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

[BatmanFanatic]

The Joker was probably mad long before the Fear Gas.

Besides, I don't like the idea that he was created, directly or indirectly, by a "lesser" villain like Scarecrow.

Agreed.

 

[Vastatio]

The Joker was probably mad long before the Fear Gas.

Besides, I don't like the idea that he was created, directly or indirectly, by a "lesser" villain like Scarecrow.

I actually like the idea that villains are created by other villains or heroes. It supports the idea that the universe is not a bunch of random events but rather a series of interconnected events with consequences and unintended consequences tied to millions of actions. I think its more realistic when a hero or villain's actions effect or contribute to the creation of another villain. I'm really digging where Nolan is going with this.

 

[nickyg641]

I actually like the idea that villains are created by other villains or heroes. It supports the idea that the universe is not a bunch of random events but rather a series of interconnected events with consequences and unintended consequences tied to millions of actions. I think its more realistic when a hero or villain's actions effect or contribute to the creation of another villain. I'm really digging where Nolan is going with this.

But does it not take away from the Joker's status as the "King of the Freaks" if he's created as a result of the efforts if a "lesser villain"?

I would say Batman is really the only character worthy of being responsible for the Joker's creation, whether directly (dropping him right into the vat) or indirectly (through escalation).

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I actually like the idea that villains are created by other villains or heroes. It supports the idea that the universe is not a bunch of random events but rather a series of interconnected events with consequences and unintended consequences tied to millions of actions. I think its more realistic when a hero or villain's actions effect or contribute to the creation of another villain. I'm really digging where Nolan is going with this.

Yah, I like the theory of them creating each other, but just not for Joker. He's the top of the heap, he should only be made by Bats or by fate.

But does it not take away from the Joker's status as the "King of the Freaks" if he's created as a result of the efforts if a "lesser villain"?

I would say Batman is really the only character worthy of being responsible for the Joker's creation, whether directly (dropping him right into the vat) or indirectly (through escalation).

Agreed!

 

[The Senator]

I personally would have preferred that the Joker was 'created' by Batman. It probably would have been a good scene to begin the movie with. That said, I am not opposed to the Joker's new origin. I think it works perfectly for the type of movie and universe Nolan and co. are trying to create. As long as the spirit of the character is there, that's all that matters to me.

 

[SheldonLevene]

Just throwing out that I highly dislike villains giving rise to other villains. And heros giving rise to villains for that matter. I wouldn't enjoy it much if Batman created Joker.

 

[nickyg641]

Just throwing out that I highly dislike villains giving rise to other villains. And heros giving rise to villains for that matter. I wouldn't enjoy it much if Batman created Joker.

I don't really mind Batman creating the Joker. He and fate are really the only two worthy of creating a character such as the Joker. In a way, that's what we're getting with TDK. The Joker's persona seems to be born partly out of the inspiration of Batman.

 

[indygeezer]

I have to agree with you that I often find myself more infatuated with Ledger's look as the joker than any look the comic offered. I can't stand the 60's look, or even some of the modern looks of the joker. I always enjoyed the morbid and ghastly look of the joker in the dark knight returns. I love the look of him from Batman #1. I also like the look of him from the 70s. I just think the look Nolan is using is so much more practical and real. I mean honestly...what chemical will turn your skin white and hair green simultaneously? If anyone can find this chemical then i will stand corrected.[/quote]


Fantasy.

Pure Ammonia if the person has died their hair recently.

 

[sandmjuggalos]

Pure Ammonia if the person has died their hair recently.

And this is for SKIN and hair? Or just hair?

 

[Saint]

No such chemical needs to exist, by the same token that Batman's body armour does not exist, leaping tanks do not exist, secret glider capes do not exist, fear gas does not exist, society-destroying ancient ninja-enclaves do not exist, and magical microwave emitters do not exist. It falls into the realm of being acceptably fictional, relative the other fictional elements in Nolan's films. Contrary to popular belief, Nolan's films are not realistic. They have an attitude of realism. This does not require everything to be real, not by a long shot. It simply requires that they be treated and disguised with a degree of verisimilitude--the appearance of reality.

And, of course, if the chemicals only bleached his skin, and he had to dye the hair himself, that would be acceptable.

 

[nickyg641]

No such chemical needs to exist, by the same token that Batman's body armour does not exist, leaping tanks do not exist, and magical microwave emitters do not exist. It falls into the realm of being acceptably fictional, relative the other fictional elements in Nolan's films. Contrary to popular belief, Nolan's films are not realistic. They have an attitude of realism. This does not require everything to be real, not by a long shot. It simply requires that they be treated and disguised with a degree of verisimilitude--the appearance of reality.

And, of course, if the chemicals only bleached his skin, and he had to dye the hair himself, that would be acceptable.

I agree on all fronts of your post.

 

[regwec]

Sad to say, a lot of people's barometer of plausibility correlates directly to what Chris Nolan wants to use in his movies. Clearly, Nolan's first consideration behind every stylistic choice is not always its believability. To think otherwise devalues him as a director.

 

[GlasgowBat]

correct.

i do in fact still harbour some hope that the joker will be, or even become, "perma-white", at least to a certain degree.

however, i have long been resigned to the realisation that this is most likely wishful thinking. it won't ruin the film for me, but it will still be something i will regard as an unnecessary fault.

 

[indygeezer]

Not to mention he is maintaining integrity with the comic book version.


The ammonia would only bleach the skin that contained the residual hair dye in all likelihood.

 

[nickyg641]

Not to mention he is maintaining integrity with the comic book version.


The ammonia would only bleach the skin that contained the residual hair dye in all likelihood.

And the Microwave Emitter would have evaporated the water in everyone's bodies and reacted with the metal on the train. Your point being?

 

[Saint]

Sad to say, a lot of people's barometer of plausibility correlates directly to what Chris Nolan wants to use in his movies. Clearly, Nolan's first consideration behind every stylistic choice is not always its believability. To think otherwise devalues him as a director.

No kidding. There is this attitude that realism is an end, rather than a means to an end. In truth, it's only useful so long as it serves the story that is being told. What that means is that the creative decision process does not go "A man dressing as a bat isn't realistic, so I won't use it, but rather "I've got a man who dresses up as a bat, so how can I dress that up so it seems less ridiculous?"

This is why we still have sci-fi body-armour, fear gas, secret glider capes, leaping tanks, ancient ninja enclaves, and magical microwave emitters. If Nolan's standard was realism, he would not have let any of those pass. They served other purposes, and they were dressed up realistically after the fact.

By similar token, describing the Joker's make-up as a decision driven by realism is almost certainly a mistake. That would be a pointless alteration that serves nothing. Obviously there is something else driving this decision, a larger consideration for something Nolan wants to adjust in the Joker's character, something he wants to communicate about it. I'd wager it's about making the Joker a more direct product of what Batman has introduced to the world--instead of Joker being created because Batman chased him down a chemical plant, the Joker was created because Batman introduced an idea to the world, and like all ideas it's been taken and corrupted by someone else. You have to consider the magnitude of what Batman did. It's decribed in Joker's line; "You've changed things, forever." Batman broke the rules that society operates by--and I just don't mean the law, I mean our mentality, our understanding of what is reasonable, appropriate, and what is possible--how we respond to the world. He opened a door to a whole new way of thinking, and now other people are going to walk through it, and use it in ways he didn't intend. The Joker is created because the mentality of the world is changing, not because a series of unfortunate events in his own life.

If Nolan wanted to communicate something that was served by bleached skin, by the classic origin (such as the elements I've described ad nauseam in this thread) he would have done it. He would not have said "Oh, that's not realistic, so I won't bother with that thing I wanted to communicate." He would have simply found a way to give in the appearance of reality, as he did with batpeople, fear flowers, leapfrog tanks, mad scientists, secret ninjas, and gliding felt.

People frequently say that make-up should be accepted because it's only superficial, that it doesn't affect the character. This doesn't follow. If that were true, that would be a fantastic reason to hate the decision: it would serve no purpose, it would worthless change for the sake of change.

It was done not for the sake of realism or anything to superficial, but to shift something about the Joker's nature and the nature of how he came to be, in order to serve the story. My extrapolation of what that reason probably is, described above, is enough for me, and it intrigues me, but of course I could be off. In either case, accepting the alteration is not a matter of saying "Oh, it's just his face, he's still the same," or "Oh, it's more realistic." These reasons are nonsense: they do not describe the purpose behind the choices, and they are not sufficient reason to accept anything. What should be considered is whether the idea Nolan is trying to communicate is more, less, or equally preferable to the ideas that are communicated by the classic origin, by the standards of the individual watching.

We know my decision, since it is described above, and a dozen times throughout this thread. Of course, my decision may change, if it turns out my theory on the purpose of the alterations turns out to be false.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Pure Ammonia if the person has died their hair recently.

t:

 

[The Battousai]

edit

 

[The Battousai]

No kidding. There is this attitude that realism is an end, rather than a means to an end. In truth, it's only useful so long as it serves the story that is being told. What that means is that the creative decision process does not go "A man dressing as a bat isn't realistic, so I won't use it, but rather "I've got a man who dresses up as a bat, so how can I dress that up so it seems less ridiculous?"

This is why we still have sci-fi body-armour, fear gas, secret glider capes, leaping tanks, ancient ninja enclaves, and magical microwave emitters. If Nolan's standard was realism, he would not have let any of those pass. They served other purposes, and they were dressed up realistically after the fact.

By similar token, describing the Joker's make-up as a decision driven by realism is almost certainly a mistake. That would be a pointless alteration that serves nothing. Obviously there is something else driving this decision, a larger consideration for something Nolan wants to adjust in the Joker's character, something he wants to communicate about it. I'd wager it's about making the Joker a more direct product of what Batman has introduced to the world--instead of Joker being created because Batman chased him down a chemical plant, the Joker was created because Batman introduced an idea to the world, and like all ideas it's been taken and corrupted by someone else. You have to consider the magnitude of what Batman did. It's decribed in Joker's line; "You've changed things, forever." Batman broke the rules that society operates by--and I just don't mean the law, I mean our mentality, our understanding of what is reasonable, appropriate, and what is possible--how we respond to the world. He opened a door to a whole new way of thinking, and now other people are going to walk through it, and use it in ways he didn't intend. The Joker is created because the mentality of the world is changing, not because a series of unfortunate events in his own life.

If Nolan wanted to communicate something that was served by bleached skin, by the classic origin (such as the elements I've described ad nauseam in this thread) he would have done it. He would not have said "Oh, that's not realistic, so I won't bother with that thing I wanted to communicate." He would have simply found a way to give in the appearance of reality, as he did with batpeople, fear flowers, leapfrog tanks, mad scientists, secret ninjas, and gliding felt.

People frequently say that make-up should be accepted because it's only superficial, that it doesn't affect the character. This doesn't follow. If that were true, that would be a fantastic reason to hate the decision: it would serve no purpose, it would worthless change for the sake of change.

It was done not for the sake of realism or anything to superficial, but to shift something about the Joker's nature and the nature of how he came to be, in order to serve the story. My extrapolation of what that reason probably is, described above, is enough for me, and it intrigues me, but of course I could be off. In either case, accepting the alteration is not a matter of saying "Oh, it's just his face, he's still the same," or "Oh, it's more realistic." These reasons are nonsense: they do not describe the purpose behind the choices, and they are not sufficient reason to accept anything. What should be considered is whether the idea Nolan is trying to communicate is more, less, or equally preferable to the ideas that are communicated by the classic origin, by the standards of the individual watching.

We know my decision, since it is described above, and a dozen times throughout this thread. Of course, my decision may change, if it turns out my theory on the purpose of the alterations turns out to be false.

I agree with your points whole-heartedly

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Batman's body armour does not exist, leaping tanks do not exist, secret glider capes do not exist, fear gas does not exist, society-destroying ancient ninja-enclaves do not exist, and magical microwave emitters do not exist. It falls into the realm of being acceptably fictional, relative the other fictional elements in Nolan's films. Contrary to popular belief, Nolan's films are not realistic. They have an attitude of realism. This does not require everything to be real, not by a long shot. It simply requires that they be treated and disguised with a degree of verisimilitude--the appearance of reality.

I've been trying to communicate this same idea since I got on the boards to people who tirelessly claim that Nolans version of Batman is better than other versions because it's so "realistic" and that all his choices as a director, from the Batsuit to the character stories are driven by "realism."

The truth is, I really enjoyed Nolans version, but not because it was "realistic" - rather the way in which he tried to skillfully hide how ludicrous almost everything in the Batverse actually is through various ploys. And to be fair, I also groaned loudly in the parts where those ploys failed.

There is so much more to a great film in general, than the tone. A serious or "realist" film is not inherently better than a comedy or a fantastical film, it all depends on whether it fits the nature of the story.

I'd wager it's about making the Joker a more direct product of what Batman has introduced to the world--instead of Joker being created because Batman chased him down a chemical plant, the Joker was created because Batman introduced an idea to the world, and like all ideas it's been taken and corrupted by someone else. You have to consider the magnitude of what Batman did. It's decribed in Joker's line; "You've changed things, forever." Batman broke the rules that society operates by--and I just don't mean the law, I mean our mentality, our understanding of what is reasonable, appropriate, and what is possible--how we respond to the world. He opened a door to a whole new way of thinking, and now other people are going to walk through it, and use it in ways he didn't intend. The Joker is created because the mentality of the world is changing, not because a series of unfortunate events in his own life.

I hope you're right with your theory Saint, that would be a pretty cool reason to change the characters look. If it just turns out to be a superficial change for the sake of change, that would be disappointing.

BTW, have you ever written any Batman stories?

 

[Saint]

I've been trying to communicate this same idea since I got on the boards to people who tirelessly claim that Nolans version of Batman is better than other versions because it's so "realistic" and that all his choices as a director, from the Batsuit to the character stories are driven by "realism."

The truth is, I really enjoyed Nolans version, but not because it was "realistic" - rather the way in which he tried to skillfully hide how ludicrous almost everything in the Batverse actually is through various ploys. And to be fair, I also groaned loudly in the parts where those ploys failed.

There is so much more to a great film in general, than the tone. A serious or "realist" film is not inherently better than a comedy or a fantastical film, it all depends on whether it fits the nature of the story.

Yes, exactly. I like the realism just fine, but some are of the opinion that it's inherently better, or that alternative approaches don't work, which is ludicrous. When this trilogy is over, I'd like to see a hyper-stylized, BTAS type of apprach, achieved through the sort of methods we see in Sin City, Sky Captain, and so on; the sort of film where we can see the more fantastic elements of Batman taken seriousosly--Lazarus pits, Clayfaces, and all.

I hope you're right with your theory Saint, that would be a pretty cool reason to change the characters look. If it just turns out to be a superficial change for the sake of change, that would be disappointing.

Agreed.

BTW, have you ever written any Batman stories?

Aside from a few short stories a million years ago, no. I mostly kick around those ideas in my head for later; I'm primarily concerned with getting my own work going before I worry about breaking into comics.

 

[deathfromabove]

No such chemical needs to exist, by the same token that Batman's body armour does not exist, leaping tanks do not exist, secret glider capes do not exist, fear gas does not exist, society-destroying ancient ninja-enclaves do not exist, and magical microwave emitters do not exist. It falls into the realm of being acceptably fictional, relative the other fictional elements in Nolan's films. Contrary to popular belief, Nolan's films are not realistic. They have an attitude of realism. This does not require everything to be real, not by a long shot. It simply requires that they be treated and disguised with a degree of verisimilitude--the appearance of reality.

And, of course, if the chemicals only bleached his skin, and he had to dye the hair himself, that would be acceptable.

verisimilitude. thats a great word. i put a quote from nolan using that word in my siggy way back when. the appearance of reality. exactly. but you do understand that application of believability you speak of is usually what folks mean when they say "realism" or "teh reALIZtics"? i mean its improper usage but i dont think they mean true to life. like said "seems" true to life. how do i dress this up so its not quite as ridiculous.

but i completely agree. and i especially like how you discuss below how that aspect of believabilty is ameans to an end but not the source of the idea.

Spoiler

No kidding. There is this attitude that realism is an end, rather than a means to an end. In truth, it's only useful so long as it serves the story that is being told. What that means is that the creative decision process does not go "A man dressing as a bat isn't realistic, so I won't use it, but rather "I've got a man who dresses up as a bat, so how can I dress that up so it seems less ridiculous?"

This is why we still have sci-fi body-armour, fear gas, secret glider capes, leaping tanks, ancient ninja enclaves, and magical microwave emitters. If Nolan's standard was realism, he would not have let any of those pass. They served other purposes, and they were dressed up realistically after the fact.

By similar token, describing the Joker's make-up as a decision driven by realism is almost certainly a mistake. That would be a pointless alteration that serves nothing. Obviously there is something else driving this decision, a larger consideration for something Nolan wants to adjust in the Joker's character, something he wants to communicate about it. I'd wager it's about making the Joker a more direct product of what Batman has introduced to the world--instead of Joker being created because Batman chased him down a chemical plant, the Joker was created because Batman introduced an idea to the world, and like all ideas it's been taken and corrupted by someone else. You have to consider the magnitude of what Batman did. It's decribed in Joker's line; "You've changed things, forever." Batman broke the rules that society operates by--and I just don't mean the law, I mean our mentality, our understanding of what is reasonable, appropriate, and what is possible--how we respond to the world. He opened a door to a whole new way of thinking, and now other people are going to walk through it, and use it in ways he didn't intend. The Joker is created because the mentality of the world is changing, not because a series of unfortunate events in his own life.

If Nolan wanted to communicate something that was served by bleached skin, by the classic origin (such as the elements I've described ad nauseam in this thread) he would have done it. He would not have said "Oh, that's not realistic, so I won't bother with that thing I wanted to communicate." He would have simply found a way to give in the appearance of reality, as he did with batpeople, fear flowers, leapfrog tanks, mad scientists, secret ninjas, and gliding felt.

People frequently say that make-up should be accepted because it's only superficial, that it doesn't affect the character. This doesn't follow. If that were true, that would be a fantastic reason to hate the decision: it would serve no purpose, it would worthless change for the sake of change.

It was done not for the sake of realism or anything to superficial, but to shift something about the Joker's nature and the nature of how he came to be, in order to serve the story. My extrapolation of what that reason probably is, described above, is enough for me, and it intrigues me, but of course I could be off. In either case, accepting the alteration is not a matter of saying "Oh, it's just his face, he's still the same," or "Oh, it's more realistic." These reasons are nonsense: they do not describe the purpose behind the choices, and they are not sufficient reason to accept anything. What should be considered is whether the idea Nolan is trying to communicate is more, less, or equally preferable to the ideas that are communicated by the classic origin, by the standards of the individual watching.

We know my decision, since it is described above, and a dozen times throughout this thread. Of course, my decision may change, if it turns out my theory on the purpose of the alterations turns out to be false.

but yeah excellent work here. i like it so much better when you drop wisdom from the heavens.

 

[StylishHokie21]

No kidding. There is this attitude that realism is an end, rather than a means to an end. In truth, it's only useful so long as it serves the story that is being told. What that means is that the creative decision process does not go "A man dressing as a bat isn't realistic, so I won't use it, but rather "I've got a man who dresses up as a bat, so how can I dress that up so it seems less ridiculous?"

This is why we still have sci-fi body-armour, fear gas, secret glider capes, leaping tanks, ancient ninja enclaves, and magical microwave emitters. If Nolan's standard was realism, he would not have let any of those pass. They served other purposes, and they were dressed up realistically after the fact.

By similar token, describing the Joker's make-up as a decision driven by realism is almost certainly a mistake. That would be a pointless alteration that serves nothing. Obviously there is something else driving this decision, a larger consideration for something Nolan wants to adjust in the Joker's character, something he wants to communicate about it. I'd wager it's about making the Joker a more direct product of what Batman has introduced to the world--instead of Joker being created because Batman chased him down a chemical plant, the Joker was created because Batman introduced an idea to the world, and like all ideas it's been taken and corrupted by someone else. You have to consider the magnitude of what Batman did. It's decribed in Joker's line; "You've changed things, forever." Batman broke the rules that society operates by--and I just don't mean the law, I mean our mentality, our understanding of what is reasonable, appropriate, and what is possible--how we respond to the world. He opened a door to a whole new way of thinking, and now other people are going to walk through it, and use it in ways he didn't intend. The Joker is created because the mentality of the world is changing, not because a series of unfortunate events in his own life.

If Nolan wanted to communicate something that was served by bleached skin, by the classic origin (such as the elements I've described ad nauseam in this thread) he would have done it. He would not have said "Oh, that's not realistic, so I won't bother with that thing I wanted to communicate." He would have simply found a way to give in the appearance of reality, as he did with batpeople, fear flowers, leapfrog tanks, mad scientists, secret ninjas, and gliding felt.

People frequently say that make-up should be accepted because it's only superficial, that it doesn't affect the character. This doesn't follow. If that were true, that would be a fantastic reason to hate the decision: it would serve no purpose, it would worthless change for the sake of change.

It was done not for the sake of realism or anything to superficial, but to shift something about the Joker's nature and the nature of how he came to be, in order to serve the story. My extrapolation of what that reason probably is, described above, is enough for me, and it intrigues me, but of course I could be off. In either case, accepting the alteration is not a matter of saying "Oh, it's just his face, he's still the same," or "Oh, it's more realistic." These reasons are nonsense: they do not describe the purpose behind the choices, and they are not sufficient reason to accept anything. What should be considered is whether the idea Nolan is trying to communicate is more, less, or equally preferable to the ideas that are communicated by the classic origin, by the standards of the individual watching.

We know my decision, since it is described above, and a dozen times throughout this thread. Of course, my decision may change, if it turns out my theory on the purpose of the alterations turns out to be false.

Well said as usual!

 

[Saint]

verisimilitude. thats a great word. i put a quote from nolan using that word in my siggy way back when. the appearance of reality. exactly. but you do understand that application of believability you speak of is usually what folks mean when they say "realism" or "teh reALIZtics"? i mean its improper usage but i dont think they mean true to life. like said "seems" true to life. how do i dress this up so its not quite as ridiculous.

But, so frequently, that is not what they're saying. If it was, I'd have no issue. They don't say "Dress it up to make it realistic," they say "That can't be done, because it's not realistic." The individuals in this thread, for example, aren't saying "Dress bleached skin up to make it realistic," they're saying "Don't do bleached skin, it's not realistic."

 

[ronny]

I personally would have preferred that the Joker was 'created' by Batman. It probably would have been a good scene to begin the movie with.

How would it have worked though? "I get dropped in a vat of chemicals and from that decide to be an evil clown and watch the world buuuuuuuurn!"
The origin is already weak. Putting it into film just highlights that. Of course, it leads to something very, very good (Remember the mirror scene from Batman '89?) but to get there you're expecting an audience to swallow the annoying "Chemical Accident Creates Deranged Monster" storyline. But if it was all part of the plan, if The Joker already painted his face and wanted Batman to force his plunge. It would work excellently.
But no, we get the Red Hood. Look kids, this psychopath and freak started off wearing a Red Hood. There's no hint of his theatricality, no hint of his narcisstic personality, no hint that he is already a dangerous lunatic. No. He's got a phallic red dome, a tuxedo and is the victim of an accident.
I can't enjoy that on any level in the comics and I would never enjoy it on film. Lose the Red Hood, make it part of The Joker's transformation and it will be great. I can imagine him rising from the chemicals, his skin permanently white and him whooping and cheering as though he just won the World Cup. Not the whole "God, I'm burning, ow, the pain! Let me take off this oversized red penis and take a - oh no! My skin's white. Well, now I'm an evil clown and through this one event will become Batman's greatest foe! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" thing.
It's awful. It needs to be revamped. Not scrapped entirely but certainly rethought. Imagine the Heath Joker swan diving into the chemical bath and emerging as The Joker we all know from the comics. It would be pure brilliance!