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

[Solidus]

A lot of people have made an iteresting journey, or retreat, over the last few years.

It used to be commonly heard that The Joker was the greatest villain in comics, and that Chris Nolan would be the man to finally do the character justice by adapting him faithfully from the comics to screen.

When he failed to do that, the same posters lied that they never really thought that much of the original, and that it clearly needed to be altered, and thank goodness Nolan did so.

Of course in your opinion. I think that he has been the most faithful so far. Yes there are some changes, but to me very minor ones. That the spirit of the character is alive and well, and stronger to me then in previous incarnations.

 

[Matchbox]

A lot of people have made an iteresting journey, or retreat, over the last few years.

It used to be commonly heard that The Joker was the greatest villain in comics, and that Chris Nolan would be the man to finally do the character justice by adapting him faithfully from the comics to screen.

When he failed to do that, the same posters lied that they never really thought that much of the original, and that it clearly needed to be altered, and thank goodness Nolan did so.

Why is it that he "failed" to do that? I've seen you post this several times over the course of this thread. Is it that Nolan tried, but couldn't muster the ability to faithfully bring The Joker to the big screen or is it that he chose to take a different creative approach to certain visual aspects of the character? Who are these posters that lied so badly? I'm sure there were some, but you make it sound like it was the majority or anyone who likes Nolan's interpretation.

 

[The Guard]

I don't think the comic origin of the Joker is really that shallow. I don't think you could call it shallow because we don't have enough information on it.

That's exactly why I call it shallow. There's nothing to it. It's just an event that caused The Joker to become insane and evil. There's no thematic relevance to a chemical bath and what he later becomes, it's just that "mad scientist" vein of storytelling. And I find that shallow and relatively uninteresting in terms of character development and motivation.

"I became evil and insane because I fell into chemicals that made evil and insane".

No one knows exactly how the Joker came to be, we only know he was bleached, and that that event was the "tipping point" for his sanity.

When you say "no one knows exactly", you're clearly ignoring the chemical bath origin which has become canon.

However, we have no idea what happened before that. He could have been abused as a child, beaten, or been a witness to his parents murder. He could have grown up in poverty, lost loved ones, or he simply could have been a man born a sociopath.

He could have been. But you know, I'm pretty sure that if writers wanted us to think this, that this is how The Joker would have been portrayed by now. I submit the following:

What's wrong with the portrayal of a Joker as a completely levelheaded person who was not abused, molested, and did not experience any great trauma, but was simply a man with a particular worldview who became a terrible person through his actions, and made things worse as he went further into becoming that kind of a person.

We have no idea what proceeded the chemical bath.

Depth that "could conceiveably be there" or that could be imagined is not literary depth. So it's still a shallow concept.

I myself like to imagine that multiple things happened to the Joker throughout his life besides his "one bad day" that lead to the breaking of his mental state, and that's the nice thing about that origin. We can speculate because it's never been set in stone. In that way I think the Joker's origin can be very deep.

It could be. But it isn't. Imagining the way something could be does not change what it is.

Now, while I agree that someone who makes himself a freak is also a freak, I think Nolan really missed an opportunity to add to the Joker's character with the Permawhite thing. Nolan has said he wants to make the Joker more mysterious in this one. I think it would add to his mystique if he simply appeared in the movie with bleached skin and it's never fully explained.

I agree wholeheartedly that a permawhite Joker would be more mysterious, simply because he's permawhite. However, it might not be more thematically relevant to the character as Nolan wants to present him. I.E, "The Joker makes himself". Granted, there are ways around that, too, even with permawhite.

You could show how it affects the people in Gotham. Maybe frenzied people begin to say that Joker is more then human like Batman. That he's a monster, some kind of demon that was born looking like a psychotic clown. In my own opinion, I think Nolan missed out on a valuable opportunity to explore the perma-white option more then it's ever been examined, and add another layer to Joker's character.

I can kind of see that. But I would imagine that on any real level, people would care more about what The Joker does than what he looks like.

 

[Keyser Soze]

A lot of people have made an iteresting journey, or retreat, over the last few years.

It used to be commonly heard that The Joker was the greatest villain in comics, and that Chris Nolan would be the man to finally do the character justice by adapting him faithfully from the comics to screen.

When he failed to do that, the same posters lied that they never really thought that much of the original, and that it clearly needed to be altered, and thank goodness Nolan did so.

I, for one, have never been one to dismiss comics Joker. Comics Joker is awesome. I too find it puzzling when some people make posts like "Well I never really liked The Joker how he is in the comics anyway."

My rationale for liking The Joker in "The Dark Knight" isn't that I'm glad Nolan completely altered it. I don't think the alterations are all that radical, and I certainly don't see them as the result of failure. I like this take on The Joker because, to me, it just seems so true to the spirit of the comics Joker I love so much.

I wasn't keen on the cut-smile or The Joker not being permawhite in CONCEPT, but in EXECUTION I think they've both come across very well. They're not how I'd have done The Joker, but I've been won over by them. That's not me saying I reject comics Joker. It's just saying that, for this world, for Nolan's Gotham, I think it's a great fit.

 

[The Guard]

A lot of people have made an iteresting journey, or retreat, over the last few years.

It used to be commonly heard that The Joker was the greatest villain in comics, and that Chris Nolan would be the man to finally do the character justice by adapting him faithfully from the comics to screen.

When he failed to do that, the same posters lied that they never really thought that much of the original, and that it clearly needed to be altered, and thank goodness Nolan did so.

To a point. But I think most people were talking about The Joker's dark, murderous nature more than his permawhite element.

 

[Solidus]

I don't think the comic origin of the Joker is really that shallow. I don't think you could call it shallow because we don't have enough information on it. No one knows exactly how the Joker came to be, we only know he was bleached, and that that event was the "tipping point" for his sanity.

However, we have no idea what happened before that. He could have been abused as a child, beaten, or been a witness to his parents murder. He could have grown up in poverty, lost loved ones, or he simply could have been a man born a sociopath. We have no idea what proceeded the chemical bath. I myself like to imagine that multiple things happened to the Joker throughout his life besides his "one bad day" that lead to the breaking of his mental state, and that's the nice thing about that origin. We can speculate because it's never been set in stone. In that way I think the Joker's origin can be very deep.

Now, while I agree that someone who makes himself a freak is also a freak, I think Nolan really missed an opportunity to add to the Joker's character with the Permawhite thing. Nolan has said he wants to make the Joker more mysterious in this one. I think it would add to his mystique if he simply appeared in the movie with bleached skin and it's never fully explained. People would wonder what happened to this man, how did he become like this, did he do this to himself or did someone do it to him? It makes him more of a monster because his physical appearance reflects his mental state. You could make it even a small mystery in the movie itself, with

You could show how it affects the people in Gotham. Maybe frenzied people begin to say that Joker is more then human like Batman. That he's a monster, some kind of demon that was born looking like a psychotic clown. In my own opinion, I think Nolan missed out on a valuable opportunity to explore the perma-white option more then it's ever been examined, and add another layer to Joker's character.

I honestly don't think that is what TG was trying to say. Of course The Joker has a very deep origin. No doubts there. But the people that claim the chemical bath is what truly transformed him is shallow. Some people believe, *which is fine if they do* that only the chemical bath is the core of this character, and it created the monster that we now as the Joker. And he is stating that it was 95% more of that "one bad day" as in TKJ.

As I have stated many times before, the physical deformation whether it be scaring or permawhite is definably the cherry on the top, but the cherry none the less. There is so much more to the Joker then an acid bath, or scars on his face. I think what Nolan is trying to prove with TDK, is how I have always seen the Joker, a much deeper psychological villain, showing the darkness of man, and what darkness man can achieve.

So in end how I see it and TG was trying to state was that making it just the Chemical bath be the only aspect that creates the Joker, or even the big aspect is shallow in his eyes, and as well as mine. To me it was just like you explained in your well written post that there was SOOOOO much to it besides the chemical bath. It truly was about the bad day more so. And the mental changing and choices the Joker made.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

That's exactly why I call it shallow. There's nothing to it. It's just an event that caused The Joker to become insane and evil. There's no thematic relevance to a chemical bath and what he later becomes, it's just that "mad scientist" vein of storytelling. And I find that shallow and relatively uninteresting in terms of character development and motivation.

"I became evil and insane because I fell into chemicals that made evil and insane".

That only applies to some versions of the origin. Case Study (my favorite take on the Joker's beginning) says that the Joker was already evil long before his chemical bath and never went insane.

 

[Boom]

I really like how the graphic novel "Arkham Asylum" explains The Joker's psychosis. That he has reached some sort of "super sanity".

 

[SpiderB]

A lot of people have made an iteresting journey, or retreat, over the last few years.

It used to be commonly heard that The Joker was the greatest villain in comics, and that Chris Nolan would be the man to finally do the character justice by adapting him faithfully from the comics to screen.

When he failed to do that, the same posters lied that they never really thought that much of the original, and that it clearly needed to be altered, and thank goodness Nolan did so.

Just because someone's opinion differs from yours doesn't make them a liar.

 

[deathfromabove]

A lot of people have made an iteresting journey, or retreat, over the last few years.

It used to be commonly heard that The Joker was the greatest villain in comics, and that Chris Nolan would be the man to finally do the character justice by adapting him faithfully from the comics to screen.

When he failed to do that, the same posters lied that they never really thought that much of the original, and that it clearly needed to be altered, and thank goodness Nolan did so.

failed? how was the movie? dont leave us hanging since you must have obviously seen it to make a statement like that.

and please dont generalize. you have a tendancy to lump everyone that doesnt agree with you into one huge mega poster.

so i ask you can you find one , just one , example of someone who has expressed this journey, or retreat as you say? one person. not the consensus, groupthink, or different posters. one person

if one superficial (and it is superficial. look up the word before you argue) change is enough to throw you off the track how do you even read the books?

its like the expression says "minds are like parachutes. they only work when they are open."

 

[The Guard]

That only applies to some versions of the origin. Case Study (my favorite take on the Joker's beginning) says that the Joker was already evil long before his chemical bath and never went insane.

Yeah, I like it, too. I thought of The Joker as more along those lines before that story was ever written or likely conceived. Truth be told, many writers have hinted at it. I don't believe The Joker is insane at all. You're preaching to the choir here. But the mythology shows that The Joker fell into chemicals and became The Joker. Since there is nothing before that but a normal mobster or a failed comedian, not a supercriminal like he is after he becomes The Joker due to the chemicals, that's what we have to go with. I would love it if the opposite was true.

I'm not saying a film can't take a different tack to the character. I'm saying that the comic book mythology doesn't. A BLACK AND WHITE story does not a change in continuity make.

And "One bad day", while fascinating, might as well be as shallow as the chemical bath. It's that uber-quick transformation that changes an ordinary man into a mad scientist. It's still relatively shallow, a bit cliche in terms of motivation, and not all that deep. The Joker is not Two-Face. There is no struggle with good and evil, so him being a normal person once, and having some tragic descent into madness...really doesn't carry that much weight. Not saying it carries none. Just not that much.

I think my main problem is that the chemical bath, the "one bad day", these just serve as excuses for The Joker's actions. I don't want the character to have his excuse his actions. I want him not to care.

 

[Solidus]

Another way I always look at it is this. No matter what, after that one bad day, no matter what happens he will always "mentally" be the Joker. I think many fear him having make up because when it comes off, they think right away he is no longer the Joker.

And to me Nolan is touching ground that really has not been touched much in the question of the character of the Joker. Its like he's adding something that never has been talked of much.

Just like TDKR, the whole message behind that with the characters was that no matter what, when crime no longer exists, Bruce still will always be Batman, whether he likes it or not. Two-Face no matter what, you can turn him into a normal man, and he will still be mentally Two-Face. And the same I believe with the Joker. Even if there was some crazy science stuff that could make the Joker in the comics normal looking again....would the Joker ever be normal? No. He would not. He would still be the cackling nut job, and then even in the comics he would probably put on make up to look like a clown because thats all he sees himself as no matter what. Permawhite or no.

To me the Joker is so much deeper then a physical deformation. It truly is mainly the insanity of his mind. And with in that mind, perma or no, he believes he is a clown, a Joker to the world. And he will always dress and look accordingly to that.

EDIT: And to reply to TG, I guess to me the "one bad day" was what pushed him to the edge. To me for some one to become that insane would require the person to be kinda insane already. And that the one bad day was just the blooming part. Just like in TKJ that one bad day did not change Gordon. So to me there is more to the Joker, he must of had something wrong with his mind prior to the one bad day.

 

[Kokoryu1]

Stop the sensless arguing. Here's your Joker. He has that psycho believability and he's bleached! What else do you want?!

 

[deathfromabove]

im skerred

 

[The Guard]

EDIT: And to reply to TG, I guess to me the "one bad day" was what pushed him to the edge. To me for some one to become that insane would require the person to be kinda insane already. And that the one bad day was just the blooming part. Just like in TKJ that one bad day did not change Gordon. So to me there is more to the Joker, he must of had something wrong with his mind prior to the one bad day.

That's part of the reason I don't buy "One bad day". There's nothing shown there beforehand.

 

[Solidus]

That's part of the reason I don't buy "One bad day". There's nothing shown there beforehand.

Exactly what I have always thought what Moore was trying to say with TKJ. That it did not change Gordon. So to me the Joker was lying that one bad day made him who he was. And to me Gordon proved that to the Joker. That there is much more to his mind/sanity prior to the "bad day" I always saw the bad day as the blooming effect. Where it fully brought the Joker to life. But still he may have been a guy that killed people before the bad day. Moore left that open for interpretation.

 

[nickyg641]

What I find funny is Chris Nolan's brother who is the main script writer for this, is a huge comic/batman fan. Chris said his brother was the one that got him into it all.

If Jonathan Nolan is such a huge fan I wonder what was going through his head when he agreed or came up with Joker painting his face instead of being permawhite all over.

I thought about that, too.

It would actually, for some reason, make me feel a lot better if I knew that there was at least some dissent on the subject. To know that there was someone vying for my point of view makes me feel less like the idea was completely tossed aside altogether.

 

[Solidus]

I thought about that, too.

It would actually, for some reason, make me feel a lot better if I knew that there was at least some dissent on the subject. To know that there was someone vying for my point of view makes me feel less like the idea was completely tossed aside altogether.

And see that may very well mean, that J. Nolan did not just decide it for the heck of it. They must of had a very good reason, and a deep reason to do what they did with the Joker.

And I see great depth in TDK's Joker.

 

[The Guard]

But still he may have been a guy that killed people before the bad day. Moore left that open for interpretation.

Not really. I mean, I suppose it's POSSIBLE, but given the character he presented, I doubt it.

 

[Solidus]

Not really. I mean, I suppose it's POSSIBLE, but given the character he presented, I doubt it.

And thats fine. I guess everyone has different views on certain comics. To me its the possibility. But regardless the history of the Joker before the "bad day" could be so many things. Like the famous multiple choice line. It could be anything and I always imagine different ideas of what he may have been like prior.

 

[Matchbox]

I thought about that, too.

It would actually, for some reason, make me feel a lot better if I knew that there was at least some dissent on the subject. To know that there was someone vying for my point of view makes me feel less like the idea was completely tossed aside altogether.

I would love for the whole creative decision making process to be hashed out again on the Dark Knight DVD. It would be so cool to have the Nolan brothers, Bale, and the rest of the main cast share their thoughts on things such as Joker's visual style as well as the batsuit design and Two-Face's characterization.

 

[Infinity9999x]

That's exactly why I call it shallow. There's nothing to it. It's just an event that caused The Joker to become insane and evil. There's no thematic relevance to a chemical bath and what he later becomes, it's just that "mad scientist" vein of storytelling. And I find that shallow and relatively uninteresting in terms of character development and motivation.

"I became evil and insane because I fell into chemicals that made evil and insane".



When you say "no one knows exactly", you're clearly ignoring the chemical bath origin which has become canon.



He could have been. But you know, I'm pretty sure that if writers wanted us to think this, that this is how The Joker would have been portrayed by now. I submit the following:

What's wrong with the portrayal of a Joker as a completely levelheaded person who was not abused, molested, and did not experience any great trauma, but was simply a man with a particular worldview who became a terrible person through his actions, and made things worse as he went further into becoming that kind of a person.



Depth that "could conceiveably be there" or that could be imagined is not literary depth. So it's still a shallow concept.



It could be. But it isn't. Imagining the way something could be does not change what it is.

Yes, the chemical bath is canon, but it's also canon that we have no idea what preceded the chemical bath. The Joker himself says in TKJ "If I must have a past, I prefer it multiple choice!" We have no idea what the Joker's past was before the bath. He could have been a struggling stand up comedian, or he could have been an intelligent catburgular that had his face sliced by batman before he fell into a vat a chemicals.

I wasn't ignoring anything. I was simply saying that beyond the chemical bath, we don't know what else happened to Joker. We only know that the chemical bath was the tipping point, and that is Canon, as provided by The Killing Joke. Now, the Joker was trying to make the point that only one bad day was what drove him insane, but, like others have said, I think he was wrong in this. He obviously can't remember all that happened in his past, and I think there were many other instances that screwed him up before the chemical bath. There's nothing to support this, that's true, but there's also nothing in canon to disprove it either. Because, even though "one bad day" was Joker's point in TKJ, TKJ itself makes the point that the one bad day may never have even happened.

I agree wholeheartedly that a permawhite Joker would be more mysterious, simply because he's permawhite. However, it might not be more thematically relevant to the character as Nolan wants to present him. I.E, "The Joker makes himself". Granted, there are ways around that, too, even with permawhite.



I can kind of see that. But I would imagine that on any real level, people would care more about what The Joker does than what he looks like.

Oh yes, I agree with that, I don't mean to imply that the people should focus on his looks, only that, in their fanatic hysteria following the acts the Joker commits, people start saying things like "he's a demon! A monster! He's not human!" And their beliefs are reinforced because his skin coloring is so different from any other normal human.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I was thinking, since retcons happen all the time in comics, what if this new version is actually cooler and better than the original?

I mean, batman acquired a grapple gun, Spiderman organic web shooters, Clark Kent became more dynamic and stopped being a dork, etc. Some changes were huge and one of them is definitely Clark's.

So what if this new Joker is better and the audience likes it more? All we know so far is that this is makeup which he removes in one scene. But we dont know anything more. We dont know how its gonna be handled for the rest of the film, so who knows?

Last but not least, i know that many people, like me like the new look more than the old one.

This:

from this:
And you know that those rotten eyes cant be acquired with an acid bath.

In the end, we all know that it wont happen. Maybe in some one-off story but i dont see the Nolan-Joker replacing the original one. So why dont we just chill and enjoy something new for a while? Cause if change was forbidden, we would still be having the Golden Age comics.

So lets accept an innovation like a different truck design for Optimus, like the batmobile being a tank and stuff? Both of these redeemed themselves on screen. Who knows? Maybe Nolan has something up his sleeve that makes makeup > permawhite. And after we see we can judge how powerful or not it was.

While I wouldn't want The Joker to become non-permawhite in the comics, more generally speaking, I wouldn't mind them tinkering with his look to make him fit the film more. I think updating The Joker's wardrobe into the more modern cut of clothing he wears in "The Dark Knight" could be a good change. And not one that's out of the question, as I've already seen certain artists do it.

 

[Banquet]

Oh yes, I agree with that, I don't mean to imply that the people should focus on his looks, only that, in their fanatic hysteria following the acts the Joker commits, people start saying things like "he's a demon! A monster! He's not human!" And their beliefs are reinforced because his skin coloring is so different from any other normal human.

I find it all the more disturbing that he can remove the discoloring in Nolan's version. That it's a choice to "play up" his disfigurment in order to frighten others and look like a demon. It emphasizes that maniacal character.

 

[thewhyteman]

I'd like to see you say that when you're alone with him in a dark and secluded room. I'm sure your manliness will shine like no other natural pearl.


How comforting it is then, that the Joker has defined his insanity through his vicious acts and lunatic behavior.

It would shine like the pearl necklace I gave yer moms.


Then tell me which shows more sociopathic and disturbing behavior.

Some one who gets disfigured and kills people.

Or,

Someone who disfigures them self and kills people.

My point was the one who chooses to, is definitly more terrifying.