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

[kid bosco]

That's utterly stupid reasoning. That's like having Bruce's parents be killed at a costume party in BB, and justifying it by saying "we already got the alley-way murder in the previous franchise twice, and a billion times in the comics. It's time for something new."

These character traits aren't exclusive to Burton or anyone else. They're exclusive to the character. Considering they are adapting said character, it's not unfounded to believe they'd translate facets of their background straight from the comics.

Batman's origin was Batman's origin FROM THE BEGINNING.
Scan or link me to an issue of the Joker before any of this Killing Joke bible everybody swears by and let's see if it's explained how he became perma-white.
How long was it before they decided to delve into the Joker's origin....20 years or so?
And Batman?

If Joker has multiple choices as he became insaneeeeeee why doesn't he have multiple choices as to how he became perma-white?
Or perhaps that's also what he ment about the multiple choices in his backstory but ppl just like to pick and chose what he's directing it towards.

Here's a question.....
What if Joker was perma-white for TDK.
Let's pretend it was never makeup, that it was always perma.
However, in the film, it wasn't caused by falling into a vat of toxic chemicals....
For example, let's just say the mob went after this nerdy guy who did a few jobs for them.....
He ****ed up on a few of their assignments and so they went to get rid of him....As a "joke", they gag him, tie him up and instead of covering him in cement concrete, they pour "permanent paint" all over him (yeah I know, there no such thing right?) then they lock him up in a crate and throw it in the ocean.......
Little do they know he manages to break free and the crate actually washes ashore.....But alas, his whole entire body is covered in white permanent paint!
OH NOEZZZ!!!!11

Yes it's stupid, I know that.
But the point I'm asking here is would that have been better seeing that you would still get a perma-white Joker?

 

[Crook]

Batman's origin was Batman's origin FROM THE BEGINNING.
Scan or link me to an issue of the Joker before any of this Killing Joke bible everybody swears by and let's see if it's explained how he became perma-white.
How long was it before they decided to delve into the Joker's origin....20 years or so?
And Batman?

Why did you just completely go on a tangent there? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just replied to.

You brought up a point about retreading B89. I countered that by saying that's completely false as it has nothing to do with Burton. Respond to that.

Here's a question.....
What if Joker was perma-white for TDK.
Let's pretend it was never makeup, that it was always perma.
However, in the film, it wasn't caused by falling into a vat of toxic chemicals....
For example, let's just say the mob went after this nerdy guy who did a few jobs for them.....
He ****ed up on a few of their assignments and so they went to get rid of him....As a "joke", they gag him, tie him up and instead of covering him in cement concrete, they pour "permanent paint" all over him (yeah I know, there no such thing right?) then they lock him up in a crate and throw it in the ocean.......
Little do they know he manages to break free and the crate actually washes ashore.....But alas, his whole entire body is covered in white permanent paint!
OH NOEZZZ!!!!11

Yes it's stupid, I know that.
But the point I'm asking here is would that have been better seeing that you would still get a perma-white Joker?

Uhh..no. You know it was stupid writing that, so I don't know why you did it in the first place. Of course I'm not gonna advocate that ******ed story just because it ends in permawhite. I'd want a chemical bath, or if need be, no explanation at all for his bleached skin. There's no need to over complicate matters.

 

[nickyg641]

Batman's origin was Batman's origin FROM THE BEGINNING.
Scan or link me to an issue of the Joker before any of this Killing Joke bible everybody swears by and let's see if it's explained how he became perma-white.
How long was it before they decided to delve into the Joker's origin....20 years or so?
And Batman?

1951. Fun year.

If Joker has multiple choices as he became insaneeeeeee why doesn't he have multiple choices as to how he became perma-white?
Or perhaps that's also what he ment about the multiple choices in his backstory but ppl just like to pick and chose what he's directing it towards.

Because it's always been that way, from the time that "multiple choice" wasn't a factor. Besides, common sense denotes that his white skin is probably chemical in origin, barring something like vitiligo (which I think would anger any fan).

Here's a question.....
What if Joker was perma-white for TDK.
Let's pretend it was never makeup, that it was always perma.
However, in the film, it wasn't caused by falling into a vat of toxic chemicals....
For example, let's just say the mob went after this nerdy guy who did a few jobs for them.....
He ****ed up on a few of their assignments and so they went to get rid of him....As a "joke", they gag him, tie him up and instead of covering him in cement concrete, they pour "permanent paint" all over him (yeah I know, there no such thing right?) then they lock him up in a crate and throw it in the ocean.......
Little do they know he manages to break free and the crate actually washes ashore.....But alas, his whole entire body is covered in white permanent paint!
OH NOEZZZ!!!!11

Yes it's stupid, I know that.
But the point I'm asking here is would that have been better seeing that you would still get a perma-white Joker?

Actually, the idea of the Joker becoming white as a result of mob torture is interesting. For me, it doesn't necessarily have to be a tumble into a vat, as suggested in a previous post of mine, in which I proposed an alternate circumstance.

 

[kid bosco]

Why did you just completely go on a tangent there? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just replied to.
You brought up a point about retreading B89. I countered that by saying that's completely false as it has nothing to do with Burton. Respond to that.

Haha, what the hell?
All I did was state which of the two characters was first introduced with a backstory.
There's no tangent; I really have no idea what you're talking about besides what I replied with

Uhh..no. You know it was stupid writing that, so I don't know why you did it in the first place. Of course I'm not gonna advocate that ******ed story just because it ends in permawhite. I'd want a chemical bath, or if need be, no explanation at all for his bleached skin. There's no need to over complicate matters.

I think i've been so won over by this new take of the Joker, DARE I SAY I hope to never see another chemical-bath related origin again.
Everrrrrr.


Hope that doesn't give anybody a heart attack, lol.

 

[nickyg641]

Haha, what the hell?
All I did was state which of the two characters was first introduced with a backstory.

Actually, Batman wasn't given an origin until his second story.

There's no tangent; I really have no idea what you're talking about besides what I replied with





I think i've been so won over by this new take of the Joker, DARE I SAY I hope to never see another chemical-bath related origin again.
Everrrrrr.


Hope that doesn't give anybody a heart attack, lol.

I'm having conniptions

t:

 

[Crook]

Haha, what the hell?
All I did was state which of the two characters was first introduced with a backstory.
There's no tangent; I really have no idea what you're talking about besides what I replied with

How does 'who was first introduced with a backstory' have anything to do with your statement about "we already had that with B89"? That's what I was replying to, and you give me an entirely different argument altogether.

I think i've been so won over by this new take of the Joker, DARE I SAY I hope to never see another chemical-bath related origin again.
Everrrrrr.


Hope that doesn't give anybody a heart attack, lol.

I think people are just merging the character origins with the performance, which is why people are so open to it now. Imo, they're completely separate factors that don't affect each other. Ledger's performance would be just as enthralling and exciting had he been bleached.

 

[kid bosco]

1951. Fun year.

AHHH-HA!
Why thank you for that, mucho appreciated

I would hate to sound the way I am about to sound, but I just don't think the Joker's chemical-bath story has alot of weight to the character.
It's his antics and mayham and attributes and insanity that attracts me to this character....And of course no one can deny purple and green are pretty good matching colors (LMAOOO).
I feel as though it cheapens the character by giving him a chemical bath origin.

 

[nickyg641]

AHHH-HA!
Why thank you for that, mucho appreciated

I would hate to sound the way I am about to sound, but I just don't think the Joker's chemical-bath story has alot of weight to the character.
It's his antics and mayham and attributes and insanity that attracts me to this character....And of course no one can deny purple and green are pretty good matching colors (LMAOOO).
I feel as though it cheapens the character by giving him a chemical bath origin.

I think it does add weight to the character, in that it gives him a truly bizare and corpse-like appearance, as welll as making him a physical monster. Although, I also can see how the cut smile and makeup add their own weight to the character. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[kid bosco]

....Different strokes for different folks.

That's what she said














kidding....

 

[the_tortel]

I just love the joker's character, regardless of whether or not he takes baths in acid

so there

 

[nickyg641]

I just love the joker's character, regardless of whether or not he takes baths in acid

so there

Thanks for the thought-provoking and relavent conversation.

 

[the_tortel]

Thanks for the thought-provoking and relavent conversation.

no problemo nicko

 

[SheldonLevene]

How does 'who was first introduced with a backstory' have anything to do with your statement about "we already had that with B89"? That's what I was replying to, and you give me an entirely different argument altogether.


I think people are just merging the character origins with the performance, which is why people are so open to it now. Imo, they're completely separate factors that don't affect each other. Ledger's performance would be just as enthralling and exciting had he been bleached.

How can you say this with certainty Crook. I think it seems logical, but since we haven't seen the film we're not sure how much this painted look affects the performance. I would venture to guess it would still be good, but no denying it would be different. I'm not saying the paint or the perma is better, but the choice definitely affects the way you play the character I think. I mean the whole grunge thing is clearly in play here.

 

[Boom]

The black eye makeup and the lipstick would still smear around his face.

 

[Crook]

How can you say this with certainty Crook. I think it seems logical, but since we haven't seen the film we're not sure how much this painted look affects the performance. I would venture to guess it would still be good, but no denying it would be different. I'm not saying the paint or the perma is better, but the choice definitely affects the way you play the character I think. I mean the whole grunge thing is clearly in play here.

I guess you could say we "will never know", so just think of it as an educated guess. Considering the performance will not likely directly address the make-up, and the script and Ledger's preparation were all before the make-up tests.....I'd venture to say that all the key elements of Joker's persona were created before Heath even sat down on that make-up chair.

The black eye makeup and the lipstick would still smear around his face.

Not to mention his hair and clothing that reflects the grunge lifestyle. The only difference is the white wouldn't be fading. Which as far as I'm concerned, is good since all the best shots of Heath are with him in white skin. The most interesting visual aspects of the design are still the black eye make-up and twisted scarred smile. None of which would have to be sacrificed with bleached skin. You'd still retain that jarring image.

 

[deathfromabove]

I guess you could say we "will never know", so just think of it as an educated guess. Considering the performance will not likely directly address the make-up, and the script and Ledger's preparation were all before the make-up tests.....I'd venture to say that all the key elements of Joker's persona were created before Heath even sat down on that make-up chair.

and after he had prepared for the role (all the while knowing he would be a make up wearing joker) he sat in the chair and applied the makeup himself, the way he felt the makeup should look. the make up artist then copied what heath had done. we know know for a fact that the performance and the makeup (design at least) came from heath. they are inseparable.

Not to mention his hair and clothing that reflects the grunge lifestyle. The only difference is the white wouldn't be fading. Which as far as I'm concerned, is good since all the best shots of Heath are with him in white skin. The most interesting visual aspects of the design are still the black eye make-up and twisted scarred smile. None of which would have to be sacrificed with bleached skin. You'd still retain that jarring image.

so he would be scarred and have white skin? i dont think so.

this topic should be moot by now.

 

[Crook]

and after he had prepared for the role (all the while knowing he would be a make up wearing joker) he sat in the chair and applied the makeup himself, the way he felt the makeup should look. the make up artist then copied what heath had done. we know know for a fact that the performance and the makeup (design at least) came from heath. they are inseparable.

That's assuming the make-up has anything to do with his performance. Again, the general layouts of the character were already laid out. I don't see how make-up changes that. For all we know (and this is the most logical reasoning that comes to mind), Heath having a part in designing the make-up had more to do with extending what he had planned to do with the character's psyche. I.e. the rotting and decaying look.

If anything, it surely would not be a huge departure from what Heath was already planning to do. It's not like mid-production if Nolan decided he wanted bleach, Heath would have gone, "well....back to the drawing board!". I find it a huge stretch that make-up would be a sole factor in how Heath decides to give Joker a hunch, an eery walk, the knack for licking his lips, or the nasally/raspy voice.

so he would be scarred and have white skin? i dont think so.

Have I broken some rule or something?

this topic should be moot by now.

Well you are free to not come in here.

 

[nickyg641]

and after he had prepared for the role (all the while knowing he would be a make up wearing joker) he sat in the chair and applied the makeup himself, the way he felt the makeup should look. the make up artist then copied what heath had done. we know know for a fact that the performance and the makeup (design at least) came from heath. they are inseparable.

True, but as Crook said, the most interesting thing comes from the visual of the red and black makeup, and the Chealsea grin, which could be retained with the addition to permawhite. I doubt his performance would be hindered without the little fleshy streaks on his forhead.

so he would be scarred and have white skin? i dont think so.

this topic should be moot by now.

Why not? It could be interesting--it adds even more mystery to the chemical bath origin. He's got white skin, but also a cut smile. How does that figure in? He could wear the black and red makeup over that, to accentuate his grotesqueness. The only difference is he'll have a white neck.

But, don't get me wrong, I'm not really complaining. I've come to accept and even like the makeup/cut smile combo (although I've almost always been a fan of the makeup design itself). Although, I was reading an article on BoF from over a year ago, where, based on what he'd been told (yuk yuk), Jett described what the Joker would like. Blotchy corpse-white skin, and he made a point of saying it would not look like makeup. I found that quite funny, but then I got that feeling of wishing we'd seen that and imagining what could have been.

 

[deathfromabove]

That's assuming the make-up has anything to do with his performance. Again, the general layouts of the character were already laid out. I don't see how make-up changes that. For all we know (and this is the most logical reasoning that comes to mind), Heath having a part in designing the make-up had more to do with extending what he had planned to do with the character's psyche. I.e. the rotting and decaying look.

extending what he had planned to do with the character's psyche has nothing to do with the performance? really?

and how do we know heath didnt know the joker would be in make up before he even took the role? i would say he factored that in to his performance too. and given that everyone is saying how terrifying the joker is i think ditching the perma skin was a wise move.

If anything, it surely would not be a huge departure from what Heath was already planning to do. It's not like mid-production if Nolan decided he wanted bleach, Heath would have gone, "well....back to the drawing board!". I find it a huge stretch that make-up would be a sole factor in how Heath decides to give Joker a hunch, an eery walk, the knack for licking his lips, or the nasally/raspy voice.

well nolan isnt the type to change his mind halfway through a production but i would say that it would affect any good actor's performance if the director changed any aspect of the character. why would it not? and given the amount of work we know heath gave this to think he wouldnt have altered his approach highlights a vast misunderstanding of the craft.

Have I broken some rule or something?

i think having the joker disfigured by both scars and an accidental skin bleaching is a bit farfetched is all. and given the tone nolan is applying, highly unlikely.

Well you are free to not come in here.

dont pull that newbie/internet bull ****e with me son. you know damn well i will post wherever and whenever i feel. same as you.

 

[Banquet]

Plenty of well known characters undergo transformations to boost their popularity and suit a new generation. I don't see why the Joker should be an exception. Why is he supposed to conform rigidly to the old comics, instead of being appreciated as a successful re-invention of the character?

 

[nickyg641]

extending what he had planned to do with the character's psyche has nothing to do with the performance? really?

and how do we know heath didnt know the joker would be in make up before he even took the role? i would say he factored that in to his performance too. and given that everyone is saying how terrifying the joker is i think ditching the perma skin was a wise move.




well nolan isnt the type to change his mind halfway through a production but i would say that it would affect any good actor's performance if the director changed any aspect of the character. why would it not? and given the amount of work we know heath gave this to think he wouldnt have altered his approach highlights a vast misunderstanding of the craft.




i think having the joker disfigured by both scars and an accidental skin bleaching is a bit farfetched is all. and given the tone nolan is applying, highly unlikely.



dont pull that newbie/internet bull ****e with me son. you know damn well i will post wherever and whenever i feel. same as you.

The mob kidnaps him (for whatever reason, you decide), slices his face, and dumps him in a vat. Or, he emerges from the vat, and, upon seeing his new visage, enhances it with a smile. To think of a few options. It's not entirely baseless, either. Quite a few comics have done it.

And I don't really get Heath's performance hinges on the color of his neck and wrists. Would that change his mannerisms? Those little quirks, like licking his lips and pulling his hair back with a knife? What about his voice?

 

[Banquet]

True, but as Crook said, the most interesting thing comes from the visual of the red and black makeup, and the Chealsea grin, which could be retained with the addition to permawhite. I doubt his performance would be hindered without the little fleshy streaks on his forhead.


Why not? It could be interesting--it adds even more mystery to the chemical bath origin. He's got white skin, but also a cut smile. How does that figure in? He could wear the black and red makeup over that, to accentuate his grotesqueness. The only difference is he'll have a white neck.

But, don't get me wrong, I'm not really complaining. I've come to accept and even like the makeup/cut smile combo (although I've almost always been a fan of the makeup design itself). Although, I was reading an article on BoF from over a year ago, where, based on what he'd been told (yuk yuk), Jett described what the Joker would like. Blotchy corpse-white skin, and he made a point of saying it would not look like makeup. I found that quite funny, but then I got that feeling of wishing we'd seen that and imagining what could have been.

So you like your Joker with a nice complextion? I could actually go for this idea. Having bleached skin would completely alter the character as he is now though. The messy look wouldn't be as defined, so he would have a creepiness that wouldn't reflect "anarchy" as much as "vampire."

 

[deathfromabove]

True, but as Crook said, the most interesting thing comes from the visual of the red and black makeup, and the Chealsea grin, which could be retained with the addition to permawhite. I doubt his performance would be hindered without the little fleshy streaks on his forhead.

we have heard from those on set and from a few reviews that his makeup deteriorating matches his increasing madness. the makeup is directly connected to the characters behaviour. they are inseparable. we know it wasnt just an aesthetic choice at this point.

Why not? It could be interesting--it adds even more mystery to the chemical bath origin. He's got white skin, but also a cut smile. How does that figure in? He could wear the black and red makeup over that, to accentuate his grotesqueness. The only difference is he'll have a white neck.

i think it all boils down to believability. clearly nolan is trying to ground these characters as much as possible and i believe having someone with both scars in the form of a smile and white skin would betray that. at this point (based on what we know) white skin alone would probably betray that believabilty considering nolan said he had no desire to explain the joker's origins.

But, don't get me wrong, I'm not really complaining. I've come to accept and even like the makeup/cut smile combo (although I've almost always been a fan of the makeup design itself). Although, I was reading an article on BoF from over a year ago, where, based on what he'd been told (yuk yuk), Jett described what the Joker would like. Blotchy corpse-white skin, and he made a point of saying it would not look like makeup. I found that quite funny, but then I got that feeling of wishing we'd seen that and imagining what could have been.

two things.

dont listen to jett.

i think imagining what could have been is kind of like looking a gift horse in the mouth at this point. by all accounts heath has delived to us the onscreen personification of the character and i am quite certain no one will be complaining about the lack of a visual cypher best left to the books.

 

[Crook]

extending what he had planned to do with the character's psyche has nothing to do with the performance? really?

W00t! The obligatory makes it appearance once again.

To answer your question, if you had read it properly, I was pointing out that if anything, the performance is what affected the make-up, not vice versa.

and how do we know heath didnt know the joker would be in make up before he even took the role? i would say he factored that in to his performance too.

I don't. Neither does anyone here. But again, I ask how plausible is it that knowing that one tidbit would severely affect his approach to a dark, gritty, and terrifying portrayal of the character? Down to his subtle nuances? How in the world does make-up play a part in determining a character's behavior and physical movements?

Pro-makeup posters have long advocated that what reflected the character best was how he was written and portrayed by the actor, not the make-up itself. Now, all of a sudden it's different?

and given that everyone is saying how terrifying the joker is i think ditching the perma skin was a wise move.

So I take it that had everything been kept the same sans the make-up, we'd be getting a far diluted and non-scary Joker compared to what we have now?

well nolan isnt the type to change his mind halfway through a production but i would say that it would affect any good actor's performance if the director changed any aspect of the character. why would it not? and given the amount of work we know heath gave this to think he wouldnt have altered his approach highlights a vast misunderstanding of the craft.

The changes the actor makes is only as vast as the alteration to the character. Make-up to bleach doesn't change the fact that this Joker is crazy. Or viciously grim. Or antisocial. Or gleefully bliss amidst anarchy. That doesn't change. So no, I don't think Heath would have made too much of a different performance.

i think having the joker disfigured by both scars and an accidental skin bleaching is a bit farfetched is all. and given the tone nolan is applying, highly unlikely.

I was thinking accidental skin bleach, and intentional facial scarring by Joker himself, actually. Obviously 2 unrelated incidents that lead to a clown-like apperance is too out there, hence why a different approach is necessary.

dont pull that newbie/internet bull ****e with me son. you know damn well i will post wherever and whenever i feel. same as you.

There is no newbie/internet bullcrap going on, dad. Stop being so defensive and realize I was just pointing out how stupid it is to come into a thread you deem pointless and then go on writing long posts regardless. If it's so moot, then you don't have to go in. Simple as that.

 

[deathfromabove]

There is no newbie/internet bullcrap going on, dad. Stop being so defensive and realize I was just pointing out how stupid it is to come into a thread you deem pointless and then go on writing long posts regardless. If it's so moot, then you don't have to go in. Simple as that.

maybe you didnt catch this little guy the first time so.... i am not getting defensive

since i already addresed the rest of your points i will just say i know how this forum works, i know i dont have to enter a thread i think is way past its expiration date, and i know i dont have to post. and i also dont need you to tell me any of that. so again, save the tired internet games for your momma and newbies who dont know you like i do, mmmm k?