The Dark Knight Why getting tone and feel right is more important than detail accuracy...

[ultimatefan]

They should laugh at his jokes, and then feel incredibly guilty and morally confused when he stabs the target of his puns to death. "Dark charisma" has always been the core of The Joker, for me. You love him until he gives you reason to hate him.

With "The Joke", I just can't like him at all. There's nothing morally troubling about him. He is just a monster that looks like a monster.

The Joker´s not perceived as funny by his victims, his smile is supposed to horrify, not inspire laughter, he´s being hilarious in his own mind, not that of the people he´s directing his cruel sense of humor. If he´s funny, it´s in the sense that in his mind it´s all a fun game, when it´s actually cruelty and sadism.

Anyway, he doesn´t look that much more of a monster than he already does in the comics. His pale look, his psychotic eyes and maniacal smile are inherently creepy and monsterish. A persond have to be incredibly stupid to ever believe he´s being a harmless, upbeat funny guy.

 

[regwec]

The Joker´s not perceived as funny by his victims, his smile is supposed to horrify, not inspire laughter, he´s being hilarious in his own mind, not that of the people he´s directing his cruel sense of humor. If he´s funny, it´s in the sense that in his mind it´s all a fun game, when it´s actually cruelty and sadism.

If you look, my friend, you will notice that I didn't say that he should amuse his victims. I said that he should play with the audience's emotions by alternately entertaining and horrifying them.

Anyway, he doesn´t look that much more of a monster than he already does in the comics. His pale look, his psychotic eyes and maniacal smile are inherently creepy and monsterish. A persond have to be incredibly stupid to ever believe he´s being a harmless, upbeat funny guy.

You can't really believe this? Surely? Without recourse to an iconoclastic comic like Arkham Asylum or Batman 663, I really don't think you could draw the conclusion that The Joker's appearance is of itself supposed to be particularly "horrifying". Sinsister, yes, but never monstrous.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

This Joker looks like he means business. He doesn;t betray an inherent goofiness. I never understood how, or why, in the Burton flick, Nicholson's character, having fallen into the toxic waste, not only turned all white, but also into a fricking man-child. I shudder when I remember that museum scene.

 

[regwec]

The major fault with Burton's Joker is that his psychological errosion isn't rendered as vividly as his physical transformation. Eckhart calls him a "psycho" and a "nut boy", and he seems quite unstable during his younger years, but neither of these offers a statisfying premonition of what is to come.

 

[ultimatefan]

If you look, my friend, you will notice that I didn't say that he should amuse his victims. I said that he should play with the audience's emotions by alternately entertaining and horrifying them.


You can't really believe this? Surely? Without recourse to an iconoclastic comic like Arkham Asylum or Batman 663, I really don't think you could draw the conclusion that The Joker's appearance is of itself supposed to be particularly "horrifying". Sinsister, yes, but never monstrous.

But the way he entertains the audience is dark, he´s not funny in the sense of being an actual comedian who gives you a good time, he entertains you in the sense that he thinks he´s doing something very entertaining, when he´s actually being a sadistic psycho.

Depends on what you define as horrigying. Maybe you don´t, but I find every iconic image of Joker as being horrifying. The pale skin, horrible eyes and smile may not be monsterish in a supernatural way, but he´s scary like a monster, no question.

 

[ToddIsDead]

I think regwec is right on the ball in terms of the characterization of the Joker.

 

[ultimatefan]

I think regwec is right on the ball in terms of the characterization of the Joker.

Even if he is, none of that means that this Joker is wrong. People are trying to judge an entire characterization of a character on one picture. It´s like when people said The Tumbler wasn´t going to be fast cuz it looked "too heavy" in the first couple pictures.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Don't you think the reason will be explored in the movie though? knowing what we know of story details it's doubtful it will just suddenly appear to look edgy or anything. I'm guessing Nolan wants to evolve the Joker beyond what audiences already know of him, to help flesh out his character. It doesn't necessarily have to be about making him more 'realistic' just for realisms sake.

i'm not saying they can't come up with a reason within the narrative i'm saying they can't come up with one from a film making standpoint to change a classic

His traditional look will most likely still be there though. And then whatever happens after the scarring can actually demonstrate that the Joker doesn't want too look grotesque, he wants to be a circus act. It's probably a way of addressing everything that us fanboys already know about the Joker, but more vividly for audiences who don't really have a clue. In a way it could actually help tell a Joker origin story of sorts, starting out as a crazed bank robber (already with bleached face and everything, a kind of half-Joker) and then taking him to a much weirder extreme.

My point is they could have done that minus the ripped face,instead using the chemicals

 

[Hunter Rider]

Its not about "needing" to look a freak. Well, it kind of is, but I'll get to that in a second. Its about needing to balance a few things. Its about the manner in which Joker obtains the smile in most comics not fitting with this director. Rob Zombie wouldn't make a John Hughes film and Nolan isn't going to make chemicals the cause of "that" smile. Of course thats hyperbole but I'm making a point. This recent image, this manner of obtaining the smile, is most fitting taking into account the world Nolan has created and the way the smile is shown in the comics.

1.) The smile in the comics is beyond human. I can grab the calipers.

2.) Translating that in some manner to film is essential to the character

3.) Its unfitting for Nolan's world to accept a chemical bath producing anything resembling the larger than life symmetrical smile from the comics.

It reasons out.

I can give you a bit more, from another thread, if you need some precedents from BB showing Nolan's style to be practical.

And I believe your last paragraph does mention a part of Nolan's reasoning. I think not only does repeating the chemical smile Joker not fit here, but any comparison of a Jack Nicholson performance, regardless of the costume, against a Heath Ledger performance is a losing prospect for Nolan.

We really could just be talking about different means to an end. Maybe it heals up a bit further, its not as prominent as it seems in this pic, it becomes mostly just Ledger's smile, or he gets plastic surgery like in 89. Maybe it will look exactly as you fear.

See this is a huge problem i have with this "Nolan's world" stuff,it's ok to a point but when his so called realism starts messing with an icon it becomes arrogance IMO or as you noted at the bottom fear of trying to clash with Nicholson.

I don't see a movie that had a tank like vehicle jumping across rooftops as anymore realistic than a chemically induced smile

 

[360sculptguy]

See this is a huge problem i have with this "Nolan's world" stuff,it's ok to a point but when his so called realism starts messing with an icon it becomes arrogance IMO or as you noted at the bottom fear of trying to clash with Nicholson.

I don't see a movie that had a tank like vehicle jumping across rooftops as anymore realistic than a chemically induced smile

Valid point on the second part. There are still plenty of fantastical elements to be found in Begins. However, in this case, he doesn't leave us without any reference as to why this might be possible. The tumbler began as a vehicle meant to make rampless jumps for the military I believe.

On your first part I agree that arrogance, ego, and pride are all words that could be used.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Valid point on the second part. There are still plenty of fantastical elements to be found in Begins. However, in this case, he doesn't leave us without any reference as to why this might be possible. The tumbler began as a vehicle meant to make rampless jumps for the military I believe.

On your first part I agree that arrogance, ego, and pride are all words that could be used.

The tumbler has it's basic explanation made clear but Nolan took the jumping part into the fantasy realm,to me the same could be done with the Jokers smile.

To clarify i am not saying this movie is doomed and i am very much willing to wait until i actually see the Joker in action in a trailer before i throw the baby out with the bathwater,i guess just like a lot of fans of The Joker i'm a little peeved at this initial reveal.

 

[ultimatefan]

See this is a huge problem i have with this "Nolan's world" stuff,it's ok to a point but when his so called realism starts messing with an icon it becomes arrogance IMO or as you noted at the bottom fear of trying to clash with Nicholson.

I don't see a movie that had a tank like vehicle jumping across rooftops as anymore realistic than a chemically induced smile

But people forget that this "messing with icons" thing is done in the comics, it´s not messing per se, it´s trying new interpretations of the characters and keep them fresh and interesting. A lot of the things Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Jeph Loeb, etc. did would be considered "messing" given the status quo of their day, but they helped to inject new life into the characters, and if there was Internet at the time, I´d bet there would have been a lot of people calling that "messing" back then.

And I never used the term realism to refer to this look, but I think it´s effective in the way of being something different and yet retaining core trades of the character - minus the smile, maybe, but we have yet to see that.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

this is a fantastic thread Ultimate..couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Hunter Rider]

But people forget that this "messing with icons" thing is done in the comics, it´s not messing per se, it´s trying new interpretations of the characters and keep them fresh and interesting. A lot of the things Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Jeph Loeb, etc. did would be considered "messing" given the status quo of their day, but they helped to inject new life into the characters, and if there was Internet at the time, I´d bet there would have been a lot of people calling that "messing" back then.

And I never used the term realism to refer to this look, but I think it´s effective in the way of being something different and yet retaining core trades of the character - minus the smile, maybe, but we have yet to see that.

While that is true there is context to be taken into consideration,in comic world a writer/artist can run on a book for a few months and then someone else can take over and change it back if it doesn't work,also several titles can run at once so readers have a choice.....

With a movie you have ONE shot and that is it,this is Nolan's Joker and will be the Joker on film for the next 5 or more years,in fact probably much longer,there is no altering it in the next arc in 4 months time so it's not really the same for the fans,they can't say "Well i'm not feeling Bejermo's take in title A but Lee is doing the art over on Detective comics version so i'll read that instead" this is it,they are stuck with it for the foreseeable future

I never said you used the term,that part of my reply was to a separate poster who did use that term

 

[abcdefz]

IMO nolan will never make a movie where people in the theater laugh. never.

Nolan has used humor in all of his movies.

...maybe not "Following"... I don't remember that one so clearly. But, otherwise...

 

[dark_b]

i hate it when people who like the new joker are saying that it is because nolan likes realism. thats not true IMO. and makes the guys who love the new joker look bad.

sorry

 

[dark_b]

Nolan has used humor in all of his movies.

...maybe not "Following"... I don't remember that one so clearly. But, otherwise...

i meant when joker is in hes element. when joker is in a dark and scary scene killing a guy you will not laugh in nolans batman.

its like spidey 3. the darkest moements in the movie were teh funniet. no way

 

[ultimatefan]

While that is true there is context to be taken into consideration,in comic world a writer/artist can run on a book for a few months and then someone else can take over and change it back if it doesn't work,also several titles can run at once so readers have a choice.....

With a movie you have ONE shot and that is it,this is Nolan's Joker and will be the Joker on film for the next 5 or more years,in fact probably much longer,there is no altering it in the next arc in 4 months time so it's not really the same for the fans,they can't say "Well i'm not feeling Bejermo's take in title A but Lee is doing the art over on Detective comics version so i'll read that instead" this is it,they are stuck with it for the foreseeable future

I never said you used the term,that part of my reply was to a separate poster who did use that term

But it´s also not like we never saw the traditional Joker´s look in a movie. If this was the first time The Joker was depicted in a movie, I´d probably even agree with a lot of fans that it´s a bad idea. But whoever feels traditional Joker is the only Joker will always have Nicholson in 89. And let´s face it, ANY significant changes on the look would be attacked by a portion of the fans, if it was to be something people´d barely notice, what would be the point of changing anything?

 

[regwec]

Nicholson did not exhibit The Joker's classical look. He was thick-set and solid with a scarred mouth. Instead of giving us the classical Joker, or something completely new, WB has given us a variation on the same theme.

 

[Hunter Rider]

But it´s also not like we never saw the traditional Joker´s look in a movie. If this was the first time The Joker was depicted in a movie, I´d probably even agree with a lot of fans that it´s a bad idea. But whoever feels traditional Joker is the only Joker will always have Nicholson in 89. And let´s face it, ANY significant changes on the look would be attacked by a portion of the fans, if it was to be something people´d barely notice, what would be the point of changing anything?

We saw the traditional Joker look on film almost 20 years ago,is it really so wrong to want to see a darker but significantly traditional joker instead of what many see as an horrific slasher style villain look ?

Sometimes change isn't good and there is that old saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it" that's how the fans feel about The Joker and i understand that......most likely in time i'll simply do as i always do and accept the change and take this as an elseworlds version of the character but in the back of my mind i'll always feel there was a middle ground that Nolan ignored.

 

[ultimatefan]

We saw the traditional Joker look on film almost 20 years ago,is it really so wrong to want to see a darker but significantly traditional joker instead of what many see as an horrific slasher style villain look ?

Sometimes change isn't good and there is that old saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it" that's how the fans feel about The Joker and i understand that......most likely in time i'll simply do as i always do and accept the change and take this as an elseworlds version of the character but in the back of my mind i'll always feel there was a middle ground that Nolan ignored.

What defines a horrific slasher horror villain? The slasher horror villain is the mindless psycho who goes around chopping teenagers...From what we saw in the viral campaign, the Joker won´t be that.

It´s not necessarily wrong, but having an open mind to different takes isn´t such a horrible thing either, and some fans - I´m not saying you - seem to think it is.

If he went for a middle ground, you can bet there would be people blowing the changes out of proportion - like I think some are blowing THESE changes out of proportion already - of that Nolan "chckened out". Some criticize Nolan whenever he does something that feels "Burtonesque" and some criticize him whenever he goes into a different direction.

 

[IamtheBatman]

Joker will be creepy if he is in the shadow's in TDK!

 

[Hunter Rider]

What defines a horrific slasher horror villain? The slasher horror villain is the mindless psycho who goes around chopping teenagers...From what we saw in the viral campaign, the Joker won´t be that.

It´s not necessarily wrong, but having an open mind to different takes isn´t such a horrible thing either, and some fans - I´m not saying you - seem to think it is.

If he went for a middle ground, you can bet there would be people blowing the changes out of proportion - like I think some are blowing THESE changes out of proportion already - of that Nolan "chckened out". Some criticize Nolan whenever he does something that feels "Burtonesque" and some criticize him whenever he goes into a different direction.

Freddy wasn't a mindless villain but he was horrific to look at,the characterization is very important i agree but his look is an horrific one as opposed to creepy IMO.

That's true but as someone who has to read this section a lot i'd say that some are closed mind but there are those that equally would accept any change to an icon which is just as bad.

By middle ground i was referring to the look from TKJ,that was more sinister than The B89 version but had the visual essence of The Joker,it was the kind of update from the Nicholson version i was hoping for as opposed to a radical alteration

 

[Rynan]

What defines a horrific slasher horror villain?

Grotesque appearance, penance for killing, obsession with teenagers.

But Hunter is talking about his look and he DOES look like someone who runs around killing teenagers.

Nolan should have tried harder.

 

[ultimatefan]

Freddy wasn't a mindless villain but he was horrific to look at,the characterization is very important i agree but his look is an horrific one as opposed to creepy IMO.

That's true but as someone who has to read this section a lot i'd say that some are closed mind but there are those that equally would accept any change to an icon which is just as bad.

By middle ground i was referring to the look from TKJ,that was more sinister than The B89 version but had the visual essence of The Joker,it was the kind of update from the Nicholson version i was hoping for as opposed to a radical alteration

I think Joker can be both things to some extent, to me Brian Bolland´s Joker is a bit of both.

I suspect the ones who´re closed to any changes largely outnumber the ones who accept anything, but I also think that there´s a reasonable majority that unfortunately isn´t quite as loud and insistent as the extremists.

The Killing Joke wasn´t a different look from Nicholson, it had all the same features, it looks different because it´s ART, an artist can cheat and distort things in ways a filmmaker can´t.