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

[dark_b]

if you make it different some people wont like it. if you make it similar some other people wont like it.

a director can not win. you can not make a movie for everyone.

its impossible.

thank you .

 

[Crook]

Not all the material that was new and different was all that approved, there were a lot of harsh reactions against the Tumbler, for instance.

I didn't say it was approved, just that the material was seen as different. I was perplexed by the numerous time you've brought up the Burton thing, since that was non-existent throughout BB's production.

The flying scene between Supes and Lois, for instance, and many small moments like Lois passing out after being rescued by Supes, throwing the baseball like the football he kicked in STM, etc.

Yeah, but those are specific scenes ripped directly out of STM. There's a fine line between homage and rip-off, and I think SR steadily stepped over that line various times. That's why there was a backlash.

And if the fillmmakers just go repeating things that Burton did with Joker cuz it´s "traditional" the same could happen to TDK.

Repeating things would be remaking the scenes of Joker's first appearance at a mob boss' office, meeting the love interest at a museum, killing a person in front of City Hall, and using a church as the scenery for the climax. That would be repeating.

And only when those things happen, would I say the various "oh, it would remind the audience too much of Burton" comments have any sort of merit.

Since when adhering to a 60 year old tradition is different? Now that´s the second weirdest comment I read here - the "Joker doesn´t look creepy and psychotic" one still takes the cake.

You read it out of context. I didn't mean:

"adhering to the traditional look is different and likewise acceptable"

What I meant is:

"adhering to the traditional look is different than blatantly copying various beats and images ala SR, to the point where it seems like this is all too familiar, thus the two can't be compared"


As I said before, Joker's iconic look has stayed fairly consistent over the years, imo only trumped by the Spider-Man outfit. His entire look, thanks to the 66 series and the 89 movie is ingrained in all our minds already. We've already accepted this look, just as we've already accepted Superman's suit.

The way to make your specific vision stand out lies within how the character is written. With what we have so far, it's looking pretty damn good and I will say I'm excited to see it unfold on-screen.

My only regret is I wish we could've gotten a traditional look, because really that's all the audience would need to know this is a very different take on a classic character. One would think by the time we've seen Joker for about 5-10 minutes in TDK, this part would be obvious.

 

[Stanley Ipkiss]

I Think BB and TDK are just classic batman stories updated for the modern era

 

[ultimatefan]

I didn't say it was approved, just that the material was seen as different. I was perplexed by the numerous time you've brought up the Burton thing, since that was non-existent throughout BB's production.


Yeah, but those are specific scenes ripped directly out of STM. There's a fine line between homage and rip-off, and I think SR steadily stepped over that line various times. That's why there was a backlash.


Repeating things would be remaking the scenes of Joker's first appearance at a mob boss' office, meeting the love interest at a museum, killing a person in front of City Hall, and using a church as the scenery for the climax. That would be repeating.

And only when those things happen, would I say the various "oh, it would remind the audience too much of Burton" comments have any sort of merit.


You read it out of context. I didn't mean:

"adhering to the traditional look is different and likewise acceptable"

What I meant is:

"adhering to the traditional look is different than blatantly copying various beats and images ala SR, to the point where it seems like this is all too familiar, thus the two can't be compared"


As I said before, Joker's iconic look has stayed fairly consistent over the years, imo only trumped by the Spider-Man outfit. His entire look, thanks to the 66 series and the 89 movie is ingrained in all our minds already. We've already accepted this look, just as we've already accepted Superman's suit.

The way to make your specific vision stand out lies within how the character is written. With what we have so far, it's looking pretty damn good and I will say I'm excited to see it unfold on-screen.

My only regret is I wish we could've gotten a traditional look, because really that's all the audience would need to know this is a very different take on a classic character. One would think by the time we've seen Joker for about 5-10 minutes in TDK, this part would be obvious.

It wasn´t non-existent, if you pay attention BB actually DID have images and moments that paid tribute to Burton - like when he opens the closet to reveal the cowl - and even some scenes - rescuing the girl with the batmobile, for instance - and plot points - the crowd being poisoned with gas.

How about seeing the movie to know if the look is consistent with the tone, feel and storyline of the movie?

The black Batman suit for 89 also wasn´t the blue and gray suit that existed for decades in comics and cartoons and was ingrained in the minds of comics fans as well. But it worked much better for the tone, feel and storyline of 89 than a blue and gray suit would have.

And as I saw happen in comics a number of times, when people just insist on what´s been done again and again for decades instead of trying different variations of the basic motifs, it´s exactly when the comics begin to get stale and boring.

 

[Phaser]

It's downright hilarious how both sides of the camp here can so easily predict the exact reaction of the audience or what they really want to see. You guys need to give your crystal balls to Hollywood so that they can stop making crappy movies.

 

[ultimatefan]

It's downright hilarious how both sides of the camp here can so easily predicting what the exact reaction of the audience or what they really want to see. You guys need to give your crystal balls to Hollywood so that they can stop making crappy movies.

I never said I was referring to what EVERYBODY was going to think, but from my experience here it´s not hard to predict that some reactions are bound to happen, considering certain circumstances. The minute I saw the Joker picture, Í knew there would be controversy with defenders of the traditional look.

 

[Crook]

It wasn´t non-existent, if you pay attention BB actually DID have images and moments that paid tribute to Burton - like when he opens the closet to reveal the cowl - and even some scenes - rescuing the girl with the batmobile, for instance - and plot points - the crowd being poisoned with gas.

I was actually referring to the message board talk during BB's production. Burton was hardly mentioned unless it was a discussion of preference in style.

But since you did bring it up, your examples are homages or tributes as you say. That's fine, since it was kept to a minimum, and didn't necessarily scream "wait a minute, I've seen this already!". The only time I really felt that way was the Tumbler chase, with the girl being in the car, and then bringing her into the cave. But whatever, a minor tidbit.

How about seeing the movie to know if the look is consistent with the tone, feel and storyline of the movie?

I'm not doubting that it will. I wanna know what was Nolan's primary reason in going with the look he did though. If a lot of it has to do with the sake of differentiating itself from previous incarnations, then well, I feel it's a lazy attempt.

If however he was adamant on this specific look because he feels it's the best way to represent his vision, then I can't hold a grudge for that. I can only hope that the aesthetics don't bother me as much as it does now.

The black Batman suit for 89 also wasn´t the blue and gray suit that existed for decades in comics and cartoons and was ingrained in the minds of comics fans as well. But it worked much better for the tone, feel and storyline of 89 than a blue and gray suit would have.

Well obviously, but even with that, the change in color is still in line with the source material.

It's the difference between using bright red, purple, and green with the Adam West series, and using a similar palette, but in darker hues because it fits with the overall mood in Nolan's world.

And as I saw happen in comics a number of times, when people just insist on what´s been done again and again for decades instead of trying different variations of the basic motifs, it´s exactly when the comics begin to get stale and boring.

Similar to a point that's been brought out before, this is film, not the books.

Comics have the advantage/disadvantage of churning out multiple stories every month featuring the same characters. At that rate, you're bound to reach the "been there, done that" much quicker than you can with a film franchise. How many live-action Jokers have we had? It's been about 40 years, and we're just about to get our third interpretation of the character.

 

[batman11]

I never said I was referring to what EVERYBODY was going to think, but from my experience here it´s not hard to predict that some reactions are bound to happen, considering certain circumstances. The minute I saw the Joker picture, Í knew there would be controversy with defenders of the traditional look.

Bro I love your sig. Brilliantly stated.

 

[Phaser]

I never said I was referring to what EVERYBODY was going to think, but from my experience here it´s not hard to predict that some reactions are bound to happen, considering certain circumstances. The minute I saw the Joker picture, Í knew there would be controversy with defenders of the traditional look.

Ask me, I say all this bickering over The Joker pic is both juvenile and premature. And granted, I'm not overly enthusiastic about the new look, it is a fresh and unique take in its own way and now my interest is piqued.

Also, I can't understand how in heaven's name did the posters on this forum possibly expected Nolan to give us a Joker with a "traditional" appearance. I mean, all it takes a single viewing of Batman Begins to see that the director is quite a revisionist in his own way, especially when speaking aesthetically. Reading most of the responses here, I feel people only set themselves up for disappointment, false hopes and all...

 

[The Question]

Personally, I'm just not very fond of the look. I've never been partial to a Joker who looks as twisted as he is on the inside. Yes, The Joker does, generally, look creepy and eccentric. But in the way that all clown do. Based on his look alone, not knowing the things he's done, you shouldn't think he's some kind of mentally unbalanced monster. The reason that his smile and laugh inspire fear in people is not because they're inherently scarry, it's because people in Gotham know his reputation. That mainly comes from the fact that I see him as Batman's opposite in almost every way. Batman, with his black leather, bladed weapons, and grim disposition, looks like someone who'd pull you into a back alley, stab you, and rape your orifeces until some point after you'd died of blood loss. However, he is, in fact, simply an obsessive, eccentric, and angry man who's trying to help the city, both behind a desk and on the streets. On the other hand, The Joker (usually) simply looks like a creepy and eccentric homeless fellow, but is in fact a deeply insane man with a nihilistic world veiw, who is driven solely by his Id and acts on every minor whim that passes through his head, including reinventing his personality whenever he gets bored and blowing up buildings when he's in a bad mood.

However, I don't really think that this version of The Joker is a bad one, and of course, his wanting to look creepy lends itself to the whole thing about him taking on new personalities and roles depending on his mood. I'm simply not particularly excited by it being how he looks in our first glimps of him.

 

[The Sage]

What i'm wondering is...why couldnt we have...I dunno...just throwing this out there...both a joker that is actually faithful to the comics and something that looks scary?

Thats the problem with many people on both sides...you act like its either or.

what you hit on earlier with ceaser and tom lee jones...you realize that, they too fit their respective tones perfectly? Of course no one's gonna use Romero's Joker today....Romero's Joker only works because the TV show purposely made the characters look like jokes....which is probably why they let romero keep his mustache on even with the white paint on him. O Neil, Engleheart, etc all took the classic look and fit them into their tones. They didnt need Joker looking like some Edward Scissorhands reject to make their own mark on the clown prince of crime.

Most didnt have a problem with Jack Nicholson as Joker because...he actually looked like the joker, short and fatness aside. The face from the comics was translated to screen, even with the perma laugh. They managed to fit burtons tone of a screwball world and the comics at the same time. Same with Batman's outfit. With the molded rubber, its essentially the neal adams costume except in all black. I dont agree that fans wouldve freaked out...at least not in the way you think. Hearing about a black suit, yes...but seeing it...like many did when WB released that teaser...people wouldve shut up immediately, because the suit looks like the comics and fit the tone of the movie.

People didnt like the SR suit because it took the bright, shiny colors of Superman, and made them muddled and dark, and they looked horrible put together. At least Batmans a dark character...you understood why his suit was made darker. With Superman, it seemed very unnecessary, and frankly, the suit looked horrible in the first picture.

Sorry, but people dont like this pic because they crapped all over the joker look. Even though nolan disappointed the hell out of me with Scarecrow, at least he had some semblance of the comics, especially at the end of the movie. At least Movie Ra's Al Ghul looked somewhat like the comic Ras Al Ghul. But Joker? He looks like one the comic joker's sick lackey's that joker would throw in a vat of acid for no reason.

Now, I know many Nolanites are, as they usually do, completely spit on the comics and praise whatever the hell nolan does, but realize that fitting the tone and being actually faithful to the over all look of the character are not mutually exclusive ideas. If Spider-Man, Iron Man, and Chris Reeve's superman could do it, so can joker.

Was wondering what you thought of the new Joker. Great post.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your post. Maybe they were going for the opposite effect to get all that would annoy some fans right off the bat and also emphasize the new aspect of the take and then slowly win them over between here and the time the movie opens.

That might well be true,to be honest im past my initial dislike of it now,it's not really growing on me exactly but i don't feel that "ugh" feeling when i see the pic any more,i'm now just anticipating this apparently soon to arrive teaser which will hopefully give us a full look at him.

 

[ultimatefan]

I was actually referring to the message board talk during BB's production. Burton was hardly mentioned unless it was a discussion of preference in style.

But since you did bring it up, your examples are homages or tributes as you say. That's fine, since it was kept to a minimum, and didn't necessarily scream "wait a minute, I've seen this already!". The only time I really felt that way was the Tumbler chase, with the girl being in the car, and then bringing her into the cave. But whatever, a minor tidbit.


I'm not doubting that it will. I wanna know what was Nolan's primary reason in going with the look he did though. If a lot of it has to do with the sake of differentiating itself from previous incarnations, then well, I feel it's a lazy attempt.

If however he was adamant on this specific look because he feels it's the best way to represent his vision, then I can't hold a grudge for that. I can only hope that the aesthetics don't bother me as much as it does now.


Well obviously, but even with that, the change in color is still in line with the source material.

It's the difference between using bright red, purple, and green with the Adam West series, and using a similar palette, but in darker hues because it fits with the overall mood in Nolan's world.


Similar to a point that's been brought out before, this is film, not the books.

Comics have the advantage/disadvantage of churning out multiple stories every month featuring the same characters. At that rate, you're bound to reach the "been there, done that" much quicker than you can with a film franchise. How many live-action Jokers have we had? It's been about 40 years, and we're just about to get our third interpretation of the character.

The black cowl and cape was in line with early Batman appearances. For most of his history, at that point, his traditional look was blue and gray.

Being an event as a film brings a lot of other complications. These movies, even though they clearly have an eye on the fans, are made for regular joes, not the loyal comics fans that won´t mind seeing Joker come back again and again. From the studio´s POV, it´s not easy to try and reinvent a franchise that spent years dead in the water and make people interested again. BB did it, but it had new villains and a storyline that had never been told in comics. Now they´re gonna have a main villain that has already been the main villain in a movie, it DOES demand an extra effort to make the character feel like a fresh take.

 

[ultimatefan]

Bro I love your sig. Brilliantly stated.

Thanks!

 

[regwec]

Personally, I'm just not very fond of the look. I've never been partial to a Joker who looks as twisted as he is on the inside. Yes, The Joker does, generally, look creepy and eccentric. But in the way that all clown do. Based on his look alone, not knowing the things he's done, you shouldn't think he's some kind of mentally unbalanced monster. The reason that his smile and laugh inspire fear in people is not because they're inherently scarry, it's because people in Gotham know his reputation. That mainly comes from the fact that I see him as Batman's opposite in almost every way. Batman, with his black leather, bladed weapons, and grim disposition, looks like someone who'd pull you into a back alley, stab you, and rape your orifeces until some point after you'd died of blood loss. However, he is, in fact, simply an obsessive, eccentric, and angry man who's trying to help the city, both behind a desk and on the streets. On the other hand, The Joker (usually) simply looks like a creepy and eccentric homeless fellow, but is in fact a deeply insane man with a nihilistic world veiw, who is driven solely by his Id and acts on every minor whim that passes through his head, including reinventing his personality whenever he gets bored and blowing up buildings when he's in a bad mood.

I was just lamenting the deterioration of the standard of debate during my absence, and then I found this. Well done!

 

[ultimatefan]

Personally, I'm just not very fond of the look. I've never been partial to a Joker who looks as twisted as he is on the inside. Yes, The Joker does, generally, look creepy and eccentric. But in the way that all clown do. Based on his look alone, not knowing the things he's done, you shouldn't think he's some kind of mentally unbalanced monster. The reason that his smile and laugh inspire fear in people is not because they're inherently scarry, it's because people in Gotham know his reputation. That mainly comes from the fact that I see him as Batman's opposite in almost every way. Batman, with his black leather, bladed weapons, and grim disposition, looks like someone who'd pull you into a back alley, stab you, and rape your orifeces until some point after you'd died of blood loss. However, he is, in fact, simply an obsessive, eccentric, and angry man who's trying to help the city, both behind a desk and on the streets. On the other hand, The Joker (usually) simply looks like a creepy and eccentric homeless fellow, but is in fact a deeply insane man with a nihilistic world veiw, who is driven solely by his Id and acts on every minor whim that passes through his head, including reinventing his personality whenever he gets bored and blowing up buildings when he's in a bad mood.

However, I don't really think that this version of The Joker is a bad one, and of course, his wanting to look creepy lends itself to the whole thing about him taking on new personalities and roles depending on his mood. I'm simply not particularly excited by it being how he looks in our first glimps of him.

It depends on the artist, I believe. Some of them make the creepiness more explicit and make it work.

 

[itsthebatman]

I was just lamenting the deterioration of the standard of debate during my absence, and then I found this. Well done!

Good to see you back.

 

[The Question]

It depends on the artist, I believe. Some of them make the creepiness more explicit and make it work.

Sometimes, yes. It's just not a personal favorite of mine. I simply prefer a Joker who pays a bit more atention to making his outward apperarence look nice because I think that's in keeping with his character.

 

[itsthebatman]

Sometimes, yes. It's just not a personal favorite of mine. I simply prefer a Joker who pays a bit more atention to making his outward apperarence look nice because I think that's in keeping with his character.

I agree that his vanity has been a key aspect of his character. What I think they may be doing in TDK is portraying a vain Joker who is further disfigured by Batman, ruining his appearance and giving him a personal reason to pursue a vendetta against Batman. I'll certainly be interested to see if that's the driection they take.

 

[ultimatefan]

Sometimes, yes. It's just not a personal favorite of mine. I simply prefer a Joker who pays a bit more atention to making his outward apperarence look nice because I think that's in keeping with his character.

Well, if he can make his chalk white skin and greenish hair look nice from his POV, he can probably do the same with scars. I like that Joker´s vanity is an irony, he has a twisted view of beauty, which was explored in different comics and also in 89. But these characters are always subject to personal interpretation anyway.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I was just lamenting the deterioration of the standard of debate during my absence, and then I found this. Well done!

Hey

 

[regwec]

Hey

Present company excepted- I was actually more cross with the "I went to went to film school and I'm a director and I knew Hitchcock and I work for NASA and my dad could beat your dad so I"M RIGHT" type of stuff.

Good to see you back.

Thank you, it's nice to be back, though my eyes are almost bleeding with weariness!

 

[The Question]

Well, if he can make his chalk white skin and greenish hair look nice from his POV, he can probably do the same with scars. I like that Joker´s vanity is an irony, he has a twisted view of beauty, which was explored in different comics and also in 89. But these characters are always subject to personal interpretation anyway.

I don't think his sense of beauty is (usually) ironic at all. I think what he thinks looks nice isn't that different from what we think looks nice. I don't think his madness is based on the idea that he has a twisted sense of humor, beauty, or morality. I think it's that he has no real sense of humor, beauty, morality, or anything for that matter. He's lost in his own little world where he's the star of an off broadway play. So, while I can forgive the glasgow smile and smeared lipstick if it's explained as being one of his "roles," I'm just not fond of it being how he looks for the get go.

 

[ultimatefan]

I don't think his sense of beauty is (usually) ironic at all. I think what he thinks looks nice isn't that different from what we think looks nice. I don't think his madness is based on the idea that he has a twisted sense of humor, beauty, or morality. I think it's that he has no real sense of humor, beauty, morality, or anything for that matter. He's lost in his own little world where he's the star of an off broadway play. So, while I can forgive the glasgow smile and smeared lipstick if it's explained as being one of his "roles," I'm just not fond of it being how he looks for the get go.

If he thinks he looks nice in spite of having perennial chalk white skin and green hair - not to mention creepy smile and eyes - yes, I do think he has a twisted sense of beauty. To me his sense of humor is based on the idea that he sees everything in a twisted way, which includes beauty and morality.

 

[regwec]

Well, that's a new and rather radical reinvention.