The Dark Knight To Bleach or Not to Bleach? That is the Question

[Crook]

You're being absolutely different, to the point where I think you may be joking.

Then obviously there is some remarkably rare source material that I have not come across. If what I'm saying is such a fallacy, then let me say it again: feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I've already asked where it was indicated that Bruce was fine with guns up until he had that cowl, since that's what you're saying. So answer that, then maybe we can stop going in circles.

The Bruce you just described is post-Batman Bruce.

Ok, then it should be easy for you to provide proof that he didn't hate guns before Batman. Yes?

I know you think the pre- and post- Batman idea is a cop out, but it's not. Bruce was not Batman the night his parents were murdered. After those gunshots, he didn't think to himself, "I'm going to be a hero. I'm against the use of guns. I will not kill. I will be trained in martial arts. I will develop gadgets to aid my cause."

Thank god I never said he became full-on Batman the day his parents were murdered.

It was a long, winding road that lead him to his destiny, and **** happened along the way. That's what the whole friggin' Batman Begins movie was about. He lived and he learned, and was eventually shaped to become the man behind the mask.

This is what, the FOURTH time I've said that I'm not arguing that point? Are you that dense? Where in these posts have I stated that approach was wrong? PLEASE tell me.

and i am arguing that he didnt ignore it, he dealt with it and explained it in a very satisfactory manner.

I was hoping the addition of the parentheses would have made my point clear, but apparently not.

 

[deathfromabove]

you still use "ignore" in that statement and thats the problem i have with it.

he illustrated that batman/bruce wayne, even at his lowest, stiil rejected the gun.

he didnt ignore the issue at all.

wtf?

 

[magus]

Here's a blog that overviews pretty much every instance of Batman using a gun. http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/batman-and-guns.html . Nothing particularly insightful but someone may find something worth pointing to as evidence. Although, for this argument it would take an issue in which Bruce is still a child and swears off guns to really drive the point home and that isn't present on this site.

 

[Crook]

you still use "ignore" in that statement and thats the problem i have with it.

he illustrated that batman/bruce wayne, even at his lowest, stiil rejected the gun.

he didnt ignore the issue at all.

wtf?

He ignored the "I hate guns, and I always have" approach, and went with his own direction in "I used to think a gun were the answer, but now I know different"

Never said one was good or bad, better or worse. Just that the approaches to that "rule" were different. And they were.

Christ, how hard is that to figure out?

 

[Crook]

Here's a blog that overviews pretty much every instance of Batman using a gun. http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/batman-and-guns.html . Nothing particularly insightful but someone may find something worth pointing to as evidence. Although, for this argument it would take an issue in which Bruce is still a child and swears off guns to really drive the point home and that isn't present on this site.

Unfortunately all of those are pre-crisis, so they're not associated with the modern day Batman. But thanks for the link, that's a very nice overview of the history.

 

[Saint]

The point I was getting to was that many wouldn't care,

Which is not relevant to anything I said. The reason I have responded to you is not to debate whether or not they'd care, but to refute your idea that they wouldn't know he's supposed to be white in the first place.

For the record, however, they will care, if it's executed properly, and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they remember anything about the Joker--by the same token you'd care if a completely new character had a similar twist. You'd care because it would raise questions, mystery, and create intrigue.

Memory is not random. Memory is made through meaningful association (pleasant or unpleasant) or rehearsal: liking something about the movie enough to convert the short-term memory into a long-term one or watching it multiple times. You don't just remember whatever you happen to remember; there is a process.

I never said there wasn't a process: I said it is not dependent on what is "worth" remembering, in response to your idea that people "only" remember what's "worth" remembering.

We can debate forever about which specific details of movies people remember but the point isn't that the general audience doesn't know that he is permawhite,

Yes, that is the point. I did not address your post to debate what the audience cares about: I addressed your post to debunk your specific argument that they know nothing about these characters, save their names.

But you don't necessarily know how it became white.

That may be, but is entirely unimportant in the long run.

But I don't really care whether they know it or not because the average person's knowledge of it would be so cursory that they still wouldn't give a crap if Ledger's Joker became permawhite in some weird twist.

Of course they would. Let's pretend, for a second, that everybody was hit in the head and forgot that the how the Joker became white, or even that he was white at all. How this would make everyone care less about such a twist?

Again all of this boils down to people knowing that Joker is white, not permawhite.

Doubtful: they know he's permanently white, whether they know how or not.

Changing him from normal to permawhite during the course of the movie won't have a significant effect.

Again, explain how. Why do they have to know anything about his previous incarnations in order to care about such a twist? Did they need to know about Ra's Al Ghul's previous incarnations to care about his twist in Batman Begins?

to the average person the details of Joker's origin ARE inconsequential

By what criteria?

 

[deathfromabove]

He ignored the "I hate guns, and I always have" approach, and went with his own direction in "I used to think a gun were the answer, but now I know different"

Never said one was good or bad, better or worse. Just that the approaches to that "rule" were different. And they were.

Christ, how hard is that to figure out?

you tell me because you are the one who isnt getting it.

i'm going to use bold letters to hopefully help you out.

why assume he ignored anything just because he didnt go that route?

what evidence is there that he he ignored it?

and he took an approach that others have explored long before he did.

 

[magus]

Which is not relevant to anything I said. The reason I have responded to you is not to debate whether or not they'd care, but to refute your idea that they wouldn't know he's supposed to be white in the first place.

For the record, however, they will care, if it's executed properly, and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they remember anything about the Joker--by the same token you'd care if a completely new character had a similar twist. You'd care because it would raise questions, mystery, and create intrigue.

I never said there wasn't a process: I said it is not dependent on what is "worth" remembering, in response to your idea that people "only" remember what's "worth" remembering.

Meaningful association (how your long term memory functions) is synonymous with "worth knowing." You don't remember what you had for breakfast 6 years ago because it isn't worth knowing; you know that some snakes are poisonous because that is worth knowing; somewhere in between is random pop culture knowledge that some people are able to associate with long term memory as something worth knowing and others aren't.

Of course they would. Let's pretend, for a second, that everybody was hit in the head and forgot that the how the Joker became white, or even that he was white at all. How this would make everyone care less about such a twist?

The burden of proof is on those who say the twist is meaningful. I haven't heard a convincing argument for why anybody would care about that.

Doubtful: they know he's permanently white, whether they know how or not.

There is absolutely no way to prove that.

Again, explain how. Why do they have to know anything about his previous incarnations in order to care about such a twist? Did they need to know about Ra's Al Ghul's previous incarnations to care about his twist in Batman Begins?

Because if they don't know then what is the big reveal? Joker's face, the only real visible part besides his neck and his hands which spend most of their time gloved, was white for the whole movie; suddenly revealing that the makeup is stuck on him or bleached his skin is not going to change that. The mere fact that the movie won't address him putting on makeup (supposedly) gives that "twist" a huge "meh" factor. You are going to have to explain to me what exactly this twist could accomplish to make the Joker anymore interesting than he otherwise is.

We didn't need to know about Ra's because he went through an almost complete role change. How would an already established Joker change from having is makeup get stuck on?

By what criteria?

Yours when you said:

That may be, but is entirely unimportant in the long run.

in response to me saying that people don't know the origin.

 

[Crook]

you tell me because you are the one who isnt getting it.

i'm going to use bold letters to hopefully help you out.

why assume he ignored anything just because he didnt go that route?

what evidence is there that he he ignored it?

You cannot be serious with those questions. Here, let me paint you a visual. Nolan wants to explore the "no guns" rule, which is Point C. There are two ways to approach this:

Point A is the comic canon, where Bruce has always detested guns. Point B is where there's a point in his life where he had no specific problem with it, but eventually grows to turn away from it.

What I've been saying, is Nolan turned away/abandoned/ignored/pushed away "Point A". NOT "Point C". Understand??

and he took an approach that others have explored long before he did.

And I don't really care. Has nothing to do with what I've stated.

 

[deathfromabove]

You cannot be serious with those questions. Here, let me paint you a visual. Nolan wants to explore the "no guns" rule, which is Point C. There are two ways to approach this:

Point A is the comic canon, where Bruce has always detested guns. Point B is where there's a point in his life where he had no specific problem with it, but eventually grows to turn away from it.

What I've been saying, is Nolan turned away/abandoned/ignored/pushed away "Point A". NOT "Point C". Understand??

and what i am saying is he did not ignore point A.

get it?

And I don't really care. Has nothing to do with what I've stated.

yes it does. you just said that nolan went with his own direction and i am pointing out that it was not his approach alone. i was responding to your words. words which you seem very prone to forgeting.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Enough with this fighting!

Party over at the Harvey Dent/Two-Face Thread!!!!

 

[Crook]

and what i am saying is he did not ignore point A.

get it?

No. Because that's not what I've said, and that's not what happened.

yes it does. you just said that nolan went with his own direction and i am pointing out that it was not his approach alone. i was responding to your words. words which you seem very prone to forgeting.

He took his own approach as opposed to following the canon. Obviously I'm not gonna include interpretations that are disregarded from such.

If someone refers to TDK and says "Nolan took his own approach with the carved smile", are you going to interject with "NO NO you idiot! It's not Nolan's approach, it's Bermejo's, he did it first! "

....well probably, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Saint]

Meaningful association (how your long term memory functions) is synonymous with "worth knowing."

Certainly, you remember things worth knowing by virtue of them being worth knowing, but you remember plenty that is not worth knowing. I can't imagine this even being debatable. The mind simply is not so clean cut: it recalls plenty that is unimportant, and forgets plenty that is important.

The burden of proof is on those who say the twist is meaningful.

And that does not excuse you from explaining the arguments you make. You claim that being a person being unfamiliar with Joker's origins would make the twist meaningless, and I have asked that you explain how that is so. The twist may still be meaningless for other reasons, but that's not important: I specifically want to know how not knowing that the Joker fell in a vat of chemicals would make the revelation that his skin is bleached less important.

There is absolutely no way to prove that.

Yes, that is unfortunately the case.

Joker's face, the only real visible part besides his neck and his hands which spend most of their time gloved, was white for the whole movie; suddenly revealing that the makeup is stuck on him or bleached his skin is not going to change that.

Well, that wouldn't be the way to go--the way to go would be to say he's been bleached all along, and has been wearing flesh coloured makeup to create the illusion that he's just painting his face. That way, you have the audience puzzled over how he ended up this way, adding another layer of mystery to his past.

You've asked me to explain why a twist would be meaningful, but that's not my argument. I have no strong feelings on whether or not there should be a twist or how it would work, except that it could be used to create additional mystery as to the Joker's past--but then there would have to be an explanation as to why he hides his bleached skin, in order for that to work. I imagine that there could be a reason, but since I don't have any ideas on what it might be, such a twist seems unlikely.

I may not be entirely clear. I will try to put this plainly: the attitude that the twist would be meaningless is flawed because it assumes the writers would be unable to conjure a meaning. The twist doesn't exist in a void. The question of whether or not the audience knows the Joker should be bleached isn't important to that issue. The important question is whether it can be written in such a way that it is meaningful and makes sense.

How would an already established Joker change from having is makeup get stuck on?

His makeup getting "stuck on" at some point in the film is not a twist, it's a development (and a stupid one). What I'm taking about is not that. A twist is not "Something happens!" A twist is "Things aren't the way you thought they were," and that would be the discovery that Joker was white all along.

Yours when you said:
in response to me saying that people don't know the origin.

I meant the question of whether or not they remember his origin was unimportant to whether or not a twist would be meaningful. This may have been unclear. This is not related to whether his origin is important enough for them to remember. Hence, my question: by what criteria is the origin "inconsequential" to the general audience, so as to be forgotten?

 

[The Guard]

Lemme through I got here late!

 

[deathfromabove]

hahaha


move along. nothing to see here.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Because if they don't know then what is the big reveal? Joker's face, the only real visible part besides his neck and his hands which spend most of their time gloved, was white for the whole movie; suddenly revealing that the makeup is stuck on him or bleached his skin is not going to change that. The mere fact that the movie won't address him putting on makeup (supposedly) gives that "twist" a huge "meh" factor. You are going to have to explain to me what exactly this twist could accomplish to make the Joker anymore interesting than he otherwise is.

But we already know about two different references to the makeup, though. The goons in the prologue call it warpaint, and Gordon wonders what the Joker is hiding under his makeup. A reveal of white skin would therefore undermine some of the things that will be established in the movie.

 

[Mandalore464]

Well, I admit I didn't find any comments from Nolan about his made-up Joker on the SHH, so you were right about him being very discrete when it comes to his choice.

I still think it would be pretty silly to see a permawhite Joker suddenly appear in the movie when the guy was already wearing clown make-up... Bit too convenient.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Well, I admit I didn't find any comments from Nolan about his made-up Joker on the SHH, so you were right about him being very discrete when it comes to his choice.

I still think it would be pretty silly to see a permawhite Joker suddenly appear in the movie when the guy was already wearing clown make-up... Bit too convenient.

Do you mean it'd be too convenient to have the Joker become permawhite in the movie? Or do you mean it'd be a bad idea to have an already permawhite Joker apply makeup anyway?

I agree with you on the former, but I could see the latter situation working well. Maybe the Joker would think it's funny to mess with everybody, maybe he'd only want to show his "true" face to Batman, etc.

 

[good_evening]

I loved the face-painted look in TDK when I first saw it, cause it totally goes with the feel of the movie, like dark and shady-ish. Especially since it's nothing like Jack Nicholson's Joker (no offense or whatever to him) which was so bizarre, you really couldn't take him seriously as a villian. I think.

(my first post ever, woot for me&#9786

 

[HUMANIMAL]

I loved the face-painted look in TDK when I first saw it, cause it totally goes with the feel of the movie, like dark and shady-ish. Especially since it's nothing like Jack Nicholson's Joker (no offense or whatever to him) which was so bizarre, you really couldn't take him seriously as a villian. I think.

(my first post ever, woot for me&#9786

 

[gwynplaine]

I loved the face-painted look in TDK when I first saw it, cause it totally goes with the feel of the movie, like dark and shady-ish. Especially since it's nothing like Jack Nicholson's Joker (no offense or whatever to him) which was so bizarre, you really couldn't take him seriously as a villian. I think.

(my first post ever, woot for me&#9786

Welcome to the Hype.

 

[The Guard]

I still can't get into the makeup being so messy. It just distracts so much.

 

[xero1186]

I would love to see a scene in which either Gordon or Batman is trying to wipe the make up off a "knocked out" Joker and when its not working he just pops up and says boo.

 

[Mandalore464]

Do you mean it'd be too convenient to have the Joker become permawhite in the movie? Or do you mean it'd be a bad idea to have an already permawhite Joker apply makeup anyway?

I meant the first.

Well let's say the Joker is actually permawhite from the start and he just reveals he's been like that all the way at the end. That's fine. although the makeup is shown in such a way that, as I said before, he would have to put on waterproof skin-coloured make-up then another layer of clown make-up on top. That would be a lot of trouble just for the sake of hiding his real self, even though he's supposed to be a force of chaos who doesn't care at all what he looks like.
And when I think about it, if I was a real freak and wanted to instill fear and chaos into a city, I would definitely show everybody that there's no make-up involved in my looks. So I don't think such a twist could be introduced in a decent manner in the film. But anyway.

What I was referring to as "a little too convenient" was if the Joker was just a normal human being at the start, putting make-up on, and only at some point during the movie he'd get his chemical accident and become permawhite.

That would really suck. How can you seriously expect millions of people to believe such a convenient transformation could occur? The guy is dressed and made-up like a clown for the whole movie and at some point a bath of chemicals turns him into... a clown??? Of all the possible reactions brought about by a chemical bath (acid burnt, dissolved, softened, Two-Face looks...) the guy turns into what he's been dressing as all along??? That's what I meant by convenient.

And that's why I think, and would gladly bet all of my money on it, that there won't be any permawhite Joker at any given point in the movie. I just don't see why Nolan would bother doing it since his made-up, psycho crazy Joker works perfectly.

Plus, try to find a reaonsable explanation behind a permawhite Joker with green hair and nails and permanent grin and still claim your movie has "a realistic feel"... I don't think Nolan's suicidal.

 

[hannya]

I too would be very surprised to see the "twist" of a permawhite Joker, but if Nolan could pull it off in an interesting way it would be a chilling finale. But it's very unlikely. The reason for this, in my opinion (and this a is a wild guess of course!) is that he was excited by casting Ledger but also well aware that he didn't match the archetypal Joker look, the long face, high cheekbones etc etc. So he thought, well, let's ditch those elements entirely and go with something that works for Ledger. Once he made that decision, and started exploring the punk Clockwork Orange route, the whole permawhite thing probably became less and less relevant. This makes sense in a casting context, whether you agree with it or not (and I never have, I wanted a chalk-white Ryan Gosling or Paul Bettany - but that's not to say I'm not excited by Ledger's portrayal).