patty- don't be so sure he burns the cash. someone (like a bat) might have sabotaged his plan.
itsthebatman- are you sure that's vain? we'll see how it plays out but he could be mimicking flirting in order to spook her out. could just be him acting sinister and twisted.
i agree with you about permawhite being more catastrophic.
i'm hopeful. i think it's going to rock. i do have a few concerns still (as someone said recently- guard or saint- that it's too much about bruce's struggle and not about being a savior for the city. i am also concerned how urban the whole thing looks (lack of atmosphere)).
patty- don't be so sure he burns the cash. someone (like a bat) might have sabotaged his plan.
itsthebatman- are you sure that's vain? we'll see how it plays out but he could be mimicking flirting in order to spook her out. could just be him acting sinister and twisted.
i agree with you about permawhite being more catastrophic.
i'm hopeful. i think it's going to rock. i do have a few concerns still (as someone said recently- guard or saint- that it's too much about bruce's struggle and not about being a savior for the city. i am also concerned how urban the whole thing looks (lack of atmosphere)).
I get the feeling it's the Joker doing get, especially because you see him talking to one of the Chechen mobsters, telling him that he's a new class of criminal. Burning the money would basically be the final blow that would eradicate the mob and usher in a new kind of villain.
Im sure I might very well be wrong, but in my mind, Joker burned that s**t. Its just something he would do, promise the money back and burn it anyway... just cus hes the joker.
The scene begins inside a vault at the Gotham National Bank. Obviously, the Joker and his gang have just struck. Detectives are taking photos of a dead Joker goon outside an open vault door. You can see a clown mask lying on the ground next to him. Gary Oldman as Lieutenant Gordon walks in the vault along with Monique Curnen who plays Detective Ramirez. Gordon holds an envelope and a security photo of the Joker. Gordon says, "What's he hiding underneath that makeup?" Suddenly, Batman walks into the vault. Detective Ramirez turns around, surprised. She looks at Gordon then says to the other cops, "Can we get a minute people, please?" She then leaves along with the other cops. Gordon says something and Batman replies, "Him again? Where are the others?"
Could this be more misdirection from Nolan to set up the eventual reveal that everybody's favorite villain is actually white-skinned?
The scene begins inside a vault at the Gotham National Bank. Obviously, the Joker and his gang have just struck. Detectives are taking photos of a dead Joker goon outside an open vault door. You can see a clown mask lying on the ground next to him. Gary Oldman as Lieutenant Gordon walks in the vault along with Monique Curnen who plays Detective Ramirez. Gordon holds an envelope and a security photo of the Joker. Gordon says, "What's he hiding underneath that makeup?" Suddenly, Batman walks into the vault. Detective Ramirez turns around, surprised. She looks at Gordon then says to the other cops, "Can we get a minute people, please?" She then leaves along with the other cops. Gordon says something and Batman replies, "Him again? Where are the others?"
Could this be more misdirection from Nolan to set up the eventual reveal that everybody's favorite villain is actually white-skinned?
That's the second reference to make-up after the prologue's thigs talking about 'war paint.'
All evidence points to make-up, but still, here's hoping. Honestly, though, Lindy Hemming talked about hime being scarred and using make-up to enhance that effect, so I don't think so.
Ah well.
Eh, its not the kinda bleaching most fans would want, but I could see him being permawhite in that he's left the makeup on for so long that its become nigh impossible to wash off.
1. You seriously believe that only the people on this forum care about Joker being permawhite?
2. How do you know the mainstream audience wouldn't care? You can only speak for yourself. They could very well think it's a cool twist. And those who have seen Batman 89 would expect the Joker to permawhite, I imagine.
This debate will go on for a long time after the movie is on $2 DVD racks, and rightfully so.
It won't ruin the movie for me since everything is so spot on, however, if I see Batman fire a single bullet from that Bat-Pod, I will walk right the hell out. That's my one and only deal breaker on this movie.
It would be to the mainstream audience who think he's a psycho who's just been putting make up on all along.
Two things:
1. You seriously believe that only the people on this forum care about Joker being permawhite?
2. How do you know the mainstream audience wouldn't care? You can only speak for yourself. They could very well think it's a cool twist. And those who have seen Batman 89 would expect the Joker to permawhite, I imagine.
People on any Batman related forum are not the mainstream audience. We are a core audience, one that is expected to be there, but the mainstream is those around us: mostly consisting of people who know nothing about Batman beyond his name and the Joker's.
When my dad sees TDK, he will have no freaking clue that Ledger's joker has makeup and that Nicholson's didn't; he knows the character looks like a clown and that's it. The mainstream audience wouldn't have seen Batman '89 for almost 2 decades, so I really doubt they remember very much about the movie.
What would a "twist" ending like that actually accomplish? If Ledger's performance was a servicable Joker throughout the entire movie wearing just makeup then what would revealing that he is permanently that way actually do?
Maybe a Batman fan would care, but if I was watching a franchise unfamiliar to me and the "twist" was that the main villain's makeup was permanently stuck to his face then I would leave the theater with a huge "WTF" face.
It would be to the mainstream audience who think he's a psycho who's just been putting make up on all along.
Two things:
1. You seriously believe that only the people on this forum care about Joker being permawhite?
2. How do you know the mainstream audience wouldn't care? You can only speak for yourself. They could very well think it's a cool twist. And those who have seen Batman 89 would expect the Joker to permawhite, I imagine.
I think it's hilarious how stupid some of you people think the "general audience" is. They know Batman, and they know the Joker. They have this superpower called memory. It affords them the ability to say "Hey, Joker used to have white skin," and "Hey! I thought the Joker killed Batman's parents!"
This line about them knowing nothing beyond the characters names is absolutely laughable. Do you not understand the degree of cultural saturation Batman and the Joker have achieved?
I understand why it constitutes as a "twist," but my point is that it is not a worthwhile one and it wouldn't be consequential to the movie. At least M. Night Shyamalan's are part of the story, if generally ineffective; this would just be pointless.
I think it's hilarious how stupid some of you people think the "general audience" is. They know Batman, and they know the Joker. They have this superpower called memory. It affords them the ability to say "Hey, Joker used to have white skin," and "Hey! I thought the Joker killed Batman's parents!"
This line about them knowing nothing beyond the characters names is absolutely laughable. Do you not understand the degree of cultural saturation Batman and the Joker have achieved?
Given that in Batman '89 you rarely see any skin besides his face, I doubt many people are going to notice or care that this Joker's neck and hands are not white.
Memory only applies to things that are worth remembering, which a summer superhero film may not be for everyone. Every member of my family has been to the movies to see every Batman movie when they have come out and they don't remember any of the tiny details that fans like us do.
It is laughable that you expect the general audience to remember the details of a 20 year old summer blockbuster that was more or less a film people brought their kids to. I am not old enough to say that I can't remember a film 20 years ago (I was 2), but I can contest that I have seen plenty of summer blockbuster films that were fun when I saw them but I remember very little about: I can't tell you every scene of Con-Air, The Rock, Independence Day, E.T., Jurassic Park, and many others that I say I liked, but I liked them.
I remember the Batman films because I identify with the character but not everyone does; many consider the Batman films no different than any other blockbuster and most people in the general audience don't put quite the investment into those as avid film fans might.
People on any Batman related forum are not the mainstream audience. We are a core audience, one that is expected to be there, but the mainstream is those around us: mostly consisting of people who know nothing about Batman beyond his name and the Joker's.
That's where you're wrong. Batman 89 made Batman more than a mere name to the audience. Anyone who's seen that, and I imagine most people have at some time or another, either in the theatres, on DVD, or on TV, will know Joker was permawhite in it.
When my dad sees TDK, he will have no freaking clue that Ledger's joker has makeup and that Nicholson's didn't; he knows the character looks like a clown and that's it.
Did your dad miss the extremely obvious part where Nicholson fell into the chemicals and came out a bleached white clown? While Ledger's Joker is so obviously wearing make up, with it smearing off, a flesh neck, forehead coming thru the make up, smeared lipstick etc.
The mainstream audience wouldn't have seen Batman '89 for almost 2 decades, so I really doubt they remember very much about the movie.
I think it's hilarious how stupid some of you people think the "general audience" is. They know Batman, and they know the Joker. They have this superpower called memory. It affords them the ability to say "Hey, Joker used to have white skin," and "Hey! I thought the Joker killed Batman's parents!"
This line about them knowing nothing beyond the characters names is absolutely laughable. Do you not understand the degree of cultural saturation Batman and the Joker have achieved?
Given that in Batman '89 you rarely see any skin besides his face, I doubt many people are going to notice or care that this Joker's neck and hands are not white.
Memory only applies to things that are worth remembering, which a summer superhero film may not be for everyone. Every member of my family has been to the movies to see every Batman movie when they have come out and they don't remember any of the tiny details that fans like us do.
It is laughable that you expect the general audience to remember the details of a 20 year old summer blockbuster that was more or less a film people brought their kids to. I am not old enough to say that I can't remember a film 20 years ago (I was 2), but I can contest that I have seen plenty of summer blockbuster films that were fun when I saw them but I remember very little about: I can't tell you every scene of Con-Air, The Rock, Independence Day, E.T., Jurassic Park, and many others that I say I liked, but I liked them.
I remember the Batman films because I identify with the character but not everyone does; many consider the Batman films no different than any other blockbuster and most people in the general audience don't put quite the investment into those as avid film fans might.
Good point, and good counterpoint. I have to agree with both of you on this one. Everyone I know remembers that Joker was bleached in 89 hell the other day my mom said why does Joker wear makeup now, but that doesn't mean everyone will have the same reaction.
I don't doubt that the audience would remember, I just think they wouldn't really go "WOW. What a twist!". I mean, it would work as a minor surprise, something that will make the fans jump for joy and the audience go "Well, that's weird." Obviously, it's not really the BRUCE WILLIS IS A GHOST! kind of surprise.
That's where you're wrong. Batman 89 made Batman more than a mere name to the audience. Anyone who's seen that, and I imagine most people have at some time or another, either in the theatres, on DVD, or on TV, will know Joker was permawhite in it.
Did your dad miss the extremely obvious part where Nicholson fell into the chemicals and came out a bleached white clown?
No, but given there is no origin in TDK, why would he care either way? He isn't writing a thesis on why being permawhite is integral to the character of the Joker; if the Joker has a white face, then there is nothing out of the ordinary to be concerned about. It isn't like you see Jack Nicholson butt ass naked in all his permawhite glory: you see his face, neck, and possibly hands, though he wears gloves for most of it. So unless Ledger gets completely naked in this film, I doubt many people are going to complain about him not having a white neck and hands.
For much of the moviegoing public, YES. Especially in '89 when there was no Netflix. I've seen Batman '89 multiple times because I like Batman. Why the hell should anyone who isn't a Batman fan be bothered to watch it ever again?
The point is if a movie successfully begins with a made-up Joker, what would it gain from transforming him into a permawhite one? I am not justifying make up vs. permawhite, but we already know in this movie that he wears makeup, so what would the point be in changing that? If the movie successfully convinces audiences that this is the Joker without him being permawhite, then there is nothing gained by suddenly transforming him into a permawhite one. That is a totally separate arguement from the Joker being permawhite vs. wearing makeup from the beginning of the film.
I don't doubt that the audience would remember, I just think they wouldn't really go "WOW. What a twist!". I mean, it would work as a minor surprise, something that will make the fans jump for joy and the audience go "Well, that's weird." Obviously, it's not really the BRUCE WILLIS IS A GHOST! kind of surprise.
I agree with that. The movie-going public has tiers of knowledge: some of my posts are pointing out the bottom rung of people who don't remember anything, then of course there is a wide gradient of people in between that extreme and the other extreme consisting of many posters on this forum. Some people will remember that the Joker was permawhite (whether they care is another story) but I doubt anyone except that top tier of knowledgeable movie-goers would get off on a "twist" like that.
No, but given there is no origin in TDK, why would he care either way? He isn't writing a thesis on why being permawhite is integral to the character of the Joker; if the Joker has a white face, then there is nothing out of the ordinary to be concerned about.
But the look is entirely different. Ledger's Joker so obviously looks like he's wearing make up. It's smearing off, his flesh skin is showing thru his forehead, his neck is not painted white, the lipstick is smeared etc.
It's a dramatically different look. I love Ledger's look, but he looks like a dirty hobo clown. Anyone familiar with the Joker, comics or movie, will notice the difference right away.
It isn't like you see Jack Nicholson butt ass naked in all his permawhite glory: you see his face, neck, and possibly hands, though he wears gloves for most of it. So unless Ledger gets completely naked in this film, I doubt many people are going to complain about him not having a white neck and hands.
Nicholson's hand emerged from the chemicals bone white with green finger nails. Nicholson Joker was white on every inch of his body that was showing. He got water thrown in his face and it didn't wash away his white skin.
I don't think it needed to be spelled out in fifty foot high letters, do you?
We know there is at least one scene in the movie where Ledger's Joker is completely without his make up. We've seen the pics.
It's when he's dressed as a Cop.
That's why him actually turning out to be permawhite would be a twist, if we're led to believe he's not.
For much of the moviegoing public, YES. Especially in '89 when there was no Netflix. I've seen Batman '89 multiple times because I like Batman. Why the hell should anyone who isn't a Batman fan be bothered to watch it ever again?
There you go trying to speak for everyone else again. I'm not a Superman fan in any way, shape, or form. But I've seen his movies several times on TV over the years.
You seriously believe the general movie going audience has never seen Batman 89 several times over the years? You honestly believe you have to be a Batman fan to have seen it more than once?
The point is if a movie successfully begins with a made-up Joker, what would it gain from transforming him into a permawhite one?
For the umpteenth time, I don't know what twist it would serve. I'm not saying it's definitely going to happen. But I'm not discounting the possibility.
Nolan is infamous for misdirection and twists in his movies.
You can argue about how many mainstream fans know The Joker's skin always used to be white. But I think what's more pertinent is how many care.
Sure, the whole permawhite VS facepaint issue has been huge here on the Hype. But in all the mainstream articles on the film I've read in Empire, Total Film, Entertainment Weekly, MTV, all the newspaper articles from around the world, etc etc, you want to know the number of times I've seen the issue of The Joker not being permawhite raised?
You can argue about how many mainstream fans know The Joker's skin always used to be white. But I think what's more pertinent is how many care.
Sure, the whole permawhite VS facepaint issue has been huge here on the Hype. But in all the mainstream articles on the film I've read in Empire, Total Film, Entertainment Weekly, MTV, all the newspaper articles from around the world, etc etc, you want to know the number of times I've seen the issue of The Joker not being permawhite raised?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
