it would be frightening if at the police station gordon says that hey have problems to get rid of hes make up.
Originally Posted by Batmania
Is him being permawhite really that important? I can't fathom why this is still being discussed. I always thought it was a kind of a silly idea in the comics and I still do. The Joker is more frightening without a known origin, IMO. And no, I am not a "sheep".
The origin of Two-Face's scarring was also changed - from acid to catching fire. That also differed from the comics and yet people don't seem to have a problem with that? I'm also glad they changed that. He gets acid splashed in his face and that burns his face exactly down the middle, to a straight line. Yeah, right.
It's really not the chemicals that are his origin, it's who he was before them, and the circumstances surrounding his "creation". The chemicals have no more to do with his origin than the knife that cut his scars.
As Crook said, artists hardly ever draw a straight line any more. And, even in TDK, the deformity is much-unrealistic.
The Joker having bleached skin isn't "more faithful" than him wearing makeup. It just isn't. We know this is a real world interpretation of the character, and his image is based on the appearance of the Joker from Batman #1, where nothing was explained in regards to his skin whether it was makeup or not. Be faithful to a character in their essence. Visuals are up to adaptation, and the way things stay fresh is if they are re-interpreted. Hard core comic book geeks have had a history of not being able grasp this concept.
But there isn't a problem removing his makeup. When Batman's beating the **** out of him at the MCU, it's falling off his face. When we see him sweating and what not it runs. That's what makes it all the more frightening. It's the thematic equivelent seeing his makeup crack, run and become messier as showing how the Joker slips deeper and deeper into his own madness.
Not really sure how that's the case when Joker has never applied makeup prior to this incarnation.
So then surely you realize by the very fact it's obvious makeup is in TDK completely contradicts what is supposed to be ambiguous in regards to his appearance.
Who said it was meant to be ambiguous in Batman #1, therefore it had to be ambiguous in The Dark Knight? There is no direct correlation there. It just was what it was. And as we all know, Nolan adapted a look of a character to the real world, and we got visually what we got. Looks to characters are open to adaptation. And as I said, usually the hardcore comic book geeks just can't take it. Being permawhite means nothing to the character. Him being bleached represented the physical disfigurement that ultimately sets the Joker off down his path. In TDK we know that the physical disfigurement that sets the Joker off is his mouth scars.
I believe the next panel after that says something like "Removing his makeup,...". So, there goes that.
It's got nothing to do with realism. Two-Face is a prime example of that. It was done to reflect the idea that the Joker persona is a direct response to Batman's presence in Gotham.
It did, yes, but don't act as if this was the only logical way to create a disturbing, creepy Joker.
What? Is that not the point for bringing up the comic in the first place? Everyone who has referred to the Batman story has always remarked on the comic's lack of explaining the why and how of Joker's skin.
There is a fundamental difference between a man scorned by a permanent disfigurement that affects his entire appearance forever and learns to embrace it.... and one who extends a disfigurement to create a new, but ultimately, removable visage.
It doesn't, I don't think.
Sure it has something to do with realism. It was a realistic explanation for why the Joker would have a white face, and tries to reprsent physically a clown to counter act Batman's theatricality.nickyg641 said:
Where was I acting otherwise? I was asking why people would still need to find some sort of reason to make him "permawhite" ... WHEN THERE IS NO POINT. It means nothing to the character, even more so in Nolan's story and Joker interpretation. And as I said judging by fan response, this Joker look sure caused alot of appreciation to the adaptation. Cause you know, sometimes movie makers add spins to characters that actually can be better then what was in the source material. Burton did it with Batman's black armored suit, and Nolan probably did it here with the Joker. The look to his character is terrifying, and it is more disturbing because of the reality to it.nickyg641 said:
Of course it is. It's more faithful to the version of the character that has existed for decades, as opposed to the version that existed in Batman #1. Similarly, Batman with a "no killing" rule is more faithful than a Batman who goes around shooting people, despite the fact that he did that in his early appearances.
Why? Being bleached is not strictly about visuals, but even if it was, why is a visual complaint not valid? Aesthetics are important. If someone wants to see a faithful visual representation, how is that "unhealthy" or even undesirable? Some people want the character to look like the character. Seems fairly reasonable to me.
This is a discussion forum about a film. People here are talking about things they'd like to see. The point is to have a discussion of interest to the participants. If you don't understand that we're here to have discussions about the film, I'm not sure why you're here.
Yes, and for some people, him being bleached would make it even stronger. Again, I am baffled as to how those individuals talking baout it is "unhealthy."
It doesn't matter if you see the point. Your inability to gleam the importance of the matter to the individuals in this thread does not make it any less important, nor does it make the discussion "unhealthy." By the same token, my inability to understand the importance of hockey doesn't make hockey an "unhealthy issue" for hockey fans.
What? Are you serious? I didn't know he could remove his facial scars anytime he wanted. I didn't know that wasn't a permanent disfigurement. He does learn to embrace it and by doing so plays on the fact he looks like a clown, and adds makeup to make his theatrical clown look "pop."
Nonsense. It's relevance to Joker's character and mentality has been explained repeatedly in this thread. Go look, if you are so inclined.
Saint said:
Perhaps--but I doubt it's the main reason the change was made. Because the rules of Nolan's world certainly wouldn't limit the Joker to wearing makeup, considering the outlandishness of Two-Face's deformity, the microwave emitter, and the sonar machine.
I agree with you on that. Making the Joker permawhite in the next film would be, well, a cop-out.
Whether or not it was an improvement is debatable. Personally, while it worked fine for me in the film and I have indeed come to like it, I wouldn't want to see it become the norm in comics and future interpretations.
Not to what is essential to certain fans, apparently. You really have trouble wrapping your head around the fact that different people consider different elements important, don't you? It's sort of alarming.
Hint: that they want a different degree of accuracy in their adaptation does not mean they misunderstand the concept, slick.
Yeah, and the relevance to the character and his mentality is swaped for the mouth scars. They are the disfigurements that lead this man down his path. Same thing. I'm saying I like both. There are people in here who obviously can't take change and adaptations. If they want their Joker strictly all white, go read the fantastical stories in the comic books. We know Nolan didn't want permawhite for a reason. It doesn't fit in the world he created, obviously. And the world he created, and the Joker he created his by far the strongest one I (and many others have seen) ... and I've read and stared at the best of the comic book Joker stories. So yeah, why change something that isn't broke ... or in this case is a beautiful masterpiece rendition of a character. Nolan took a character we all knew, re-invented him into a real world scenario, and made him better. But hey ... gotta have that permawhite.
Well you can't please them all. Thankfully these people are in the minority, and obviously it had no ill-effects on one of the best Batman stories ever told. Everyone can't get enough of this Joker. Visually or story wise.
In some cases ... I don't think they do, champ.Saint said:
Dude, really? Where did I say any of that. Once again you've miraculously misunderstood what I was saying, when all you had to do was follow the commas:
This is me acknowledging the scars.
See this nugget? It's a transitional word, indicating the following words are referring to something else.
This refers to the clown make-up. Can you understand the sentence now?
Which is what I just said.
In SOME cases it's lipstick and hair dye. In most, it is not. The white, red, and green are derived from the chemical bath.
The fundamental difference being that one visage is permanent and one is not. Can't be that hard to understand.
I'm not concerned with what's more frightening and more realistic. Have you seen the original concept designs for TDK Joker? Was that not INFINITELY more frightening than what we got? Yes. But did I care for it? No. Joker in the comics is already terrifying, scary, and downright evil in his own right. There's no "need" to try and amp it even more, though people are free to try.What Nolan did was visually and story wise more frightening then the un-realistic point of a man falling in "bleach" / "chemicals" and staying alive and it makes his skin white and his hair green.
Lol, I don't HAVE to do any of that when 60+ years of the character's history has plainly written it for me. Besides, I didn't realize I had to "justify" a more faithful adaptation of the source material.
Well that's the point, it's is own thing. I wouldn't want to see that either, it's called variety.
No. Scars such as those can be repaired via plastic surgery, and that would certainly be something the doctors at Akrham would be pushing for if they ever figured out that they were significant to his psychological make up.
Or they can talk about what they would have preferred in the film. Once again, I am baffled as to how this is unreasonable or undesirable, or "unehalthy" (because you are absolutely incapable of providing a legitimate reason explaining this).
No we don't. The existence of concept art depicting the Joker as having white skin seems to suggest the choice wasn't about realism.
By what criteria? Chemicals that can bleach skin exist. I don't know about the survivability of being submerged in them, but the fact that Two-Face was able to speak normally, that he did not lose his eye, that sheer pain did not render him unable to function (patients with burns that severe are kept unconscious for that reason, I believe), and that he was not suffering from massive infections suggests that a man surviving a chemical dump is not outside Nolan's realm of realism.
Being rather abrasive, aren't you?
