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

[Sharkboy]

Dexter FTW!!!

 

[JayTee]

Jack's hair was all green and much shorter. Blech, I can't describe how "off" it feels to see the party crashing scene in the trailers and watching the joker walk around with almost all dark brown hair.

 

[Gianakin_]

To some, these are small, to those of us who know Batman inside out, it's keeping it a considerable hop and a skip from being the definitive Batman movie.

So, what, you're implying that only those who don't accept the changes know the comics "inside out"?

 

[JayTee]

So, what, you're implying that only those who don't accept the changes know the comics "inside out"?

Lets say someone's a huge Harry Potter fan, read the books, memorized details, everything. Then they made a movie in which Harry paints a lightning bolt on his head, immediately drastically altering important elements of who that character is. Then let's say that person accepted it without question onscreen.

Do they really get it?

 

[batman11]

Lets say someone's a huge Harry Potter fan, read the books, memorized details, everything. Then they made a movie in which Harry paints a lightning bolt on his head, immediately drastically altering important elements of who that character is. Then let's say that person accepted it without question onscreen.

Do they really get it?

You know you can enjoy something even though you may not accept it. I'm a massive Harry Potter fan, and if he painted a scar on, sure I'd be pissed and wondering WTF, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the movie and try to accept the approach that has been taken. I would still get Harry Potter. There isn't a question of whether or not I understood the books just cause the movies tried something new and I accepted it.

Now, if it really were to pain you to watch a makeup Joker (kinda like it pained me to watch a air humping Spidey ) then that really just comes down to you, and there's much you can do to change it.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

jaytee i understand some people dont like the fact that the joker hasn't got bleached skin in this portrayal and that it isn't true to the comics. but i for one feel that what makes the joker is the smile whether it is just perminantly like that due to nerve damage or the "chelsea grin".

 

[BatSpider]

Please, no more bleach talk

 

[Gianakin_]

You know you can enjoy something even though you may not accept it. I'm a massive Harry Potter fan, and if he painted a scar on, sure I'd be pissed and wondering WTF, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the movie and try to accept the approach that has been taken. I would still get Harry Potter. There isn't a question of whether or not I understood the books just cause the movies tried something new and I accepted it.

Now, if it really were to pain you to watch a makeup Joker (kinda like it pained me to watch a air humping Spidey ) then that really just comes down to you, and there's much you can do to change it.

Your answer==my answer. Thank you.

 

[DAMU RYDER]

Jack's hair was all green and much shorter. Blech, I can't describe how "off" it feels to see the party crashing scene in the trailers and watching the joker walk around with almost all dark brown hair.

co sign, i understand

 

[JonnyQ]

Cesar Romero = Awesome for the 60s.

Jack Nicholson = Awesome for Burton's films.

Animated Joker = Immense for the animated series. (This was the one I grew up with

Heath Ledger = (Seemingly) Awesome for Nolan's films.

The Joker? One of the best villians ever. Whatever version of him you are watching/reading.

It all depends which one you are looking at.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

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.

 

[Crook]

Maybe because people put just as much importance in the personality of the character, with his appearance?

 

[The Joker]

Cesar Romero = Awesome for the 60s.

Jack Nicholson = Awesome for Burton's films.

Animated Joker = Immense for the animated series. (This was the one I grew up with

Heath Ledger = (Seemingly) Awesome for Nolan's films.

The Joker? One of the best villians ever. Whatever version of him you are watching/reading.

It all depends which one you are looking at.

What a refreshingly positive post

 

[laudanum09]

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.

I absolutely agree. Okay, there are certain limits to altering a character, but Ledger's Joker looks like he was ripped out of the comics, literally, and thrown into our world. Okay F*@# the realism catchphrase, but nonetheless Ledger acts, and imho, looks how Joker would look if he really existed in our world. I like the way theyre trying to make it somewhat believable, not for sake of some code of realism, but simply to make us feel like we're watching a MOVIE not a comic book film. The two-face clip gave me that feeling, like I was watching the godfather but with a jester and man dressed up as a bat.

 

[JonnyQ]

Ha ha thank you sir.

Your sig basically sums everything up really.
Fair enough that it has long been accepted that he fell into the vat of chemicals. But that isn't the 100% complete origin.
But anyone has the right to...not question that origin, but do another take, and that is simply what Nolan is doing.

I understand that alot of the fans wish for the permawhite story. But that just doesn't look like the way of this film, so just enjoy the film, and understand that this a different take.

I can't really think of a good way to end this post so I'm just going to say I love you all

 

[Knives and Lint]

I remember when no one knew who would be cast as the joker, everyone wanted Mark Hamill, hell I wanted him. His laugh is legendary.

No matter how much I love Heath's joker at this time, nothing can beat Hamill's Joker.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lb8fWUUXeKM

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i understand that some people feel that the joker should be bleached white and have green hair to which i have no problem with. but i think that this take on the joker, the fact that he has been horribly disfigured yet plays on it and even maybe likes it is far more disturbing and has greater dramatic quality to it than a unfortunate man who fell into a vat of acid does.

 

[GarretW]

the fact that he has been horribly disfigured yet plays on it and even maybe likes it is far more disturbing and has greater dramatic quality to it than a unfortunate man who fell into a vat of acid does.

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.

 

[Beanjuice]

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

 

[GarretW]

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

True, and I also agree with your point.

 

[TheCaptain]

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 in most incarnations of the character, he doesn't have a permanent smile. He really only has one in '89. He smiles because he's bat-**** crazy, and THAT's what's at the heart of the character. He is what he is because he chooses to be. A lot of bleached skin advocates miss that and go with the "Batman wears a mask; Joker doesn't" theme, but really, the fact that Joker chooses to use his disfigurement, whatever it may be, to be a psycho murderous clown means that it doesn't matter if it's bleach or paint. And in that sense i agree with you, somehow

 

[Batgort]

Why does Nolan's Joker rock? Because it is a new and artistic version of the character. Everyone always complains that he's not exactly like some other version of the Joker, but why would Nolan just duplicate someone else's work? He's trying to tell a story, his way, in his interpretation on how he believes it would look within his environment.

Of course, Nolan has the good sense to honor this mythology by drawing upon the underlying themes of the RECENT comics. After all, "we" don't want a campy Joker from the 50s and 60s, or a cartoony Joker. We want to see a Joker that fits naturally into the world of Batman Begins.

Take a look at Ras Al'Ghul in BB. You can watch that film, and you may think that Ras's soul transfered into Ducart when Ras apparently died. Or, you could think that he had to revive himself in the lazarus pits after "being left for dead." The point is that Nolan isn't going to just repeat the comics, he is going to introduce to characters in a new and interesting ways that we haven't seen before, but still connect back to the comics, and make us wonder about the nature of the character.

TDK is going to rock, because this is Nolan telling us the story of good versus evil, and what happens to good as the evil gets more evil. In that light, we should see some very dynamic characters of all the major players. This isn't going to be just the live-action version of <insert your favorite comic>, this is going to be a tribute to the Batman mythos, but underlying a more intricate storyline about how the fight of good versus evil is dealt with.

 

[TheCaptain]

Why does Nolan's Joker rock? Because it is a new and artistic version of the character. Everyone always complains that he's not exactly like some other version of the Joker, but why would Nolan just duplicate someone else's work? He's trying to tell a story, his way, in his interpretation on how he believes it would look within his environment.

Of course, Nolan has the good sense to honor this mythology by drawing upon the underlying themes of the RECENT comics. After all, "we" don't want a campy Joker from the 50s and 60s, or a cartoony Joker. We want to see a Joker that fits naturally into the world of Batman Begins.

Take a look at Ras Al'Ghul in BB. You can watch that film, and you may think that Ras's soul transfered into Ducart when Ras apparently died. Or, you could think that he had to revive himself in the lazarus pits after "being left for dead." The point is that Nolan isn't going to just repeat the comics, he is going to introduce to characters in a new and interesting ways that we haven't seen before, but still connect back to the comics, and make us wonder about the nature of the character.

TDK is going to rock, because this is Nolan telling us the story of good versus evil, and what happens to good as the evil gets more evil. In that light, we should see some very dynamic characters of all the major players. This isn't going to be just the live-action version of <insert your favorite comic>, this is going to be a tribute to the Batman mythos, but underlying a more intricate storyline about how the fight of good versus evil is dealt with.

Good post, but I disagree with your final point. I don't think we'll get a much different or "more intricate" good vs. evil story, but rather a similar one with nolan's real-world signature on it. Many comics deal with the themes and intricacies of the batman-joker relationship just fine, I don't think nolan has to make it any more sophisticated than it already is in order to make it work in heas world of heightened realism.

 

[secretsquirrely]

I think when it comes to comparison between elements of the comics and elements of the film, people need to keep one very good word in mind.."adaptation".

Every film that is based off of a separate source material is instantly a retelling from the director's point of view. They adapt the source material, take elements, twist them to their liking, and voila...movie. Now, there are some films out there that are a mere visual telling of a book or comic for those who either can't or have troubles imagining it when they read (ie. Harry Potter). Those films are designed to be a word for word telling...however, there are still many elements that are changed, added, and subtracted. The best examples there are Harry Potter 3 and The Golden Compass. Both were not only watered down when brought to film, but the entire feel and look was different due to directorial changes.

But, when it comes to comic films, especially Nolan's Batman saga, they are all down right adaptations. They take elements and overall, tell you a new story. Ghost Rider, Spider-man, Batman Begins, X-men, the list goes on...all of them have the basic idea of the original stories, but are changed enough that all in all it's completely different. Look at Abomination in TIH. There was nothing reptilian about him, yet he still worked..director's freedom. The same applies for The Dark Knight. This is Nolan's world now. Consider this an utter retelling of the story of Batman. It takes enough elements form the comics to wink at fans, but all in all this is Nolan's way of telling thigns in a way he finds enjoyable. So for the Joker not being permawhite and such, there have been alterations to him..yes. But this is his newest adapted persona. As someone said before, he had a permanent grin in '89, whereas he never had that in the comics. He frowned quite regularly in the comics actually. At first, I wasn't too keen on the make up idea either, but it's grown on me..especially since he has his classic suit and laugh. Personally as long as he looks like a clown and is not that idiot from "The Batman" I am fine with it. Even with Venom in Spider-man 3 I was very happy..I wheeped when he said "I", but once again..director's freedom...Peter Parker also never had organic webbing till the film, and Norman Osborne wore a mask instead of a Power Ranger helmet..but it was accepted despite being a huge change of image.

One last note. I really agree with what Nolan said in his SHH set visit interview. He mentioned that this incarnation of the Joker was different than all the rest. In fact he mentioned that the image and whole persona was derived from a few different takes on the Joker in modern Batman issues. He took the bits he liked the most, and voila. This Joker we have now is the grandaddy of Jokers in the sense that he embodies every single one of them in a smaller but louder package.

That's my take on everything.

 

[Aidan2209]

I think when it comes to comparison between elements of the comics and elements of the film, people need to keep one very good word in mind.."adaptation".

I was just about to mention the exact same word. Kudos to you.

One other thing; I'm hearing, and by that I mean reading, a lot of posts to the effect of: "Nolan's changing the comics too much...". That statement doesn't make sense, and you'll realise that if you only think about it for a few seconds. How is he changing the comics? By making his film, is he somehow rewriting and redrawing comic books all around the world, and rewriting history and people's memories as he's doing it? In which case, how do you know? That makes as much sense as Superman turning back time after Zod's defeat, and then returning to the diner to beat up the guy who beat him up, despite the fact that that now never happened, due to the whole turning back time thing.

OK, that was extremely facetious, but I hope you get my point. I'll return to that word again, "adaptation", and add that Nolan is building a more or less original story based on the source material: "the comics", which isn't actually the title of any work he's adapting but a literary canon contributed to by countless artists over 70-odd years, from which he can take various characters and elements for use in the story he's crafting. Thus, he creates something new. He doesn't "change" anything.

Oh, and "Elseworlds"? I hope whoever mentioned this was joking. This isn't the new issue of The Dark Knight, a radical reimagining of the Caped Crusader that will ruin current DC continuity. This is a film called The Dark Knight, a film that doesn't have anything to do with "current DC continuty", and only need worry about the continuity established in Batman Begins.

I hope that post didn't come off as obnoxious, I just needed to get those points across. (And for the record, I think Richard Donner's cut of Superman II, despite some flaws including that mentioned above, totally owns the theatrical version.)