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

[Banquet]

The changes the actor makes is only as vast as the alteration to the character. Make-up to bleach doesn't change the fact that this Joker is crazy. Or viciously grim. Or antisocial. Or gleefully bliss amidst anarchy. That doesn't change. So no, I don't think Heath would have made too much of a different performance.

Even if his performance was exactly the same, the perception of the Joker would be different anyway. He'd still be crazy, viciously grim, antisocial and all else, but the circumstance of having bleached skin over makeup would alter the reasoning of why he's that way to the audience, especially if the reason is a mystery.

 

[deathfromabove]

i love how we have been hearing how big of a deal make up is from the perma crowd for a year and all of a sudden it has no effect on the way the character is performed or executed.

 

[ronny]

I think I've had it wrong all this time. You know how I said that I dislike the origin? Well, that's only when we imply that Batman was at the scene himself. But if, in the original version, he only hear it from The Joker's side and his whole escape plan was to swim through the chemicals then it leaves enough ambiguity to please me. Besides which, anyone who thought it was a good idea to swin through that bleach must not have been playing with a full deck to begin with.

 

[nickyg641]

Even if his performance was exactly the same, the perception of the Joker would be different anyway. He'd still be crazy, viciously grim, antisocial and all else, but the circumstance of having bleached skin over makeup would alter the reasoning of why he's that way to the audience, especially if the reason is a mystery.

Why? We get the same dynamic with the cut smile.

 

[Banquet]

Why? We get the same dynamic with the cut smile.

the makeup wouldn't run as much and he would look more ghostly than garish, for just the visuals sake. The disfigured face from a chelsea grin would be one thing (with the additional ambiguity on whether or not he did it himself), but being both bleached by some accident and cut up in the face would give a different effect entirely... the insanity would be coming from a different place.

 

[Dark Globe]

I think people are just being too anal about this. If everything was just a carbon copy from the comic books, it'd be pointless to watch, matter of fact, make the film. It's an Interpretation. One change doesn't ruin the whole comic book universe.


Besides, it's not announced if it's makeup or chemical burns. It's a mystery and probably won't be revealed. You make up your own answer.

 

[nickyg641]

I think people are just being too anal about this. If everything was just a carbon copy from the comic books, it'd be pointless to watch, matter of fact, make the film. It's an Interpretation. One change doesn't ruin the whole comic book universe.


Besides, it's not announced if it's makeup or chemical burns. It's a mystery and probably won't be revealed. You make up your own answer.

If only we could still believe that.

 

[Dark Globe]

If only we could still believe that.

I've read a bit, and you people believe a lot of things. I bet a number of you believe Paul McCartney is dead.

 

[deathfromabove]

I think people are just being too anal about this. If everything was just a carbon copy from the comic books, it'd be pointless to watch, matter of fact, make the film. It's an Interpretation. One change doesn't ruin the whole comic book universe.

but fer real...

I've read a bit, and you people believe a lot of things. I bet a number of you believe Paul McCartney is dead.

he is (to me at least)

 

[ronny]

I've read a bit, and you people believe a lot of things. I bet a number of you believe Paul McCartney is dead.

Okay, if Paul McCartney isn't dead explain why Ringo Starr killed him and hired a replacement, or "evi", Paul McCartney. Explain that one smart guy.

 

[Batteen87]

Okay, if Paul McCartney isn't dead explain why Ringo Starr killed him and hired a replacement, or "evi", Paul McCartney. Explain that one smart guy.

 

[Nivek]

Besides, it's not announced if it's makeup or chemical burns. It's a mystery and probably won't be revealed. You make up your own answer.

It's obviously make-up if it smears and runs, and theres a big scene with the Joker not wearing any make-up. For the love of god, dont stir up the Perma-white thing again...

 

[Crook]

Earlier it was talked about how Joker would still retain his grungy and "dirty" appearance if he was bleached. Here's a new pic that just came out with Heath that comes pretty close to how it'd look if it was just the black eyes and lipstick that smears:

It's a f'n awesome pic. The flesh doesn't show through really, and it looks like a deranged Joker.

 

[Eggyman]

I like it a lot

 

[nickyg641]

Earlier it was talked about how Joker would still retain his grungy and "dirty" appearance if he was bleached. Here's a new pic that just came out with Heath that comes pretty close to how it'd look if it was just the black eyes and lipstick that smears:

It's a f'n awesome pic. The flesh doesn't show through really, and it looks like a deranged Joker.

It is a great pic. And I've manipped images of the Joker into permawhite out of curiosity, and it doesn't look bad. The main visuals are still there, those of the red and black makeup smearing and deteriorating, the only differences is that spots that were orange are now white.

 

[gwynplaine]

Awesome cover. Can't wait to get my EW.

 

[Judson Caspian]

Like it's been said before; we got perma-white in '89.
And it seems that didn't stop anybody from complaining about everything else.

I like the idea of Joker applying make-up...."Warpaint", as it's stated in the beginning....
To think this mad man is at war; at war with an entire city and the innocents who reside in it. This makeup is his tribal markings, so to speak.

Before and after his origin stories in comic books, they all have one thing in common: He's white all over.

 

[The Guard]

I've stopped caring where this Joker came from. It seems he came more from ideas and an outlook on life than from anywhere else. I still don't like the fairly sloppy nature of his basic look, though it looks all right, I guess. The Joker looks fantastic in certain shots, but when his makeup starts running so badly...he just looks bad. The "sad clown in the dark moment" is one of the few places the running makeup looks good, and that's because the makeup looks less like it's running in that shot. I think you could have some sort of decay without having the makeup actually "run".

 

[Boom]

Besides, it's not announced if it's makeup or chemical burns. It's a mystery and probably won't be revealed. You make up your own answer.

...The makeup smears . You can see more and more of his skin bleed through the white grease paint as the film progresses.

Honestly, the only mysteries left in terms of The Joker's appearance are:
-Where did the cut smile come from?
-What brand of makeup does he use?

 

[Banquet]

It is a great pic. And I've manipped images of the Joker into permawhite out of curiosity, and it doesn't look bad. The main visuals are still there, those of the red and black makeup smearing and deteriorating, the only differences is that spots that were orange are now white.

you would have to photoshop it, because it does look like makeup even there... where did you put your manip nicky?

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think people are just being too anal about this. If everything was just a carbon copy from the comic books, it'd be pointless to watch, matter of fact, make the film. It's an Interpretation. One change doesn't ruin the whole comic book universe.


Besides, it's not announced if it's makeup or chemical burns. It's a mystery and probably won't be revealed. You make up your own answer.

People aren't being anal, they just prefer one stylistic choice over the other. I myself would have preferred it had they gone with a perma-white route. That doesn't make me anal, it just means I have a different opinion then others.

And unless chemical bleaching can now be washed off in the rain, I sincerely doubt he has anything more on his skin besides makeup.

 

[craigaat]

I don't if this has already been said, but I prefer that The Joker was insane enough to begin with that he (possibly) cut the smile himself and that he does just wear make up.

To me that's better.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't if this has already been said, but I prefer that The Joker was insane enough to begin with that he (possibly) cut the smile himself and that he does just wear make up.

To me that's better.

That's a very valid interpretation of the character, but it's not exclusive to the makeup. In the comics there have been stories portraying the Joker as a sociopath before the chemical bath. The bath simply gave him the idea of the clown motif.

 

[craigaat]

Aye you're right, that makes sense also. I think maybe some people are reading too much into even before they've seen the film.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I think it looks amazing, better than the Joker has pretty much ever looked. It fits perfectly with his anarchist outlook. He just wants to watch the world burn. He doesn't give a crap what he looks like other than the fact that he sets himself apart from every other criminal's look, and I feel that it makes him even more of a badass.