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

ive said before i understand in the comics his skin was bleached and respect peoples preference to that. but i think for this movie universe this is the perfect joker. just think whats more scarey and bloke who had the misfortune to fall in a bath of chemicals or a bloke who highlights his deformities and even plays on them with the make up. i think heaths joker looks bad ass and horrorfying
 
I will always prefer a permawhite Joker, but there's something very special about this Joker... not just his personality, but his appearance as well. That he's been more humanized (in terms of appearance only) does make him more frightening in a way. A joker that's completely white (with a corpse-like complexion) would have been very creepy, yes, but it wouldn't have been very relatable. It would have turned him into a bogeyman like Freddy Krueger - something that's frightening in its own way, but something that you're still detached from because it's so unlikely that you'll ever see anything like it in normal life. Yes, it could happen (Michael Jackson and whatnot), but it's so improbable that it would lessen the dramatic impact of the film.

But pretty much everyone has seen a clown. And when you see a clown, it's very rare that they have makeup on any area other than their face. What Nolan has done is taken something from every day life and turned it into something terrifying. And yes, I realize that has been done before... but usually in horror movies, where the clowns are typically some kind of scary creature (similar to the comic book Joker), so like Freddy Krueger, there's detachment to the whole thing. This is the most serious way I've ever seen it done. And that's what's going to scare people. Knowing that when they get up and get ready to go to work out there, there could be someone like this running around on the loose. You simply wouldn't have that with permawhite.

The comic book Joker isn't a monster because of what he is, but because of what he does, and in that way, these two Jokers are exactly the same. Frankly, I'm pretty glad that Nolan went this route now. I'll always have my permawhite Joker in the animated series and the comics. But this? This is something refreshing, something that renews the character and gives him the ability to evolve. I'd much rather have that than have the character stay the same for so long (on both paper and the silver screen) that he becomes stale and causes people to lose interest in him.
 
I don't see why this is such a big deal. As far as I'm concerned, the Joker's origin does not matter at all. From what I've read, the Joker is as deranged in this film as he is in the comics, even though he doesn't fall into a vat of chemicals. That's all I personally care for.
 
And by not making him permawhite, suddenly you realize that Nolan's Joker can be interpreted as a symbol of the terrorism we deal with in society across the world now. The only difference between Nolan's Joker and terrorists is that terrorists have a political or religious agenda. He has no agenda other than inflicting pain on everyone in the world, including himself.
 
yea i read a interview that said this whole film is basically a study on the physchological impact terrorism has had on society. like does it blur what is right and wrong when dealing with such atrocious things and i think thats really interesting.
 
yea i read a interview that said this whole film is basically a study on the physchological impact terrorism has had on society. like does it blur what is right and wrong when dealing with such atrocious things and i think thats really interesting.

Well yes, and there's this issue. What the hell can you do to fight it? I mean, like you said, there's a thin line between effectively fighting terrorism and murdering innocent people in the process, thus making it a PR nightmare as well as a tragedy even as you are getting rid of such scum. So as I said, what can you do to fight it?
The Joker forces Batman to quit fighting or he'll kill more innocent people. That type of thing is impossible for him to fight. Absolutely impossible.
 
yea thats the whole point of the joker in nolans universe, hes a pure antaganist. hes trying to bait batman in and bring him down to his level. it could be compared to afghanistan or iraq. the terroists are saying to the US and UK leave the countries and we will stop blowing **** up but it aint as simple as that. if our forces do leave what if the terroirst just carry on killing everyone and what if we do stay its just more killing. there is no way you can win.
 
The comic book Joker isn't a monster because of what he is, but because of what he does, and in that way, these two Jokers are exactly the same.

I never really understood this saying. The Joker does what he does because of what he is. He's an evil, twisted bastard who enjoys chaos, terror, murder, mayhem etc.

Like that line he says in one of the TV spots: "I'm a simple man with simple tastes. I like dynamite, gasoline, and gunpowder". That's the Joker. He enjoys this stuff.
 
yea thats the whole point of the joker in nolans universe, hes a pure antaganist. hes trying to bait batman in and bring him down to his level. it could be compared to afghanistan or iraq. the terroists are saying to the US and UK leave the countries and we will stop blowing **** up but it aint as simple as that. if our forces do leave what if the terroirst just carry on killing everyone and what if we do stay its just more killing. there is no way you can win.

And that's why so many of these critics are seeing a parallel between the movie and real life, even though Nolan claims there's nothing intentional to it. Perhaps when you are exposed to these things in the news as often as we are nowadays, it just kind of becomes part of the thought process when dealing with an anarchistic terrorist in a fictional movie.
 
I never really understood this saying. The Joker does what he does because of what he is. He's an evil, twisted bastard who enjoys chaos, terror, murder, mayhem etc.

Like that line he says in one of the TV spots: "I'm a simple man with simple tastes. I like dynamite, gasoline, and gunpowder". That's the Joker. He enjoys this stuff.
You're missing the point. Obviously, he's a twisted bastard, but is that why everyone's so afraid of him? No. If he was just as twisted, but didn't actually act on his sadistic urges, people would see him as a freak, but not a monster. It's because he does those things that he's seen as the monster he is. And he's that monster whether he's permawhite or not. That's the point I was trying to make. While his being permawhite does add some unique symbolism to the character, it's not what makes him the terror that he is.
 
yea of course not. i think hes more terrorfying with the make up. it shows he truly has split from the programme. hes highlighting the fact that hes hideosly disfigured and hes playing on it to scare people
 
You're missing the point. Obviously, he's a twisted bastard, but is that why everyone's so afraid of him? No. If he was just as twisted, but didn't actually act on his sadistic urges, people would see him as a freak, but not a monster. It's because he does those things that he's seen as the monster he is. And he's that monster whether he's permawhite or not. That's the point I was trying to make. While his being permawhite does add some unique symbolism to the character, it's not what makes him the terror that he is.

I don't entirely agree with that. I think anyone who enjoys seeing people suffer and die etc is a monster. They don't have to do it themselves to be classed as a monster, IMO.

For example, if you told me you got great enjoyment out of the 9/11 incident, and the knowledge that so many people suffered and died in it, I'd call you a monster for that.

Now, what makes people afraid of Joker? Obviously his actions. But that's not what solely classes him as a monster, IMO.
 
In the original story how ambiguous was it? Did Batman even see the Hood dive into the chemicals to escape? Because from that pannel a few pages back it looks as if we ony got The Joker's side. I like it best that way, where the Red Hood origin is the most likely but still not completely, undoubtedly true.
 
In the original story how ambiguous was it? Did Batman even see the Hood dive into the chemicals to escape? Because from that pannel a few pages back it looks as if we ony got The Joker's side. I like it best that way, where the Red Hood origin is the most likely but still not completely, undoubtedly true.


That's the one constant about him - in the original Red Hood story, it was the one case Batman had never been able to solve. In "The Man Who Laughs," Gordon talks about it quite a bit.

If the origin was treated as it was in "The Killing Joke," and "The Man Who Laughs," it'd work perfectly in Nolan's universe.
 
In the original story how ambiguous was it? Did Batman even see the Hood dive into the chemicals to escape? Because from that pannel a few pages back it looks as if we ony got The Joker's side. I like it best that way, where the Red Hood origin is the most likely but still not completely, undoubtedly true.
intothevat.jpg

hood.jpg

In the original story, Batman is invited to teach a class on criminology at Gotham University (yeah, I know), and he recalls his encounters with the Red Hood, and the night he fell into the vat of chemicals. The story was meant to be taken at face value--they really weren't that complex. That was the Joker's origin, plain and simple.
 
It reminds me somewhat of the early Two Face story, where Batman and Robin considered it a good idea to encourage Harvey (whose face had been repaired by surgery) to wear makeup replicating his old injuries and use his scarred coin in order to re-enact his crimes in front of an audience. No thought for the effect this might have, at all"
 
It reminds me somewhat of the early Two Face story, where Batman and Robin considered it a good idea to encourage Harvey (whose face had been repaired by surgery) to wear makeup replicating his old injuries and use his scarred coin in order to re-enact his crimes in front of an audience. No thought for the effect this might have, at all"

Where would that suggestion even come from, haha?
 
Where would that suggestion even come from, haha?
Commissioner Gordon, no less.

"This should open the eyes of thousands to the need to support the law and its officers, Batman!"

Er, yeah.
 
Commissioner Gordon, no less.

"This should open the eyes of thousands to the need to support the law and its officers, Batman!"

Er, yeah.
Don't tell Grant Morrison, he'll try and work it into Batman R.I.P.
 
Commissioner Gordon, no less.

"This should open the eyes of thousands to the need to support the law and its officers, Batman!"

Er, yeah.

WOW. Just wow. I don't know what bothers me more: when comics are completely over-simplified or when they are overly convoluted.
 
I like what Nolan's doing with Joker, but, its not a comic Joker. Its Nolan's vision, if he ****s it up, let him. We'll always have Batman 89
 
I like what Nolan's doing with Joker, but, its not a comic Joker. Its Nolan's vision, if he ****s it up, let him. We'll always have Batman 89

I wouldn't say he isn't the comics Joker. From what I have seen/heard of the film he is very much in line with the Joker of both The Man Who Laughs and The Killing Joke; not 100% so, but he definitely has distinct aspects of the character from each.
 
I will always prefer a permawhite Joker, but there's something very special about this Joker... not just his personality, but his appearance as well. That he's been more humanized (in terms of appearance only) does make him more frightening in a way. A joker that's completely white (with a corpse-like complexion) would have been very creepy, yes, but it wouldn't have been very relatable. It would have turned him into a bogeyman like Freddy Krueger - something that's frightening in its own way, but something that you're still detached from because it's so unlikely that you'll ever see anything like it in normal life. Yes, it could happen (Michael Jackson and whatnot), but it's so improbable that it would lessen the dramatic impact of the film.

But pretty much everyone has seen a clown. And when you see a clown, it's very rare that they have makeup on any area other than their face. What Nolan has done is taken something from every day life and turned it into something terrifying. And yes, I realize that has been done before... but usually in horror movies, where the clowns are typically some kind of scary creature (similar to the comic book Joker), so like Freddy Krueger, there's detachment to the whole thing. This is the most serious way I've ever seen it done. And that's what's going to scare people. Knowing that when they get up and get ready to go to work out there, there could be someone like this running around on the loose. You simply wouldn't have that with permawhite.

The comic book Joker isn't a monster because of what he is, but because of what he does, and in that way, these two Jokers are exactly the same. Frankly, I'm pretty glad that Nolan went this route now. I'll always have my permawhite Joker in the animated series and the comics. But this? This is something refreshing, something that renews the character and gives him the ability to evolve. I'd much rather have that than have the character stay the same for so long (on both paper and the silver screen) that he becomes stale and causes people to lose interest in him.

I agree that this version of the Joker could easily exist in the real world. Two-Face, on the other hand, could not, IMO. I just don't see how anyone could possibly survive such a horrific injury. I therefore don't understand why they'd make one of the villains so realistic that he could possibly exist, while the other villain couldn't possibly exist.

As far as I'm concerned, the Joker's origin does not matter at all. From what I've read, the Joker is as deranged in this film as he is in the comics, even though he doesn't fall into a vat of chemicals. That's all I personally care for.

Personally, I would much rather just have a permawhite Joker with no origin.

the early Two Face story, where Batman and Robin considered it a good idea to encourage Harvey (whose face had been repaired by surgery) to wear makeup replicating his old injuries and use his scarred coin in order to re-enact his crimes in front of an audience. No thought for the effect this might have, at all"

Commissioner Gordon, no less.

"This should open the eyes of thousands to the need to support the law and its officers, Batman!"

Er, yeah.

:funny::funny:.
 
I agree that this version of the Joker could easily exist in the real world. Two-Face, on the other hand, could not, IMO. I just don't see how anyone could possibly survive such a horrific injury. I therefore don't understand why they'd make one of the villains so realistic that he could possibly exist, while the other villain couldn't possibly exist.

Escalation? :woot:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"