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

[ronny]

It's not been so bad on more recent pages of the thread, but I just want to say...why do some people feel the need to bash Jack Nicholson's Joker to praise Heath Ledger's Joker?

Because certain people like speaking ill of Ledger? In fact, one idiot even highjacked a thread dedicated to the mans death.
The problem is that when they start insulting Ledger people insult Nicholson, this just makes more people insult Ledger and so more insult Nicholson. It's an endless loop of slander, misinformation and bitterness.
Do you think though, that if Ledger really blows us away, I mean nails the role, that people will think of him as the best Joker on screen? Or, as is likely, will they keep saying that Nicholson was better? No, not based on the acting, but because Batman was made in 1989 and to them "OLD=GOOD".
Is that what'll happen? Rose tinted glasses block out honesty.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

I like Heath and Jack equally, they are both great for the film they are in

 

[Damiean Dark]

It's not been so bad on more recent pages of the thread, but I just want to say...why do some people feel the need to bash Jack Nicholson's Joker to praise Heath Ledger's Joker?

If, like many believe, Heath Ledger is going to set the new benchmark for comic book movie villains, then its the benchmark set by Nicholson 19 years ago he has to top.

Only immature ultra fanboys bash nicolson in such a way most people know my views on BB and heath as choice as joker but i never personally abused the man himself scum here that call jack names like "disgusting fat man" "he must have dementia" ect are what the word losers are made for.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

I bet this discussion will go on long after TDK is out *grins*

 

[ultimatefan]

It's not been so bad on more recent pages of the thread, but I just want to say...why do some people feel the need to bash Jack Nicholson's Joker to praise Heath Ledger's Joker?

If, like many believe, Heath Ledger is going to set the new benchmark for comic book movie villains, then its the benchmark set by Nicholson 19 years ago he has to top.

And where exactly did I bash Nicholson? He was perfect for THAT particular take on Joker, now it´s time for another take, that´s all I said. Some people may prefer his established origin in 89, and that´s fine, but some of us love the idea of the absolute, unsolved mystery, no defined origin Joker, as has been done by many fine comics writers BTW.

 

[Kokoryu1]

They're both fine actors who probably did different takes on an established character. I doubt Heath tried to be Nicholson. Not to get off topic too much but if there is another movie with the Joker in it, who gets the role?

 

[Drummerdude7]

I bet this discussion will go on long after TDK is out *grins*

it has been days and yet your avvy is still making me chuckle

 

[Keyser Soze]

NinjaTurtleFan wrote a longer, very interesting post in another thread. But it was just this paragraph I wanted to respond to, and felt it was pertinent to this thread:

Realism and believability is fine when it's characters like Rahs, Penguin, Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Ventriloquist, Firefly, and others but a character like The Joker---is pure fantasy. What Nolan has done with him to me is just took a serial killer, gave him "war paint" as one of the bank robbers in the prologue describes him, and that's it. He's Joker in name and his actions only, but he's not really Joker with the makeup face. The hair and the suit make him Joker, but his appearance does not make him Joker.

See, this is a line of thinking that I continually dislike. It's one thing to say you don't like this Joker, or you prefer Jack's Joker, or you'd rather we got a more comic-accurate Joker, but I hate it when people say "This isn't The Joker."

It's like saying anyone who DOES like it doesn't really "get" The Joker, or worse, that anyone who could possibly accept TDK Joker is not a "true fan" of the character. Not saying that's what NTF intended here, but that always seems to be the implication when I read such a post. I like to think I "get" The Joker, and that I'm as much a fan of the character as anyone else here. And I don't know how, after watching that trailer - permawhite or not - you could look at Heath Ledger on the screen and not say "That's The Joker." He just seems to capture the spirit of the character perfectly.

Later in his post, NinjaTurtleFan says something like, everything will be okay if at the end he gets the chemical bath and his skin turns white. And that just baffled me. Like, he's okay with everything else about this Joker, but its just the lack of permawhite alone that makes him not Joker?

Picture this. Imagine NinjaTurtleFan were to watch the EXACT same film as us, with The Joker saying and doing the EXACT same thing throughout the whole film, only the version he watches has a slight CGI altering, making the skin on Joker's neck and arms permanently white. Does that mean, despite seeing the same film and the same performance, NTF saw The Joker, and we just saw a lame fraud who bears no relation to Joker whatsoever?

By saying that The Joker is only The Joker by being permawhite, its like saying his epic rivalry with Batman does not define his character. His insanity does not define his character. His laugh does not define his character. The Killing Joke did not define his character. Crippling Barbara Gordon, one bad day, "It's all a joke! Everything anyone ever valued or fought for, its all a monstrous, demented gag!", none of that means diddly squat in defining the character. The only thing in Joker's storied history that singles him out as The Joker is that little one panel at the end of his second appearance, where he has his shirt off, that shows he has white skin. Everything else....meh, that could be any old serial killer...

 

[JStorm]

I have this image of Ledger falling into a vat of Clorox and becoming albino.

 

[Drummerdude7]

I have this image of Ledger falling into a vat of Clorox and becoming albino.

oMg teh jOker IS PeRmAwHitE!
can u lyke.......pM that 2 mE?

 

[JStorm]

oMg teh jOker IS PeRmAwHitE!
can u lyke.......pM that 2 mE?

I would - but the image is in my head.

"Is it secret; is it safe?"

 

[Crook]

It's like saying anyone who DOES like it doesn't really "get" The Joker, or worse, that anyone who could possibly accept TDK Joker is not a "true fan" of the character.

*wonders if any Schumacher/60s Batman fans have read the boards these past few years and felt the same way*

By saying that The Joker is only The Joker by being permawhite, its like saying his epic rivalry with Batman does not define his character. His insanity does not define his character. His laugh does not define his character. The Killing Joke did not define his character. Crippling Barbara Gordon, one bad day, "It's all a joke! Everything anyone ever valued or fought for, its all a monstrous, demented gag!", none of that means diddly squat in defining the character. The only thing in Joker's storied history that singles him out as The Joker is that little one panel at the end of his second appearance, where he has his shirt off, that shows he has white skin. Everything else....meh, that could be any old serial killer...

I always thought of it as "pieces that make up a whole", with some pieces being more significant than the other. Say we leave out permawhite, and substitute in similarly glaring traits of Joker; like the trademark laugh, morbid humor, or even just the green hair. If everything else was nailed about the character, but these things were missing, I don't know, I'd be more inclined to say "this is a pale imitation" rather than "great, it's absolutely perfect". Not saying this is the case here with Heath, but just a bit of insight of where I think others are coming from.

That´s already pretty much the Jack Nicholson version, and there´s no reason to bring Joker back if you don´t bring some kind of new approach to the table.

Man, you always bring this up. Is it that hard to believe "old" concepts can be interpreted new ways, without it being a retread of previous angles?

Seriously, there are so many things in BB that have been done in previous batmovies, but I don't see people calling it a rip-off. And that's largely because they differentiated itself enough not be looked at in the same way, despite using very similar elements in the narrative.

This applies to Joker's (possible) backstory, Batman's character, the villain's plot, Gordon's moustache....freakin' anything.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I like Heath and Jack equally, they are both great for the film they are in

This is exactly how Ive felt since the beginning, theyre two different interpretations of the character, so its more than alright to like them both equally.

 

[DANNYSVA]

Agree/disagree:

Portraying Joker without the chemical bath is similar to having Bruce Wayne become Batman without the murder of his parents.

I can understand what Nolan is doing and I really enjoy his realistic take on the franchise, but I gather that a lot of people feel the Joker isn't really the same homicidal clown they love without the chemical dip.

BTW, these discussions really help the day go by at work. Keep up the good work.

 

[MechaOrga]

This is exactly how Ive felt since the beginning, theyre two different interpretations of the character, so its more than alright to like them both equally.

of course it is! here here!!!!t:t:

(lets us not forget that we havent seen the movie yet so we really CANT compare the two performances YET. Soon....soon...

On a different note, I hear some posters calling heath's Joker just a serial killer with paint on. I would call him more of a homicidal Anarchist.

He is much smarter and his intentions much deeper than your run of the millm serial Killer.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Agree/disagree:

Portraying Joker without the chemical bath is similar to having Bruce Wayne become Batman without the murder of his parents.

I can understand what Nolan is doing and I really enjoy his realistic take on the franchise, but I gather that a lot of people feel the Joker isn't really the same homicidal clown they love without the chemical dip.

BTW, these discussions really help the day go by at work. Keep up the good work.

Another interesting argument that has cropped up before, but another one I completely disagree with.

Batman and The Joker are the antithesis of one another in so many ways. And one way they are, I feel, is that while Batman is defined and shaped by his past, The Joker's past is unknown, irrelevant even. Maybe he was an unfortunate victim of fate, maybe he's always been a monster, who knows?

The way I see it, Nolan is exploring this aspect of The Joker, and taking it up a notch. As through all these contradictory stories, what is the one thing concrete about The Joker's history? The chemical bath! And by giving The Joker white facepaint, Nolan has even taken that away, our one little foothold into who The Joker is and what might have made him this way.

So now he is a complete enigma. We were given an hour to be introduced to Bruce Wayne, and delve into his motivations, before he became Batman. The Joker just walks into town, already fully-formed. No origin, no backstory. He just....is.

I like this approach, and agree with it. The one point where I DISAGREE with Nolan, is I think you could have had The Joker just appear with permawhite skin, with no origin, and it still could have worked. But I can see why Nolan went the route he did, and it works his way too.

 

[NevahEvahLand]

Only immature ultra fanboys bash nicolson in such a way most people know my views on BB and heath as choice as joker but i never personally abused the man himself scum here that call jack names like "disgusting fat man" "he must have dementia" ect are what the word losers are made for.

Yeah, I hate that too.

screw anyone who's insulting this great actor, to hell with some druggy that killed himself yes heath, jack is great heath ain't *****

forget these nolan asses, jack owns the role and from what ive seen in the trailer, which looks pathetic, ledger just looks like an ICP clown, not Joker. wheres jack when you need him? not sayin that im not open to change, but cmon, not perma white? looks like caked on bad makeup? wtf? he looks sh**. why couldnt they just do a classic approach to the character? instead we HAD to get grungy punkass loser joker? who wants that? not me....i guess in a bid to be "different from jacks joker", they went in a VERY different direction, and frankly im unhappy with it. this is something that fans are gonna either love or hate. jack was the Ultimate Joker, his version was CLASSIC, from the complete white clown face with the permanent smile, to the classy, flashy purple suits he wore, he was pure Classic Joker, and from the looks of it, always will be. pick up any joker comic and you'll see what i mean. looks like they got the inspiration for the new joker from The Batman cartoon, which is terrible.

Heath Ledger is a horrible choice for the Joker, he has never been able to act well at all and is going to make a mockery of the character (though may he rest in piece).

 

[MillsOfGod]

Another interesting argument that has cropped up before, but another one I completely disagree with.

Batman and The Joker are the antithesis of one another in so many ways. And one way they are, I feel, is that while Batman is defined and shaped by his past, The Joker's past is unknown, irrelevant even. Maybe he was an unfortunate victim of fate, maybe he's always been a monster, who knows?

The way I see it, Nolan is exploring this aspect of The Joker, and taking it up a notch. As through all these contradictory stories, what is the one thing concrete about The Joker's history? The chemical bath! And by giving The Joker white facepaint, Nolan has even taken that away, our one little foothold into who The Joker is and what might have made him this way.

So now he is a complete enigma. We were given an hour to be introduced to Bruce Wayne, and delve into his motivations, before he became Batman. The Joker just walks into town, already fully-formed. No origin, no backstory. He just....is.

I like this approach, and agree with it. The one point where I DISAGREE with Nolan, is I think you could have had The Joker just appear with permawhite skin, with no origin, and it still could have worked. But I can see why Nolan went the route he did, and it works his way too.

That's a good thing? I mean, the Joker has never had an identity in any element, while in the comic books. I don't like the way he was portrayed in the 89 film as having an identity, but even so, I think this is taking MORE liberties with the character.

Not only does he not have perma-white (if that's what we're to assume from the pics), but he appears in the film with his make-up off. It's almost like what one other poster said: You can't take away a fundamental aspect of the Joker and make everything else 100% because it's not the Joker. I mean, heck, a fundamental element is at least 30% to 40%. A Joker without perma-white is a 60% Joker IF everything else is correct. Take away another 10% for facial scars. That leaves you with a 50% Joker. The clown from "IT" was more than 50% the Joker. So, yeah, that 50% of other fundamental character elements is important, and if he was perma-white WITHOUT those, he still wouldn't be the Joker. But do we really want to settle for a 50% Joker?

I have no qualms with people accepting the changes in the film...but I can't fathom people defending them.

Edit: I do believe Batman was about a 90% Batman, which is about as good as you can expect.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Yeah, I hate that too.

Hello Damiean Dark.

Didn't you get banned for (once again) disrespecting Heath Ledger and flame-baiting those mourning his death/remembering his life?

Isn't creating a new account while prob-banned an offense that can lead to a more severe punishment?

 

[Keyser Soze]

That's a good thing? I mean, the Joker has never had an identity in any element, while in the comic books. I don't like the way he was portrayed in the 89 film as having an identity, but even so, I think this is taking MORE liberties with the character.

Not only does he not have perma-white (if that's what we're to assume from the pics), but he appears in the film with his make-up off. It's almost like what one other poster said: You can't take away a fundamental aspect of the Joker and make everything else 100% because it's not the Joker. I mean, heck, a fundamental element is at least 30% to 40%. A Joker without perma-white is a 60% Joker IF everything else is correct. Take away another 10% for facial scars. That leaves you with a 50% Joker. The clown from "IT" was more than 50% the Joker. So, yeah, that 50% of other fundamental character elements is important, and if he was perma-white WITHOUT those, he still wouldn't be the Joker. But do we really want to settle for a 50% Joker?

I have no qualms with people accepting the changes in the film...but I can't fathom people defending them.

Edit: I do believe Batman was about a 90% Batman, which is about as good as you can expect.

Well, I'm first inclined to say capturing the spirit of a character in adaptation isn't a maths quiz.

Though, if it were, I think the ratio of things Nolan and co HAVE got right far outweighs the proportion of things they've got wrong. Taking 40% for one "flaw" seems a bit much. Seems like you're swelling the number to match to your own personal disappointment over the loss of permawhite.

I see it more like this. The Joker, as we're getting him, seems to be a great big, delicious cake. Only, without permawhite, they didn't put the icing on top. Or, more appropriately, they DID put icing on top, but the icing is the wrong color. Looking at this cake with the wrong-colored icing, I'm disappointed a bit, as its not quite as aesthetically pleasing as I would have liked. But then I take a bite, and remember that all icing tastes the same, and the cake's still just as delicious as it would have been with my favorite color of icing.

The cake is still a cake. And The Joker is still The Joker.

 

[NevahEvahLand]

Hello Damiean Dark.

Didn't you get banned for (once again) disrespecting Heath Ledger and flame-baiting those mourning his death/remembering his life?

Isn't creating a new account while prob-banned an offense that can lead to a more severe punishment?

????

If you read my post, I was trying to point out to Damiean that Heath, like Jack, is unfairly bashed.

 

[FhFgJg]

I know this has been said, but i think understand what some are saying about Nolan choosing to not use Perma-white Joker as an artistic stance rather than a realistic stance.

Now i won't go into the depths of the possibility or accuracy of how you would make a man have perfect white skin from an acid scarring...b/c im sure it could be achieved in some way. Whether or not it would acheive the look of comics Joker...well, that's debatable. But I think i understand why Nolan would choose to make the Joker a normal man with face paint. It's not so much realism as much as it is just symbolic of his insanity.

He has an obvious physical deformity from a scar on his face...but he chooses to look like a clown make it worse. He doesn't have to do this, but he chooses to be what he is. Like Batman, his decision to be an extremist is anything but mandatory. And i think Nolan sees it as a perfect opposite. While on one hand you have Batman who is am who tries to be something extraordinary and fight crime in a battle he shouldn't be able to win, on another hand you have the Joker, who for some reason chooses to embrace an anarchic and psychopathic nature.

 

[Crook]

I see it more like this. The Joker, as we're getting him, seems to be a great big, delicious cake. Only, without permawhite, they didn't put the icing on top. Or, more appropriately, they DID put icing on top, but the icing is the wrong color. Looking at this cake with the wrong-colored icing, I'm disappointed a bit, as its not quite as aesthetically pleasing as I would have liked. But then I take a bite, and remember that all icing tastes the same, and the cake's still just as delicious as it would have been with my favorite color of icing.

The cake is still a cake. And The Joker is still The Joker.

I think that's grossly undermining the significance of his bleached skin. The icing would be more likened to his purple clothing, his pranks, or his theatrical and goofy side.

????

If you read my post, I was trying to point out to Damiean that Heath, like Jack, is unfairly bashed.

Lol.

 

[Keyser Soze]

????

If you read my post, I was trying to point out to Damiean that Heath, like Jack, is unfairly bashed.

True, my apologies.

On first reading, I thought you were agreeing with Damiean Dark, then quoting a bunch of other quotes that reflected your own opinion. But I see what you were getting at now.

Sorry for saying you were Damiean Dark. Just with you joining so soon after he was banned, and with how I originally interpreted your post, I jumped to conclusions.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I think that's grossly undermining the significance of his bleached skin. The icing would be more likened to his purple clothing, his pranks, or his theatrical and goofy side.

No, those are the patterns placed on the icing.