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

[Saint]

Your post seems to suggest that one must find an exact replica in order for it to be derivative. This is not the case.

 

[deathfromabove]

Your post seems to suggest that one must find an exact replica in order for it to be derivative. This is not the case.

i never said otherwise. what i was illustrating (or suggesting) is how derivative heath's joker isn't. except of the comic book joker which of course, it should be derived from.

 

[Saint]

i never said otherwise.

I know; your post just seemed to suggest as much, which is why I clarified.

 

[guitarkhero311]

I said "that isn't the point" in response to your comment that The Crow wasn't the first to use facepaint, because "who's first" isn't relevant. Your comment was not relevant. The relevant issue is the application of these "inspirations" and whether they are A) used to create a superior and ultimately original product, or B) stitched together in the absence of an original idea, which would be derivative. Regwec apparently believes the situation with Joker's appearance is the latter.


Which is meaningless: that other actors successfully modelled portions of their roles from previous work without falling victim to derivation does not mean that another attempt to do the same, such as TDK's, will be successful. Do you understand? If you think TDK's Joker is not derivative, great, you are welcome to explain why. But "Lots of other roles had inspiration without being derivative" is not an argument for your case. One could just as easily say "Lot's of other roles failed because they were derivative," and that would be equally meaningless, because neither statement makes any arguments as to why this role will fail or succeed. In order to make such an argument, the merits of this role must be discussed.

Also, "derivative" has only one "R." I'm not trying to be a jerk; reading it over and over just irks me.


I was responding to your comment about that "All good actors have inspiration." That statement has nothing to do with the look of the character, only the performance, which I why I pointed out that we are discussing the appearance, not the performance.

Hold on, the original idea? When has the Joker ever not in purple. I'm sure many times, but the purple and green have become a trade mark, making him dirty isn't the absence of the original idea, its a new take. So what if he is dirty, or wants to take a few fashion points from rock icons, it is still purple and green, and very much like BTAS and most other comics with the Joker included. And the make up is original in its own. The Crow has dark circles, and a white face, thats not copying the character, its taking visuals from it and adding to an established character. Just like DeLarge mannerisms and Kakihara's sadistic passion. Many of those characters had inspirations that made them. So Regwec can say its derivative, but I am going to argue my point on why I think it's not. Heath has clearly created a Frankenstein monster, made up of different parts, punk rock, dirty grunge, sadistically capable, all of these characteristics added to the original pallet, the Joker. And yes we will have to wait for the performance to trully see how the acting turns out, but from what we know, Heath created his Joker in that hotel, creating a monster from his own mind. And the footage so far is chilling.

 

[Nepenthes]

...

 

[Nepenthes]

lolz at the idea Joker won't be remembered because of the Crow and Clockwork Orange. Because everyone immediately thinks of those movies when we see murdering clowns . I dunno, I thought Jack Nicholson would come to mind easier. Let's see how Heath comapares to him before we start talking about other inspirations.

Geesus christ most people under 25 don't even know what the hell Clockwork Orange is. The Crow, most people remember nothing but the visual of his face and the fact that he died. And Icchi the Killer, seriously? ha ha ha : fail

How inventive does a movie need to be to be remembered? Does no one remember Casino Royale because there were a few other Bond movies released before it? people are talking out their arses here.......

his is the most accurate portrayal of the character from what we have seen so far.

See, this is a point that's rarely made, and it's the KO punch. For all the whinging it seems that that there's a perfect Joker adaption somewhere out there that TDK has failed to live up to. Ok then show me more accurate a Joker outside of comics. What are you measuring this against? Fans should be counting their blessings instead of posturing about and pretending they're somehow above the level that this movie is aimed at. You're basically sabotaging you're chances of enjoying a movie (it's just a movie) simply because you're to proud to let go of something you feel you're more qualified to adjudicate on. "Why was this decision made?". christ. It's obvious why. But no answer would ever be good enough for some people.

 

[deathfromabove]

cheers to that!

 

[BatmanFanatic]

As far as the accurate portrayal argument, we can't say until we know more of the Jokers dialogue and how he acts in the film. Because the Joker has to be BOTH scary and funny. Scary alone and he's just another serial killer in a movie.

 

[deathfromabove]

we have already seen plenty to suggest he is both.

and its debatable whether or not the joker should actually be funny haha.

and that brings us back to what makes an accurate portrayal.

everyone is going to have things they feel should be present in any verson of the character.

the question is whether or not you can be an objective enough viewer to accept someone else's artistic choices.

 

[kid bosco]

lolz at the idea Joker won't be remembered because of the Crow and Clockwork Orange. Because everyone immediately thinks of those movies when we see murdering clowns . I dunno, I thought Jack Nicholson would come to mind easier. Let's see how Heath comapares to him before we start talking about other inspirations.

Geesus christ most people under 25 don't even know what the hell Clockwork Orange is. The Crow, most people remember nothing but the visual of his face and the fact that he died. And Icchi the Killer, seriously? ha ha ha : fail

How inventive does a movie need to be to be remembered? Does no one remember Casino Royale because there were a few other Bond movies released before it? people are talking out their arses here.......




See, this is a point that's rarely made, and it's the KO punch. For all the whinging it seems that that there's a perfect Joker adaption somewhere out there that TDK has failed to live up to. Ok then show me more accurate a Joker outside of comics. What are you measuring this against? Fans should be counting their blessings instead of posturing about and pretending they're somehow above the level that this movie is aimed at. You're basically sabotaging you're chances of enjoying a movie (it's just a movie) simply because you're to proud to let go of something you feel you're more qualified to adjudicate on. "Why was this decision made?". christ. It's obvious why. But no answer would ever be good enough for some people.

He shoots, he scores!

 

[BatmanFanatic]

we have already seen plenty to suggest he is both.

and its debatable whether or not the joker should actually be funny haha.

and that brings us back to what makes an accurate portrayal.

Not funny haha but funny like a demented sense of humor and incredibly self-pleased with his own stupid jokes. And in the comics/BTAS he has always been a cheerful murderer... one who takes real visible PLEASURE from destruction and chaos. From what I've seen so far Ledger is mostly pissed off and serious in the film even when he says a joke line.

I'm not saying I'm not going to love the performance, I already do, but whether it's "accurate" to the traditional joker... so far I don't see very much of that.

 

[deathfromabove]

i agree the joker should be taking pleasure in his antics.

but i disagree that he doesnt appear to do just that.

when he delived this line i didnt really get a pissed off vibe. and serious? i don't see it.

nor here

nor here

nor here

nor here (while causing mucho chaos and destruction)

nor here in this scene. ("i kill the bus driver" ...beat...enter bus.)

we have already seen plenty of evidence of the joker's more um...playful nature.

all evidence points to the opposite of what you are suggesting.

 

[deathfromabove]

in addition he sure seems to enjoy shooting that rpg and swinging that crow bar as well.

why are we ignoring facts at hand just to be a doubter?

i dont get it.

 

[Saint]

Hold on, the original idea? When has the Joker ever not in purple. I'm sure many times, but the purple and green have become a trade mark, making him dirty isn't the absence of the original idea, its a new take.

You have severely misinterpreted what I said. That statement was not a judgement on TDK's Joker, nor was I talking about it's faithfulness: I was explaining the relevant issue in determining where inspiration becomes derivation--which is whether the inspiration is used to support and create a unique product, or if inspiration is used to cobble together a half-baked idea because a unique idea is weak or absent.

Also, you don't need to write paragraphs defending the Joker in your responses to me, because nothing I have said has been a criticism of the Joker. As I have explained ad nauseam, I like TDK's Joker.

 

[Saint]

See, this is a point that's rarely made,

On the contrary: it’s been made a thousand times, by what I imagine to be the vast majority of the individuals defending the Joker in this thread—and probably more than once by most of them. It’s the standard rebuttal. I sometimes wonder if it’s printed on a membership card. I suppose I didn't get mine, since everyone thinks I hate the Joker for some reason.

and it's the KO punch.

Not really. “More accurate than everything else” is not the same as “satisfactorily accurate,” because that standard is higher or lower for everyone, and emphasizes different elements. The idea that you can beat someone’s position on that is sort of hilarious. I keep waiting for some poster to declare “Ha! I have proven that your standard of how faithful the Joker should be loses to my standard of how faithful the Joker should be!”

What are you measuring this against?

Their own standards, ideally. This seems the most honest and useful approach. What does it matter that it’s more faithful in ways X, Y, or Z if it’s lacking in the ways that are important to the person watching?

 

[guitarkhero311]

You have severely misinterpreted what I said. That statement was not a judgement on TDK's Joker, nor was I talking about it's faithfulness: I was explaining the relevant issue in determining where inspiration becomes derivation--which is whether the inspiration is used to support and create a unique product, or if inspiration is used to cobble together a half-baked idea because a unique idea is weak or absent.

Also, you don't need to write paragraphs defending the Joker in your responses to me, because nothing I have said has been a criticism of the Joker. As I have explained ad nauseam, I like TDK's Joker.

And I say dirty clothes are not derivative, when said clothes represent the Joker in the past 68 years. Nor is the make-up, it represents the face of terror that haunts the city of Gotham, a person who no one wants to see. The ideas aren't put together because there is not enough there, they are choosing a new style of the same look, using references of punk rock and sadistic killers to create a Joker for Nolan's Gotham, which happens to be something new and exciting to me, no where near derivative.

 

[Nepenthes]

On the contrary: it’s been made a thousand times, by what I imagine to be the vast majority of the individuals defending the Joker in this thread—and probably more than once by most of them. It’s the standard rebuttal. I sometimes wonder if it’s printed on a membership card. I suppose I didn't get mine, since everyone thinks I hate the Joker for some reason.

Ok maybe I just don't notice it much then. Which is strange because to me it effectively ends the question of whether the change is "necessary", or welcome or even valid. If this Joker is the most complete we've ever seen on screen, then that's it, it's the new gold standard. It really CAN be that simple. Even if there's things you would have done differently one still needs give credit for all that it HAS achieved. Anything less is dishonest and spiteful. And there comes a point where if one were being fair they would stop holding up these faults above everything else and view them in their proper proportion. And btw I didn't think you hated this Joker either.

Not really. “More accurate than everything else” is not the same as “satisfactorily accurate,” because that standard is higher or lower for everyone, and emphasizes different elements. The idea that you can beat someone’s position on that is sort of hilarious. I keep waiting for some poster to declare “Ha! I have proven that your standard of how faithful the Joker should be loses to my standard of how faithful the Joker should be!”

I see what you mean. But it just seems so trivial. "More accurate than anything else" is desirable and admirable no matter how you cut it. It's the best we've ever had; if you're used to eating hardtack and someone gives you white bread, do you complain that they haven't given you cake? No. Okay you might complain a little at first (if you suspected they had it in the kitchen and decided not to serve it) but to keep it up for months on end is just ridiculous.

Their own standards, ideally. This seems the most honest and useful approach. What does it matter that it’s more faithful in ways X, Y, or Z if it’s lacking in the ways that are important to the person watching?What does it matter that it’s more faithful in ways X, Y, or Z if it’s lacking in the ways that are important to the person watching?

These sliding standards say more about the person that it does their supposed criteria for judging a film. If a thing like Jokers make-up wipes out all that is good about the rest of the film......then they're not giving the film much of a chance in the first place are they? There's so much great stuff going on in TDK that to isolate the Jokers make-up makes me think that the person is just here to moan and pontificate. Not to look at and enjoy the bigger picture.

 

[Saint]

And I say dirty clothes are not derivative, when said clothes represent the Joker in the past 68 years. Nor is the make-up, it represents the face of terror that haunts the city of Gotham, a person who no one wants to see. The ideas aren't put together because there is not enough there, they are choosing a new style of the same look, using references of punk rock and sadistic killers to create a Joker for Nolan's Gotham, which happens to be something new and exciting to me, no where near derivative.

Please, try to read this time: I was not making a judgement on the whether or not TDK's Joker is derivative. I was only explaining the relevant issue if one were to make such a judgement. You do not need to defend the Joker because I am not criticizing him. I don't care whether you think it's derivative or not; that has not been the purpose of my responses to you.

If you are still unclear on this, please go back and read our conversation from the beginning.

 

[Saint]

Ok maybe I just don't notice it much then. Which is strange because to me it effectively ends the question of whether the change is "necessary", or welcome or even valid. If this Joker is the most complete we've ever seen on screen, then that's it, it's the new gold standard. It really CAN be that simple.

No, it cannot be. It is not, even for you. You just think it's that simple because your criteria for an excellent Joker have been met, and you don't have to think about it anymore. Consider that "It's faithful, therefore good" is not complete reasoning, and not reason to like anything. There's a reason we want things to be faithful, and a reason we let certain things slide,and a reason we throw fits about other things. You're less likely to think about the reasons you like this or that, or the reasons you want this or that, because what you got fulfilled those criteria without you ever needing to recognize what they were. Don't misinterpret this as an insult to your intelligence; we just tend not to think about things we have no reason to.

The people who are not satisfied with the look have more reason to think about it, since they have to justify to everyone else why this element or that element is important, and why the whole, for them, suffers from the absence of such elements.

Even if there's things you would have done differently one still needs give credit for all that it HAS achieved.

Why? If those achievements aren't the things that are important to that individual, what does he care that they were, in fact, achieved? More importantly, if the things that are important to that individual are absent, why should the presence of other elements placate him or her?

Anything less is dishonest and spiteful.

It's only dishonest and spiteful if you don't understand why you feel as such. If you recognize and can explain reasonably why a certain element causes you such displeasure, than that is considerably more honest than saying "Oh well, they ignored the stuff that's important to me, but I'll like it anyway."

And there comes a point where if one were being fair they would stop holding up these faults above everything else and view them in their proper proportion.

They are viewing it in "proper proportion." They are viewing it in the proportion that is proper for them. That you think an element is relatively unimportant does not mean people who think otherwise need are viewing things in improper "proportion."

But it just seems so trivial.

Similarly, the Stanley Cup playoffs seem like the most trivial crap ever conceived to me--but that doesn't stop it from being important to the people who paint their chests in team colours and freeze their asses off at the games.

"More accurate than anything else" is desirable and admirable no matter how you cut it.

But that does not make it satisfactory when the elements that are important to Person X are missing. Furthermore, general accuracy is absolutely unimportant: all that is important is accuracy to the details important to the individual.

It's the best we've ever had

This is where you keep running off the rails. It's the best you've ever had because it satisfies your criteria. How is it the best for someone else if it doesn't satisfy their criteria? Or, if it's closest to what they want, compared to previous interpretations, are they supposed to smile and be happy, even though the stuff that's really important to them still isn't there?

Or, think of it this way: if you order a medium-well steak and they give you a rare, is it unreasonable for you to be displeased, even though it's the best rare steak in the world? You don't like rare, so what do you care if it's the best?

if you're used to eating hardtack and someone gives you white bread, do you complain that they haven't given you cake? No. Okay you might complain a little at first (if you suspected they had it in the kitchen and decided not to serve it) but to keep it up for months on end is just ridiculous.

Of course you complain. You complain that you're forced to eat white bread and hardtack, when there's no reason you couldn't be eating steak.

These sliding standards say more about the person that it does their supposed criteria for judging a film. If a thing like Jokers make-up wipes out all that is good about the rest of the film......then they're not giving the film much of a chance in the first place are they? There's so much great stuff going on in TDK that to isolate the Jokers make-up makes me think that the person is just here to moan and pontificate. Not to look at and enjoy the bigger picture.

Then we're fortunate, I think, that nobody is doing what you described. If someone says 'The Joker wears makeup, I'm disappointed in this film," that, almost certainly, doesn't mean makeup is the only reason. There are always a myriad of reasons for someone's disappointment, but this is the makeup thread, so here we talk about makeup.

Of course, if there were a hypothetical person who did dislike the film purely because of makeup, that would be fine, so long as that person can reasonably explain why. I don't know what the explanation might be, but I accept that there could be one, by the same token that I can tell you exactly why the Terminator Salvation spoiler reported by AICN absolutely reduces that franchise to irredeemable trash, in my opinion.

 

[ronny]

Even if this Joker isn't bleached we still have the DC Animated Universe.
Is there any chance of a DVD movie of The Killing Joke? If so everybody is happy. Because we get both the Heath Joker (Normal skin, no origin, good tie) and the more traditional Joker (bleached skin, unbelievably stupid origin, ****ty string tie).

 

[Nepenthes]

No, it cannot be. It is not, even for you. You just think it's that simple because your criteria for an excellent Joker have been met, and you don't have to think about it anymore. Consider that "It's faithful, therefore good" is not complete reasoning, and not reason to like anything. There's a reason we want things to be faithful, and a reason we let certain things slide,and a reason we throw fits about other things. You're less likely to think about the reasons you like this or that, or the reasons you want this or that, because what you got fulfilled those criteria without you ever needing to recognize what they were. Don't misinterpret this as an insult to your intelligence; we just tend not to think about things we have no reason to.

The people who are not satisfied with the look have more reason to think about it, since they have to justify to everyone else why this element or that element is important, and why the whole, for them, suffers from the absence of such elements.


Why? If those achievements aren't the things that are important to that individual, what does he care that they were, in fact, achieved? More importantly, if the things that are important to that individual are absent, why should the presence of other elements placate him or her?


It's only dishonest and spiteful if you don't understand why you feel as such. If you recognize and can explain reasonably why a certain element causes you such displeasure, than that is considerably more honest than saying "Oh well, they ignored the stuff that's important to me, but I'll like it anyway."


They are viewing it in "proper proportion." They are viewing it in the proportion that is proper for them. That you think an element is relatively unimportant does not mean people who think otherwise need are viewing things in improper "proportion."


Similarly, the Stanley Cup playoffs seem like the most trivial crap ever conceived to me--but that doesn't stop it from being important to the people who paint their chests in team colours and freeze their asses off at the games.


But that does not make it satisfactory when the elements that are important to Person X are missing. Furthermore, general accuracy is absolutely unimportant: all that is important is accuracy to the details important to the individual.


This is where you keep running off the rails. It's the best you've ever had because it satisfies your criteria. How is it the best for someone else if it doesn't satisfy their criteria? Or, if it's closest to what they want, compared to previous interpretations, are they supposed to smile and be happy, even though the stuff that's really important to them still isn't there?

Or, think of it this way: if you order a medium-well steak and they give you a rare, is it unreasonable for you to be displeased, even though it's the best rare steak in the world? You don't like rare, so what do you care if it's the best?


Of course you complain. You complain that you're forced to eat white bread and hardtack, when there's no reason you couldn't be eating steak.


Then we're fortunate, I think, that nobody is doing what you described. If someone says 'The Joker wears makeup, I'm disappointed in this film," that, almost certainly, doesn't mean makeup is the only reason. There are always a myriad of reasons for someone's disappointment, but this is the makeup thread, so here we talk about makeup.

Of course, if there were a hypothetical person who did dislike the film purely because of makeup, that would be fine, so long as that person can reasonably explain why. I don't know what the explanation might be, but I accept that there could be one, by the same token that I can tell you exactly why the Terminator Salvation spoiler reported by AICN absolutely reduces that franchise to irredeemable trash, in my opinion.

Yeah so different people place different importance on different things. For some it's incredibly important that he be perma-white, for others not, ok. We have different scales and that's fine. But that said I still think there's a point where you can, or even have to, be objective here. I don't think you can justify everything into infinity with "oh it's another persons opinion dude." Sometimes other peoples opinions are just bunk, they're not balanced judgments, but people can defend them in a tangle of semantics and perspectives until they seemingly "prove" their opinion by drowning the other side in words that seem clever but are actually referring to nothing. Nothing but vague notions that exist only in a persons head, not in reality. This is the realm of internal dialogue and self-appeasement, and it's a different thing from discussing things in the clear light of public.

In any debate or measurement there's going to be a point where peoples scales are not so much about weighing quality, but rather have descended into a form of self serving arrogance that only serves a personal service. Rather than looking fairly at a subject matter, which is the assumed intended activity. "I'm here to say why the new Joker sucks" becomes "I'm here to feel smart and proud by saying something easy and stubborn and against the grain". If it's a balanced complaint then hat's fine, but usually they're not, it's just a mess of one-sided nonsense. I have no problem looking at all the good things about this Joker, weighing them against the make-up, and saying to whingers "you know what? ****. Be grateful, you sod". There are things that are pure and definitive about the Joker that have been nailed in this version, things that are absent in Nicholson and TAS, and I wont entertain debating what these things are because we already know them. To say they're not evident in TDK is just outright fallacy (and ok I know no one is really saying that), but to pretend that this checklist is somehow spoiled by the make-up is just so dubious, I don't care how important perma-white is to someone. If they think it's THAT important, they simply have their head in the clouds and people should not be afraid of treading on opinions when they call them on that.

This is what I mean by "it can be that simple". That this is a more complete Joker is a quantifiable certainty. I could prove it with maths and science. No one can deny it with any credibility. So by being more complete, it IS an admirable Joker, and a person is either dishonest or ignorant if they can't admit that.

That you say a person should ask for steak gets to the heart of my feelings on this. Maybe our fundamental disagreement is that I think people should take enjoyment in what they've got, especially when it's been delivered in reasonable circumstances, like the make-up has. Asking for more, well people should be careful because they just might get it, and in my opinion most people don't know what they want or what's even good for them. For example a permawhite Joker may NOT be as interesting to general audiences as a make-up Joker, and judging by noob reactions this is correct. Noobs flock to the new joker. When the movie's out no one will care about make-up, but everyone will love the new take. Now as Batfans do we want a movie that everyone can appreciate, or one that exclusive to us? A fans instinct is to demand what we already know and love, but often works against the bests interests of a film whose majority of the audience will be non-fans. So we should be careful what we wish for. Normal people won't usually agree, and that's why comics are a niche art form.

And I have seen people pretend that the main reason they're disappointed in this film is because of the make-up. Anyway they've been disappearing steadily for a while now and I've probably given this subject more words that it's worth.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

that is the most sense i have read in a long time. i completely agree

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i feel the main gist of this argument and what saint was talking about is what each individual feels about the joker. Some people may love the new joker and some obviously dont like him. but really seriously think about it, can every individuals taste be met? no chance in hell! the simple matter is this is the way the filmmakers have decided to go with the joker and if some people dont like it thats tough luck they cant please everyone. i've said many times before i understand the original joker from the comicz is permawhite and i have no problem with people who prefer that but i just think its silly to let this possibly ruin the whole film for you. nolan had a decision to make and it was probly one of the hardest ones he has ever made in film. but he made the decision so now every one must live with it like it or lump it.

 

[guitarkhero311]

Please, try to read this time: I was not making a judgement on the whether or not TDK's Joker is derivative. I was only explaining the relevant issue if one were to make such a judgement. You do not need to defend the Joker because I am not criticizing him. I don't care whether you think it's derivative or not; that has not been the purpose of my responses to you.

If you are still unclear on this, please go back and read our conversation from the beginning.

I understand you are not criticizing, I understand you like Heath's Joker. I was just giving my reasonings on why I think he is not derivative, based on his inspirations, since Regwec stated that it is and supported his thoughts with evidence, I made a counter-claim with my own. Just putting something at the other end of the spectrum, he voiced his opinion on why he thinks it is derivative, I gave my info on why I think it isn't. That is the whole point of my original post and all the other posts had the same reasoning. I am not arguing with you, I understand the varying degrees of inspiration and both you and Regwec are right, some actors have stolen rather than be inspired and have not pulled of the character true to its origin, but I don't believe this is the case with TDK.

 

[Solidus]

Not funny haha but funny like a demented sense of humor and incredibly self-pleased with his own stupid jokes. And in the comics/BTAS he has always been a cheerful murderer... one who takes real visible PLEASURE from destruction and chaos. From what I've seen so far Ledger is mostly pissed off and serious in the film even when he says a joke line.

I'm not saying I'm not going to love the performance, I already do, but whether it's "accurate" to the traditional joker... so far I don't see very much of that.

Now I'm going to agree with death here. Are you ignoring half the stuff we've seen to make your point? Because its moot.

There are tons of shots we have of the Joker taking pleasure while killing, destroying and causing chaos.

-Him pushing Rachael off a roof laughing hysterically.
-Him slamming the crow bar down on top of some one.
-The Nurse sequence. He seems to be enjoying himself. *from what anita said he has quite the Joker moment as he destroys the Hospital*
- Him through the blue hue vision *most likely a sonar vision of Batman* laughing and smiling as he comes running up and hitting the camera.
-After destroying the helicopter he is laughing hysterically in the truck.
-Joker laughing right in Batman's face in the interrogation room.

And these are just a handful from the movie. Showing that the Joker truly is sick and twisted with an odd sense of humor. And laughs while destroying some one mentally or physically.

Though usually I will say we all have our own opinions, to me its quite self evident with footage that the Joker gets his kicks and laughs off of destroying people one way or another.