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

[FCEEVIPER]

stop with these joker threads

I agree.

This is the Joker guys, like it or not, that's the version we are getting for TDK.

 

[Figs]

This poll is completely useless without an option for both.

That's what I initially thought but I guess the poll creator wants us to decide if it were an end of the world thing. Like if you didn't decide on which one you felt was the most important out of the two, the world would end. LOL

I agree their both equally important, but to amuse him I did pick one finally.

 

[wikum]

i think the poll speaks for itself so far.

as much as i would like him to have both options, it looks like that's not going to happen.

considering how far out some people thought nolan was going to go, i can take it.

 

[He-Man]

This poll is completely useless without an option for both.

Indeed

 

[sasquatchs]

Choosing just one is the entire point of the thread, if it has one

 

[Hack and Slash]

Can't really pick one, so hard to choose

 

[Penismightier]

Both is really the only answer. And to whoever posed the question as to whether Superman was still Superman without the insignia. Take that one step further, is Batman still Batman without the pointy ears? the utility belt? the cape? You can take away elements that make up a character 'til the cows come home and still have it be Batman, but that doesn't mean it will work. The point is both of the options in the poll are vital elements to the character.

 

[TedKordLives]

I posed that question, and I started this thread. As I said in my initial post, the point is not "Which Joker is best?" Or "Which should be in the film?" The point is, a lot of people are saying that IF Joker just applies make-up, it will ruin the character. Having an option for both would actually RUIN the point, because we all know that EVERYONE would vote for "both." I made the poll to illustrate a point: clothes do not make the man. While it may be dissapointing, it shouldn't ruin the movie, or the performance. When you get in the theater, you'll see the Joker, one way or another, and, seeing as how none of us really know what will and won't be in the film, there's not a lot of purpose sitting around complaining that "what we've seen is not the Joker."

 

[Penismightier]

I posed that question, and I started this thread. As I said in my initial post, the point is not "Which Joker is best?" Or "Which should be in the film?" The point is, a lot of people are saying that IF Joker just applies make-up, it will ruin the character. Having an option for both would actually RUIN the point, because we all know that EVERYONE would vote for "both." I made the poll to illustrate a point: clothes do not make the man. While it may be dissapointing, it shouldn't ruin the movie, or the performance. When you get in the theater, you'll see the Joker, one way or another, and, seeing as how none of us really know what will and won't be in the film, there's not a lot of purpose sitting around complaining that "what we've seen is not the Joker."

Clothes may not make the man, but the events that caused The Joker to have his bleached skin made him who he is and brought about the character dynamics that are vital to the character. So, it's not the clothes don't make the man, it's more of why the man is wearing those clothes. That makes all the difference.

 

[TedKordLives]

Clothes may not make the man, but the events that caused The Joker to have his bleached skin made him who he is and brought about the character dynamics that are vital to the character. So, it's not the clothes don't make the man, it's more of why the man is wearing those clothes. That makes all the difference.

Well, that's kind of my point. We don't know who the Joker was before he got doused in chemicals. Whether or not that is the event that defined his personality is up in the air, even in the comics. The latest Joker origin story characterizes him as a sociopathic master thief with a death wish before he becomes the Joker. Nolan's Joker may (and undoubtedly does) have different motivations and origins to be psychotic. You can't count on the "acid bath" origin, and you can't count on the acid bath as being the event that makes him who he is.

 

[sasquatchs]

Well, that's kind of my point. We don't know who the Joker was before he got doused in chemicals. Whether or not that is the event that defined his personality is up in the air, even in the comics. The latest Joker origin story characterizes him as a sociopathic master thief with a death wish before he becomes the Joker. Nolan's Joker may (and undoubtedly does) have different motivations and origins to be psychotic. You can't count on the "acid bath" origin, and you can't count on the acid bath as being the event that makes him who he is.

Well said. I think most people are just worried about potentially seeing Joker with a normal face, it would be pretty disappointing

 

[TedKordLives]

Well said. I think most people are just worried about potentially seeing Joker with a normal face, it would be pretty disappointing

That's pretty true, but I'm confident that Nolan won't let that happen.

Honestly, I'm expecting a bleached skin Joker, flesh colored make-up (cause it fits his sense of humor), and no origin story. Someone said in another thread that Batman Begins was all about seeing where Batman comes from, but the Joker just is. It's the universe's big joke. Why is he the way he is? Well, just because. I think we'll see Batman trying to find out his past to get inside his head, and he'll be barking up the wrong tree. There is no past, there's just the Joker. "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

And that's really really terrifying.

 

[Motown Marvel]

without the bleached skin and clown face, then he's just another twisted sociopath. without the sick humor then he's just a dude who looks like a clown. if you want the JOKER (!) then you gotta have both. not one is more important than the other, because its the combination of the two that makes him who he is.

 

[Penismightier]

Well, that's kind of my point. We don't know who the Joker was before he got doused in chemicals. Whether or not that is the event that defined his personality is up in the air, even in the comics. The latest Joker origin story characterizes him as a sociopathic master thief with a death wish before he becomes the Joker. Nolan's Joker may (and undoubtedly does) have different motivations and origins to be psychotic. You can't count on the "acid bath" origin, and you can't count on the acid bath as being the event that makes him who he is.

I don't think whether that was the event that defined his personality is in question. Origins and such really matter little in the grand scheme of things with regards to The Joker. Take Batman confidential #7's origin, for instance. Say he didn't get his face bleached. What would he be? Just like the guy from that comic? It doesn't matter, I think it's obvious that his accident turned him into a whole different person. It's like this. Say, someone made a movie where Bruce Wayne's parents aren't killed, nothing happens to them except they live normal lives. That's the key to what made Bruce turn into Batman. What's the point of the character if he didn't have that catalyst to turn him into Batman? Just like, what's the point of a guy who's a regular killer who puts on clown makeup? The character really has no meaning anymore, or at the very least the meaning is diluted.

 

[nickyg641]

See, the thing is, the Joker hasn't always had a "sick sense of humor and psychotic tendencies". Through his history, he's gone from psychotic gangster to silly clown to raving psychopath.

BUT, what has remained the same, is his appearance and the permancence of it.

Not saying it's more important. I'm saying that it's just as important to the character as his personality. Therefore, I think the lack of a third option, "Both", is unfair.

 

[TedKordLives]

I don't think whether that was the event that defined his personality is in question. Origins and such really matter little in the grand scheme of things with regards to The Joker. Take Batman confidential #7's origin, for instance. Say he didn't get his face bleached. What would he be? Just like the guy from that comic? It doesn't matter, I think it's obvious that his accident turned him into a whole different person. It's like this. Say, someone made a movie where Bruce Wayne's parents aren't killed, nothing happens to them except they live normal lives. That's the key to what made Bruce turn into Batman. What's the point of the character if he didn't have that catalyst to turn him into Batman? Just like, what's the point of a guy who's a regular killer who puts on clown makeup? The character really has no meaning anymore, or at the very least the meaning is diluted.

Well, what I'm saying is, we have no idea what his origin in this film will be, and it's 100% likely that the "events" or factors that drive him over the edge have nothing to do with an acid bath, or chemicals, or bleached skin. In all honesty, as I said above, I don't think we'll get that insight in this film. As far as the Confidential origin goes, it's pretty clear the guy's already a narcissist, and a sociopath before he ever gets his skin bleached. People don't just snap, and become sociopaths, not even from a nice dousing of chemicals. It's something that's endemic in the nature of that person's psychology. You can't "lose" remorse.

 

[TedKordLives]

It's not unfair, cause that's not the question.

 

[Hole Shot]

I think it's a pretty simple question that sums up most debates in this forum regarding the Joker, i.e., what's more important to you - the characterization or the physical appearance?

 

[Penismightier]

Narcissism and being a sociopath are personality traits. When The Joker fell into those chemicals, it was like a mind-wipe. All that was left were subconscious personality traits and maybe some memories. Who he was and his back story don't matter. Whatever Nolan's origin is for his Joker, it's looking as though his skin is not bleached. Why does this matter? Because, while certain subconscious personality traits remain after his accident, he is for all intents and purposes a new person. And, despite what Nolan may think, bleached skin is vital to the character. Nolan's origin doesn't matter, the perma-white skin is as important to the character as his personality.

 

[TedKordLives]

Well, you say "tomato," I say "*****ebag."

 

[regwec]

Hahahah! What a pathetically lopsided and biased poll. Whose intelligence are we trying to insult, here?

 

[Mr. Superhero]

God, this is so obvious. The Joker might look the part, but if he doesn't act like the Joker, then what's the point? The role of the Joker can only be pulled off if you play the role correctly. If you can put in a truly crazed performance which is very convincing, then you have found yourself a fine Joker.

It's almost impossible to go wrong with the appearance. All he needs is a white face, green hair, and a red smile.

 

[regwec]

Unless his appearance implies a change to his being, his past and therefore his mind: for instance, if The Joker's skin had not been damaged in some kind of trauma.

 

[Mr. Thing]

I quite like the idea that someone said that the police and Batman think that he just wears make up, but then they find out that his face is actually bleached white. Don't you think the rumour could be right, but it's only his face that is permanently bleached?

 

[The Sage]

Without the bleached skin and permanent clown face, the Joker would just be your typical serial killer.