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

[JayTee]

He became "Batman" to me the moment Rachel kicked him out of the car.

 

[deathfromabove]

If you wanna be extremely technical about it, the "no guns" rule (in canon) was well in-place way before Bruce donned the cape and cowl.

Honestly, and this isn't directed at you, but the pre-Batman argument is such a copout and lousy excuse. There are certain things that go in line with being a rookie, but there's a difference between making amateur mistakes and shaping one's core set of values and moral code.

and seven years or so before bruce donned he cowl in begins he rejected the use of guns. that shot of him throwing the gun into the river wasn't a betrayal of that aspect of the character but an illustration and an affirmation of it. he looks down at the gun, sees a flashback of chill's weapon, and discards it.

are you being facetious? have we run put of things to debate? clearly uou must be playing devil's advoacte here.

and why is every explantion a "cop out" to you?

 

[The Shape]

If you wanna be extremely technical about it, the "no guns" rule (in canon) was well in-place way before Bruce donned the cape and cowl.

Where? When?

Honestly, and this isn't directed at you, but the pre-Batman argument is such a copout and lousy excuse. There are certain things that go in line with being a rookie, but there's a difference between making amateur mistakes and shaping one's core set of values and moral code.

Not sure what interpretation you are speaking of, but this idea worked in Batman Begins. It's common for someone to want revenge. Bruce Wayne, as a lost soul, came close to getting it, but the wrong way.

This is the first time I've somewhat agreed with JayTee. Bruce became, to me, after his conversation with Falcone. He realize that guns and murder would not solve the problem that corrupted Gotham. Once, he threw his gun into the water, he started along the path that eventually led him to becoming the Batman.

The pre-Batman copout absolutely works in some cases, and this is one of them. It's much more thematic for Bruce to be a lost soul that is eventually found.

 

[Crook]

and seven years or so before bruce donned he cowl in begins he rejected the use of guns. that shot of him throwing the gun into the river wasn't a betrayal of that aspect of the character but an illustration and an affirmation of it. he looks down at the gun, sees a flashback of chill's weapon, and discards it.

Does that change the fact that Bruce had no problem with guns even after his parents were killed? I'm not arguing NOW he might not want to use firearms, but that in general, the character had typically been portrayed as ALWAYS detesting guns.

are you being facetious? have we run put of things to debate? clearly uou must be playing devil's advoacte here.

How in the world are you focusing this on me? I'm actually the LAST person that even entered this argument.

Not to mention that I wasn't even arguing or instigating anything, just stating the plain facts of the situation.

and why is every explantion a "cop out" to you?

Have I amounted a list of cop-outs? At best, this is like the second time I've ever mentioned such a thing in recent memory.

 

[JayTee]

What better way to illustrate to a new audience of Batman movie goers what the character is really supposed to be like than actually SHOWING him attempt those things and realize they're for lowlifes too. All before he gets on that boat and starts his journey.

It worked perfectly for me.

 

[Keyser Soze]

What better way to illustrate to a new audience of Batman movie goers what the character is really supposed to be like than actually SHOWING him attempt those things and realize they're for lowlifes too. All before he gets on that boat and starts his journey.

It worked perfectly for me.

I don't see how you're using past tense for it. It's not like, because he's got some guns on his bike, all of a sudden he's decided that killing people is good.

 

[Crook]

Where? When?

Are you joking? Now I'm not the type of fan that can name the title, issue #, month and year, but surely if you've read enough of the comics, that is part of the general knowledge on the character. I can't even remember a single instance where it's implied that he detested guns AFTER he decided to become Batman.

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this of course.

 

[magus]

I didn't say a word about anyone caring, so I'm not sure why you're saying this.

The point I was getting to was that many wouldn't care, partially because many don't know and even those that do wouldn't find it a significant enough detail. The whole "debate" began on the premise that no one would care if there was a "twist" ending resulting in Joker being permawhite.

Patently false. People remember whatever they remember, whether it's worth it or not.

Memory is not random. Memory is made through meaningful association (pleasant or unpleasant) or rehearsal: liking something about the movie enough to convert the short-term memory into a long-term one or watching it multiple times. You don't just remember whatever you happen to remember; there is a process.

I didn't say they had to remember everything about the film--they just have to live in North America. Whether it comes from the film or from somewhere else, the "general audience" knows the Joker's skin is white, by the same token that everybody knew in 1999 that Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father. They didn't walk into The Phantom Menace thinking "Oh, who is this guy?"

We can debate forever about which specific details of movies people remember but the point isn't that the general audience doesn't know that he is permawhite, but that so few would remember the specifics and/or find it an integral part of the character that they wouldn't care if Joker was merely painted white. There is a good portion of people who just know the Joker is white regardless of how he became that way.

And, of course, there's no reason for them not to remember. This "Oh, they don't remember some blockbuster!" line is silly. They remember details about a million other blockbusters, why not Batman? Batman is more culturally saturated than, say, Indiana Jones, and nobody has trouble remembering comparable details in those films. I haven't seen The Last Crusade in fifteen years, but I still remember that Indiana was the dog's name. And, unlike Joker's skin, that was an obscure detail, unimportant to the film. The only people who might not remember are those who were very young at the time (and even that's a long shot), and even if they forgot, they eventually would have figured it out simply by virtue of living in North America, where you can find the movie playing on cable every month, along with a constant line of cartoons, comics, games, toys, and millions of people who will tell you the fact of the matter. If you know who the Joker is, you know his skin is white, in the same way that anyone who knows of Batman knows his parents were killed, and anyone who knows Darth Vader knows he's Luke's father. People who have never seen the film will know it, by the same token that I know how from Planet of the Apes ends without having ever seen it.

But you don't necessarily know how it became white. The only completely mainstream version of Joker's origin that the general audience would see is Batman '89 and there are plenty of reasons for them not to remember that he fell in some acid.

But I don't really care whether they know it or not because the average person's knowledge of it would be so cursory that they still wouldn't give a crap if Ledger's Joker became permawhite in some weird twist. Neither of us can completely assume what people know/don't know about the Joker but I completely agree that people know he is white; I don't agree that the majority remembers how or why he is white and as long as Ledger has a white face, they won't care.

And someone else's line about Joker having no makeup on when he is a cop is inconsequential: he put on makeup in Batman '89 for the same effect.

Again, this is patently false. Batman is not just "another blockbuster." Batman is a cultural icon that's become a part of the cultural fabric of the entire continent--and whether a person likes, hates, or doesn't give a damn about Batman, everyone recognizes the the saturation of the icon, and there are things that pretty much everyone knows. They don't have to care in order to be familiar with it, just as a million people who don't care about Star Trek can still give you general information on Mr. Spock.

There will always be people who fall through the cracks, and by some miracle don't know the things that everyone else does. But they in no way make up a majority of the general audience, and I would bet they don't make up even a significant portion of it.

Again all of this boils down to people knowing that Joker is white, not permawhite. I've acknowledged that much before you ever responded. It is a pointless debate to try and assess exactly how much of every cultural property everyone knows and doesn't know. The ultimate point is that for most the detail about Joker wearing makeup to be white and being permamently white is completely inconsequential; it would be different if he suddenly became green and Hulked out, but he still very much fits into the general audience's expectations of what they know about the Joker. Changing him from normal to permawhite during the course of the movie won't have a significant effect.

I watched an interview today in which Kevin Conroy called Bruce Wayne's father Bruce Wayne Sr. I'd expect the longest running actor to play Batman to know that, but he forgot. Sure, we can argue that that detail is inconsequential and the Joker origin isn't, but Conroy IS Batman, and to the average person the details of Joker's origin ARE inconsequential; it isn't like falling into a vat of chemicals is a new prospect in comic books.

This argument won't go anywhere and it will do so pretty quickly. I am not disagreeing that Batman is a cultural icon--that much is obvious--but the differences between Ledger's Joker and what could be called the common perception of Joker are so minute that most audiences wouldn't care (which is the whole point of it whether you stated it or not); especially about some thrown in "twist" making him permawhite.

 

[JayTee]

I was referring to what Shape and Crook were talking about, but since we're back on this, I just don't get why after trying so hard to get away from the Burton version of the character, we're flirting with that territory all over again. It just makes no sense.

 

[The Shape]

Are you joking? Now I'm not the type of fan that can name the title, issue #, month and year, but surely if you've read enough of the comics, that is part of the general knowledge on the character. I can't even remember a single instance where it's implied that he detested guns AFTER he decided to become Batman.

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this of course.

What you're implying is that after Bruce's parent's were murdered, he detested guns.

I'm not saying that when he dons the suit for the first time, he turns to Alfred and says, "You know what, Alfred? Take this gun back. I've just decided that I hate them!"

However, in Batman Begins, Bruce realizes how far he had stooped after he contemplated killing Chill. He was becoming what he despised most. It is then that he forms his anti-killing and anti-gun stances in his mind, nearly 10 years before he first becomes the Batman.

 

[magus]

I don't see how you're using past tense for it. It's not like, because he's got some guns on his bike, all of a sudden he's decided that killing people is good.

He had guns on every Batmobile in the movies prior. Was he out of character then too? In Batman '89 he used them to blast open a door, never even firing upon a person; who's to say the Batpod guns aren't for the exact same reason.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I was referring to what Shape and Crook were talking about, but since we're back on this, I just don't get why after trying so hard to get away from the Burton version of the character, we're flirting with that territory all over again. It just makes no sense.

And again, if Batman starts freely killing people like he did in the Burton films, then this will be a valid concern. The Batpod has guns on it for using on vehicles and obstacles. Would you prefer if it shot out giant boxing gloves?

 

[JayTee]

"They don't have to care in order to be familiar with it, just as a million people who don't care about Star Trek can still give you general information on Mr. Spock."

--

Imagine how insanely angry Star Trek fans would get if the director of their new movie decided to give Spock fake pointed ears.

 

[JayTee]

And again, if Batman starts freely killing people like he did in the Burton films, then this will be a valid concern. The Batpod has guns on it for using on vehicles and obstacles. Would you prefer if it shot out giant boxing gloves?

No way, that's what the Jokermobile is for!

It's just a step in the wrong direction and makes me weary about where the narrative is headed, what Batman's limits are this time, even if only for awhile. I don't want to see him off someone or attempt to and then learn all over again. I could go watch Daredevil knock a guy in the path of a train if I wanted that BS. Batman's rules and character were set up in Batman Begins better than any comicbook movie I'd EVER seen. It'd be ridiculous to loosen them so soon.

 

[Crook]

What you're implying is that after Bruce's parent's were murdered, he detested guns.

In the comics, yes.

I'm not saying that when he dons the suit for the first time, he turns to Alfred and says, "You know what, Alfred? Take this gun back. I've just decided that I hate them!"

However, in Batman Begins, Bruce realizes how far he had stooped after he contemplated killing Chill. He was becoming what he despised most. It is then that he forms his anti-killing and anti-gun stances in his mind, nearly 10 years before he first becomes the Batman.

I'm not arguing that. As I explained in my previous post, it was more about Bruce hating guns, period. As in never once thinking they were good. Ever.

 

[The Shape]

In the comics, yes.

I know you won't do it, but if you can show me a panel where Bruce, as a child, states that he hates guns, I'll believe you. It may exist, but it seems like you're pulling it out of thin air.

Even so, this is an interpretation of the Batman character. If he decides he won't uses guns at age 21 or age 8, isn't it most important that he ultimately came to to decision?

I'm not arguing that. As I explained in my previous post, it was more about Bruce hating guns, period. As in never once thinking they were good. Ever.

When did he think they were good? Although he was planning on using a gun on Chill, I highly doubt it was because he though guns were "good", but he saw it as a necessary action to exact his revenge on the man that took his parents from him.

 

[deathfromabove]

In the comics, yes.


I'm not arguing that. As I explained in my previous post, it was more about Bruce hating guns, period. As in never once thinking they were good. Ever.

bruce has weilded a gun as batman in the books. see the now ret conned year two story arc for just one example.

i thought bruce's no gun outlook was handled very well in begins and bruce still abandons "the way of the gun" long before he ever wears a cape in so why is it even being discussed?

 

[Bat-Mite]

"They don't have to care in order to be familiar with it, just as a million people who don't care about Star Trek can still give you general information on Mr. Spock."

--

Imagine how insanely angry Star Trek fans would get if the director of their new movie decided to give Spock fake pointed ears.

A pretty lame comparison, considering that Spock isn't even human. The Joker is very much human, but simply has an inhuman appearance. While I'd prefer a permawhite Joker, giving him makeup isn't nearly as drastic a change as giving Spock fake ears. To do that, you'd have to change what Spock actually is. You don't have to make the Joker a different species in order to alter his appearance.

 

[Crook]

I know you won't do it, but if you can show me a panel where Bruce, as a child, states that he hates guns, I'll believe you. It may exist, but it seems like you're pulling it out of thin air.

You're right I won't do it, because you and I both know that's a ridiculous request. In the current incarnation of Batman, he doesn't use guns nor condones them. Why would you assume at one point he did, if it was never indicated? That's what you're implying isn't it? Would the burden of proof then, lie on you?

Even so, this is an interpretation of the Batman character. If he decides he won't uses guns at age 21 or age 8, isn't it most important that he ultimately came to to decision?

Did I say this approach was wrong? I'm not sure how I got into an argument when all I was doing were stating facts of the film. I wasn't even interjecting with my own opinion on anything.

When did he think they were good? Although he was planning on using a gun on Chill, I highly doubt it was because he though guns were "good", but he saw it as a necessary action to exact his revenge on the man that took his parents from him.

Now you're just stretching things. If you want me to hammer the point, the Bruce I'm referring to is the type of guy that would hurl at the sight of a gun. Like, if someone handed him a picture of a gun, he'd throw it into the flames and beat the guy for it. He's not the type to unwillingly or shamefully ever use a gun. He just won't touch it period and use some other means of impacting damage. Is that driving it home enough?

 

[Crook]

bruce has weilded a gun as batman in the books. see the now ret conned year two story arc for just one example.

I'm not really sure how bringing up a retconned interpretation of the character, which makes it practically irrelevant to the discussion, is going to do much of help for anyone.

Did you not think I was aware previous versions of Batman handled guns?

i thought bruce's no gun outlook was handled very well in begins and bruce still abandons "the way of the gun" long before he ever wears a cape in so why is it even being discussed?

You guys tell me. All I said was Nolan ignored the "no guns (period)" rule in a way, which isn't exactly false. Never said it was good or bad, that's just how it was. And yet, people feel like I was attacking that approach or that it needed to be defended.

 

[The Shape]

Now you're just stretching things. If you want me to hammer the point, the Bruce I'm referring to is the type of guy that would hurl at the sight of a gun. Like, if someone handed him a picture of a gun, he'd throw it into the flames and beat the guy for it. He's not the type to unwillingly or shamefully ever use a gun. He just won't touch it period and use some other means of impacting damage. Is that driving it home enough?

You're being absolutely different, to the point where I think you may be joking.

The Bruce you just described is post-Batman Bruce. I know you think the pre- and post- Batman idea is a cop out, but it's not. Bruce was not Batman the night his parents were murdered. After those gunshots, he didn't think to himself, "I'm going to be a hero. I'm against the use of guns. I will not kill. I will be trained in martial arts. I will develop gadgets to aid my cause."

It was a long, winding road that lead him to his destiny, and **** happened along the way. That's what the whole friggin' Batman Begins movie was about. He lived and he learned, and was eventually shaped to become the man behind the mask.

 

[deathfromabove]

All I said was Nolan ignored the "no guns (period)" rule in a way, which isn't exactly false.

and i am arguing that he didnt ignore it, he dealt with it and explained it in a very satisfactory manner.

 

[JayTee]

A pretty lame comparison, considering that Spock isn't even human. The Joker is very much human, but simply has an inhuman appearance. While I'd prefer a permawhite Joker, giving him makeup isn't nearly as drastic a change as giving Spock fake ears. To do that, you'd have to change what Spock actually is. You don't have to make the Joker a different species in order to alter his appearance.

Oh, but the Spock in question would still be an alien. Just not have pointy ears, only fake pointy ears.

Just like the Joker wouldn't really be the physical manifestation of a Joker from playing cards like he always was, but have makeup on.

This is why it's so important. A Spock walking around with fake ears wouldn't have to deal with it 24/7. Same with the Joker.

When the cops wash him off, is he still the Joker? If you yank those fake ears off Spock, is he still an alien?

Some say yes. I'd rather it just be taken as is.

 

[JayTee]

Oh, but the Spock in question would still be an alien. Just not have pointy ears, only fake pointy ears.

Just like the Joker wouldn't really be the physical manifestation of a Joker from playing cards like he always was, but have makeup on.

This is why it's so important. A Spock walking around with fake ears wouldn't have to deal with it 24/7. Same with the Joker.

When the cops wash him off, is he still the Joker? If you yank those fake ears off Spock, is he still an alien?

Some say yes. I'd rather it just be taken as is.

This is the stupidest comparison I've ever had to write too, but don't say you didn't egg me on.

 

[matjooo]

fine, that I was thinking about :S