys are silly, the Joker is silly. If the toys are "cheap and tawdry," the Joker is cheap and tawdry.

I'm not trying to antagonize anybody; loving the Joker but hating the toys is something I just can't reconcile. It's contradictory. Not because the toys are necessary to his character (they aren't), but because they express an important aspect of his character--and even though that aspect is still present without them, disliking them suggests a dislike of that aspect of the character, and therefore a dislike of the Joker. It's sort of like saying "I like Batman but hate the batstuff; trying to scare criminals seems silly." Both instances are a major disagreement with a definitive quality of the character. Batman is about using fear against criminals. Joker is about using innocence against everybody.

Honestly, I really couldnt argue with that myself, that was a good read.

 

[magus]

Toys would be fine. I would cream my pants if Ledger pulled out the gun that shoots out the little "BANG" sign and then impaled somebody with the sign while they are laughing about it.

 

[ronny]

I agree with pretty much everything you said here. From what I've read here the last 3 years, some people wouldn't bat a lash if the Joker was a guy in a leather trenchcoat with an Uzi, facepaint optional. I never understood how someone can be a fan of a character but not like main aspects of the character. It's like saying you love ice cream, but hate cold foods.

It's all about believability to me. Do you see? I can accept knives and guns because they are very real. Poisoned cotton candy? That's cool. Hiding a bomb inside a guys stomach? Far fetched but I still like it. Killing the owner of a wrecked theme park and taking it over? I actually rather like the idea. But the prop gun with the dart just confuses me. As does the electric buzzer. For some reason certain weapons in his arsenal strike me as being way too crazy to believe in.
I felt the same way about his laughing gas actually, but then someone on these forum told me of a real disease that can fix your mouth into a permanent smile. And now it really doesn't seem so bad.
I do appreciate the "warped innocence" idea, actually it's a brilliant point. But if it doesn't convince me as something that could happen I just won't buy into it.
But I will say that I am much happier with these tricks then The Joker having elaborate death-traps like the whole Lex Luthor "SOLVE MY MAZE!1" rubbish.

 

[ironwez20]

thats for sure

dude captain clown no need to be mean man

 

[Nivek]

It's all about believability to me. Do you see?

Nope. Not when said subject is featured in a movie about a guy who dresses up nightly in a Bat themed battlesuit to fight common thugs, ninjas, and psychos with a clown fetish.

Suspend your disbelief. Thats what movies and comics are for.

 

[ospumas1]

not sure if this is just wishful thinking or if i really heard it somewhere but did the creators of the film say they took a page from Brubaker's GCPD story arc, Soft Targets for the interrogation scene? I just reread it today and it is soo good I hope they did.

 

[CaptainClown]

dude captain clown no need to be mean man

nope no reason at all

 

[Anubis Raptor]

Well, let's see...

1. This is a Joker thread.
2. Heath's Joker is based on real-life people.
3. Speculation's open to how many sources were used.

Not to be sarcastic, but is it that difficult?

Nuff said.

 

[BubbaGump]

It's like saying you love ice cream, but hate cold foods.

Technically, one can like ice cream but would hesitate to eat an uncooked piece of frozen beef...

 

[Alex414]

I had done this completely just joking around with Jack's Joker showing Heath's Joker his "statue dance" but not to necessarily do it, sort of like passing the torch in a way.

 

[DarkSomnium]

Don't know if has been posted yet...

Heath Ledger's 'Dark Knight' Joker Stands Out In 70-Year Evolution Of Batman's Greatest Foe
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1590412/20080703/story.jhtml

 

[gdw]

Do we know if Joker leaves any victims with grins? In particular, carved ones?

 

[CaptainClown]

maybe we do..maybe we don't

 

[Anubis Raptor]

Do we know if Joker leaves any victims with grins? In particular, carved ones?

Dont know but that would be awesome

 

[laudanum09]

Dont know but that would be awesome

if you really really want to know check below, but if not I suggest you be strong and avoid it.

Spoiler

there were leaked pics of a fake batman, dead, joker card stabbed onto his chest that says "will the real batman please stand up?" his face is painted chalk white and he has a carved grin painted red.

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

If he carves smiles on his victims, that'll be sick, man!

 

[Nivek]

As a long term Joker fan (not some fair weather fan that wants to see the Joker as a Freddy Kruger type) the cutting smiles thing is a huge turn off (so much for going back to the Jokers roots like Batman #1). Chelsea Grins are not all that original, and for close to 70 years non-elseworlds Joker never had to cut smiles, even in his darkest incarnations.

People who really think thats all that innovative really make me LOL.

 

[ronny]

I too dislike the carved smile idea. In actual fact I disagree with him having the scars on the side of his mouth to begin with. It's an extension of the Jack-Joker permanent smile thing. I just don't agree with it.

 

[Nivek]

I just dont like the lack of Joker venom, between that and the lack of bleached flesh, no matter how good Heaths performance could be, I feel a bit short changed.