The Dark Knight Which element of the Joker is more important?

[TedKordLives]

I posed this question in another thread, and I'm just curious to see what everyone thinks.

Obviously, everyone's ideal Joker is a psychotic sociopath with a sick sense of humor whose skin has been bleached after a bad run in with some industrial chemicals, but it's looking less and less like that's the Joker we're going to see in TDK.

There has been an ongoing debate on these forums as to whether the Joker will have bleached skin at all, or just applies make-up, and from that a debate as to whether a Joker without bleached skin is truly the Joker at all. So my question is, which do you feel is more important to the character of the Joker? His bleached white skin, or his psychosis? Would you prefer a guy who is normal, except for his bleached skin, or a guy who is sick and twisted with a sick sense of humor, who just applies make-up?

Clearly the character is defined by both these traits, and in a perfect world, we'd get all of the above, so this is simply hypothetical, and a matter of opinion. I'm just curious to see what people identify with the most.

 

[salo120]

Sick humor. I think the whole fuss about not having bleached skin is silly. Characterization is more important to me. I thought the Scarecrow was underutilized in Batman Begins, but Cillian Murphy is such a great actor that I preferred Crane in the end because he was masterful in that role. Not the exact same thing, but the principle is there. And so far, the characterization of the Joker has been spot on.

 

[sasquatchs]

People are just going to say it's not the Joker character if you don't have both of those elements, that he can't have just chosen to become the Joker. The skin is a smaller but important part because otherwise he's just a loony, non-freak etc etc.

Dramatically I'd prefer a guy with a completely different outlook on life, with complete disregard for it, so I'd have to say #2. But I doubt people who love the character will be able to separate it without saying it's no longer him

 

[dude stannis]

Both are necessities for the Joker. He's a narcissist, once I learned about the self mutilating I was a bit turned off at the idea.

 

[TedKordLives]

Obviously both are necessary, I'm just wondering which element people identify with more.

I see this is going nowhere. Oh well, goodbye objectivity.

 

[Darknightnomis]

Sick humor, psychotic tendencies.

Anyone can look like a clown, but to do the twisted things the Joker does is another matter altogether.

 

[The Empire Ape]

calculating mastermind, he should be. Not your clowny serial killer.

 

[StarvingArtist]

Both are necessities for the Joker. He's a narcissist, once I learned about the self mutilating I was a bit turned off at the idea.

I really don't understand why the self mutilation and his narcissim are mutually exclusive. If he could be portrayed as being in love with the way he looks after an acid bath accident, then why couldn't he be in love with the way he looks after proactively altering his appearance by scarring his face into a smile?

If anything, I'd think that the scarring idea is more in tune with a narcissistic personality. It's more narcissistic for a person to take the action to change one's appearance in order to become the epitome of that person's idea of aesthetic perfection, as opposed to having to adjust personal preferences due to some unforseen disfigurement.

 

[MAKIEVELLI]

My first question is why do we have to choose between the two? It's like giving us a choice between a Bruce Wayne hunted by his demons because of his parents death or a Bruce Wayne who becomes the Batman and we have to choose between them. Ok, a bad analogy, I'll admit, but we really shouldn't have to choose. INIT. I strongly believe the normal skin is the makeup theory. I would also love if his hair was perma-green but wouldn't be too dissapointed if it wasn't.

 

[TedKordLives]

The only reason you have to choose is cause I asked you to. I'm not necessarily asking "which would you rather see in a film?" I'm asking "which do you identify with the Joker more?" It's more like asking whether Superman's insignia or his powers are more important.

His insignia is a symbol, and in a lot of ways that symbol has shaped who he is, but without his powers it would be meaningless.

 

[Untilteld]

stop with these joker threads

 

[TheBatman072]

Both are equally as important. They balance each other out, and off-set each other at the same time.


Sort of like a twisted Yin-Yang kind of thing.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Both are equally as important. They balance each other out, and off-set each other at the same time.


Sort of like a twisted Yin-Yang kind of thing.

QFT.

 

[Yurka]

Both are equally as important. They balance each other out, and off-set each other at the same time.


Sort of like a twisted Yin-Yang kind of thing.

perfect

 

[Hack and Slash]

So many joker threads recently

 

[TheBatman072]

And it also works to polarize Batman and Joker.


Batman can take his mask off. Joker can't.

 

[Figs]

I didn't vote since there weren't enough sane and reasonible choices. It's trying to divide people even more by giving them only the option for picking bleached skin. What if I said they are both important, his sick humor, psychotic tendencies, and his face being white........................wether it's permanent or not.

 

[Hack and Slash]

Never want to vote cause both are so damn important.

 

[TedKordLives]

As I said above, that's not the point. The point is, which do you identify with? Like I said before, is Superman still Superman without his insignia? Is he still Superman without his powers? Which do you hold true. Of course there are sane and reasonable choices. The entire debate that's been spreading is whether the Joker can truly be considered the Joker if he's not scarred or disfigured in some way, and my whole point is, which is more important? Would the movie be ruined for you if he doesn't have bleached skin?

 

[Figs]

As I said above, that's not the point. The point is, which do you identify with? Like I said before, is Superman still Superman without his insignia? Is he still Superman without his powers? Which do you hold true. Of course there are sane and reasonable choices. The entire debate that's been spreading is whether the Joker can truly be considered the Joker if he's not scarred or disfigured in some way, and my whole point is, which is more important? Would the movie be ruined for you if he doesn't have bleached skin?

I see what your saying. The movie wouldn't be ruined for me if he doesn't have bleached skin so long as he at least paints it. To answer your question if it had to come down to one or the other, I guess his personality and actions are more important.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Both.

 

[Hack and Slash]

I see what your saying. The movie wouldn't be ruined for me if he doesn't have bleached skin so long as he at least paints it. To answer your question if it had to come down to one or the other, I guess his personality and actions are more important.

I think actions and personality is what that defines a man for who he is , as for the looks is just another way to identify a person

 

[TheBatman072]

And think about this.


In the movie, if he does INDEED paint his face white, the cops won't let him keep it on when Batman catches him. They'll wash it off and all we'll be left with is a regular guy with scars.


Do you really want that?

 

[Figs]

And think about this.


In the movie, if he does INDEED paint his face white, the cops won't let him keep it on when Batman catches him. They'll wash it off and all we'll be left with is a regular guy with scars.


Do you really want that?

You do have a point with that. We'll all just have to wait and see what Nolan does with him in the end.

 

[ToddIsDead]

This poll is completely useless without an option for both.