Wow, this is more than a few responses to a very small statement:
"Permawhite isn't necessary. This is the most accurate portrayal of the character from what we have seen so far.
I don't care if he's a
self made freak."
In the same breath, you say that this interpretation is the most and the least similar to the original.
What I mean is, at it's heart, this is the best we've had as a live action film Joker (Mark Hamill's animated series version is perfect and completely source-accurate, but it isn't live action). Nicholson looked like a great 70's-80's comic era Joker, but he lacked the menace and psychosis. He wasn't scary or dangerous. This Joker
is scary and above all, he's unpredictable. That has always been the core of this character.
Wait until you see the movie before making such a statement.
I said,
from what we've seen so far. Trailers, stills, etc. In my opinion, this is a true statement.
You don't think this looks like the best live action version from what
you've seen? What, are you a Caesar Romero fan or something?
Why is it not necessary? Is it because it's not "realistic?"
I guess that no, it isn't realistic, but I don't really care about that because these films and the idea of a realistic batman isn't mine. I'm just a spectator, and as a spectator, I think that the makeup version fits better in this "more realistic" universe, which basically uses the comics as
inspiration, it doesn't strictly adhere to orgins, costumes, etc.
It's more of a personal statement, as in "I, the person writing this write now, do not care about a permawhite joker", and really, who care about that?
I think it takes balls to try something different, so I commend Nolan on his choice to do something different with Joker. I was unsure myself at first, but I'm glad he's taken the road less traveled.