First Look at The Joker (BB2)

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah well he does have that smile carved into his face.... 😐 Like im saying still very much the Joker but different. I actually would prefer him to have bleached skin, but again I think Nolan is trying to be realistic.

The problem with Burtons Joker is that he just wasnt scarey, you just didnt believe that he was a pyschopath. Hoepfully this Joker will be funny and scarey.

But different strokes. As I said we will have to agree to disagree because I think Fauxker sucks, so far.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
IDA Burton's Joker scared the shit out of me when I was a kid. To me the fact that something could seem so harmless with the face of a clown and a grin and yet cause so much damage and murder without a second thought is far scarier than dirty meth house clown.

Er....ok. 😐

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce

But different strokes. As I said we will have to agree to disagree because I think Fauxker sucks, so far.

Well I dont think its unreasonable like I said i would prefer the bleached skin as well.

Alfheim, that's some good explanation... You're point about the mindset of Joker making who he is was spot on...

Personally, I don't think it's that radical of a change...

He still has green hair, a purple suit, etc. He's still went through an accident that makes him go bonkers... (Assuming Nolan won't let us down) He's still got Joker's mindset...

Just because his red lips, green hair, and white face aren't permanent, you instantly call it "lame"...

I mean, putting on make-up makes him creepier, for one... And for those complaining that their only playing to his psychosis, what about the Why So Serious viral marketing campaign? That obviously showed us that Nolan's going to make him highly intelligent and a challenge for the Batman... So if he's anything like the viral campaign, TLH, and Batman #1, he'll be mysterious, intelligent, psycho, homicidal, and with a hint of self worship...

Again, like I always say, new interpretations... If we always got the same thing, you'd get bored wouldn't you? So now that we get something fresh and different, everyone wishes they had Nicholson again... (not that Nicholson is bad, he played 70s/80s Joker perfectly, I just think that it's time they mix it up a little)

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I dont remember hearing anything back then if Bale would be right for the role back then,all I remember hearing is a lot of people saying the same thing I have,that Nolan was on the right track casting Bale and that a lot of people thought Bale would easily be a much better bruce wayne than keaton was.Of course there were the keaton defenders as well but thats what I remember hearing a lot back then.Yeah I remember people being concerned about the movie as well with scarecrow having a potatoe sack mask and a suit also along with the tumbler tank batmobile.The story was so great and exciting from start to finish though that I could look past the tumbler and enjoy the movie because it was just like a batman movie should be,filled with lots of action from start to finish with a great storyline and great casting.a batman movie should never come across as a boring snoozefest to people like so many of my school classmates were complaining about back in 89.

Yeah I sure hope to hell warner brothers has learned from their mistake this time and starts getting on the ball with the marketing of this movie and doesnt again poorly market it.its suppose to come out in july,they better start getting the posters out soon to advertise it.the key is get it in their minds like close to a year before it comes out, that the movie will be coming out sometime in the next year to get them all excited.batman is an extremely popular character but if you market him poorly like they did with begins,doesnt matter how popular he is,it wont perform up to expectations box office wise.I remember with batman 89,the marketing for THAT film,started a year before it was released which is a major reason why it did so well box office wise, but if it had been as poorly marketed as begins was when the movie was out in the theaters before a lot of people even realised it,it would never have done so well at the box office.so again,they better get on the ball and start marketing that movie NOW!!!

well after going to the movie theatres this weekend and seeing the two films-Hairspray and Borne Ultimatum-Two great movie I highly recommend everybody going to see,I now can relax my fears some that they will market this film as horribly as batman begins was.They seemed to have learned from their mistakes from the first film in marketing and seemed to have fixed that problem this time because I saw the teaser they have for the movie,with the bat insignia appearing and then the joker card with his brief laugh.so looks like they are doing what they need to be doing and promoting the movie a year before it comes out to get it into everybodys head like they should have done the first time.good to see that they seemed to have learned from their past mistake with Batman Begins. 💃

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Alfheim, that's some good explanation... You're point about the mindset of Joker making who he is was spot on...

Personally, I don't think it's that radical of a change...

He still has green hair, a purple suit, etc. He's still went through an accident that makes him go bonkers... (Assuming Nolan won't let us down) He's still got Joker's mindset...

Just because his red lips, green hair, and white face aren't permanent, you instantly call it "lame"...

I mean, putting on make-up makes him creepier, for one...

This Joker does not have to be exactly like Jack Nicholson's Joker at all but he doesn't have to look as shitty as they have him looking either.

Well, Two-Face has used make-up to achieve his look in the comics before, and that didn't make him any less of a Two-Face, so why should it be any different for Joker? I can understand why you'd feel the way you do, but I just don't agree...

Think about it, the mystery of who he truly is would be ruined if he just applied make-up because when he gets arrested by the cops & they wash the face paint off, they'll know who he is. The Joker should be an unknown unknown in the Batman universe.

Now, I'm not saying that I dislike everything about this new Joker. The supposed "no fingerprints, no identification", I love that, because it helps keep him anonymous. I like how they want him to be creepier. Is the reason he's creepier because of all these other changes? Hell no. The reason he's creepier is because of the tone they're using. You can be faithful to a character 100% and still mess it up by having a ridiculous tone, like if you have the true Joker from the comics and you put him in a comedy rather than an action drama. However, to me, they're changing way too much and they don't even have a reason to.

So far, Scarecrow and Ra's have been changed, yes, but how?

Scarecrow: The only big difference with him was costume-wise, and the reason was because him wearing a huge straw Scarecrow costume would look a little odd (however, I wish they could've had something a little more Scarecrow-like, or made it so when someone was under the gas, he looked more like a typical Scarecrow, but I can't justify a guy running around with a straw mask and a big red sweater and so forth like a typical scarecrow in the real world would be)

Ra's al Ghul: Rather than being a man who dips himself into magical Lazarus pits that make him immortal, they made it so he's immortal in the sense that he's a legacy name with the same ideas being passed down. Was he different enough that fans could ***** about it? Yes, in my opinion. Why am I not complaining about it? Because Ra's al Ghul is leagues behind the Joker in terms of popularity, memorability, and standing in regards to his purpose in the Batman saga.

The Joker is one of the most well known, if not THE MOST well known, of all comic book villains in history. Everyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge in regards to superheroes knows about the Joker. Do they know about Ra's? No. Do they know about Ventriloquist? No.

SelinaandBruce made a good point earlier about the argument that "its the spirit of the character that matters and everything else is just extra detail". You could use lots of different examples to show how that doesn't fit. Would you like an Asian Magneto wearing pink? Or if they introduced Robin in the series, would you be fine with it if he was still "the Grayson kid that lost his circus parents", but they made him wear all purple and he had long blonde hair? Obviously, getting the character's intentions and purpose is the main root of what you need, but if you go against the other details, you flat out don't have the same character. In regards to "if you just had the same old, you'd be bored".....what??? Lol. I'd completely agree with you if we were talking about doing a complete remake of 89 Batman, because we've seen that, or even if we had "a Batman and Joker movie every other year" or something, but look what we've had with the Joker outside of the comics: One movie in 89, one abomination of a TV series a few decades ago, and two animated versions, one of which was changed to a monkey-jumping no shoe wearing version. Was that good just because it was something different? Just because there's a change doesn't mean the change is always good. It has to be a good change for it to be good. Would you trade your house for a different one right now just for a change if it was smaller, painted odd colors, and didn't have some necessary parts to it (ala if you're a brick aficionado and this one had aluminum siding)? So why change the Joker to a simpler version just for the hell of it when you've got a character that people have loved for decades and decades, only having the tiniest bit of change in all those years?

To have a Joker that just applies makeup and is nothing but a normal guy? With the permanent bleaching/dye and smile, that man IS the Joker for the rest of his life. With the makeup, that man IS "the normal guy", and he simply BECOMES the Joker with makeup. If you take off that makeup, he isn't the Joker just as much as Christian Bale isn't Bruce Wayne. A Joker with makeup is a criminal acting the part of "the Joker", as opposed to "The Joker being himself." That's the best way I can explain my distaste from what I've seen so far of this character. Its about as pointless of a change as how there isn't going to be a batcave or Wayne Manor in this despite how they set up at the end of BB that they were going to be remodeling and time has passed.

The only thing I can speculate at this point is that the Joker gets his face slashed & the make-up ends up permanent. Other than that, it looks like all he's gonna do is apply make-up. Ledger could still pull a terrific performance though, we'll have to wait & see.

Originally posted by NoFate007
Now, I'm not saying that I dislike everything about this new Joker. The supposed "no fingerprints, no identification", I love that, because it helps keep him anonymous. I like how they want him to be creepier. Is the reason he's creepier because of all these other changes? Hell no. The reason he's creepier is because of the tone they're using. You can be faithful to a character 100% and still mess it up by having a ridiculous tone, like if you have the true Joker from the comics and you put him in a comedy rather than an action drama. However, to me, they're changing way too much and they don't even have a reason to.

I think thats illogical.

Originally posted by NoFate007

SelinaandBruce made a good point earlier about the argument that "its the spirit of the character that matters and everything else is just extra detail". You could use lots of different examples to show how that doesn't fit. Would you like an Asian Magneto wearing pink? Or if they introduced Robin in the series, would you be fine with it if he was still "the Grayson kid that lost his circus parents", but they made him wear all purple and he had long blonde hair?

Well here the problem whenever people try to give good comparisons of the Joker not having permanent make-up they always fail. Does Grayson have long blonde hair, no. Does Grayson have a purple suit, no. Is Magneto Asian, no. Does The Joker have green hair, yes. Does Nolans Joker have green hair, yes. Does the joker have white skin, yes. Does Nolans joker have white skin, yes. Is the Joker slim, yes. Is Nolan joker slim, yes. Does the joker have a purple waistcoat, yes. Does Nolans joker have a purple waistcoast, yes. Is the joker caucasian yes. Is Nolans joker, caucasian...yes. So comparing an asian Magneto to Nolans Joker is inaccurate because the fact that The Joker doesnt have permanent white skin is just a small detail. Its also not just that the personality of the character is correct its the fact that Nolans Joker is still very similar to the joker.

Originally posted by NoFate007

Obviously, getting the character's intentions and purpose is the main root of what you need, but if you go against the other details, you flat out don't have the same character. In regards to "if you just had the same old, you'd be bored".....what??? Lol. I'd completely agree with you if we were talking about doing a complete remake of 89 Batman, because we've seen that, or even if we had "a Batman and Joker movie every other year" or something, but look what we've had with the Joker outside of the comics: One movie in 89, one abomination of a TV series a few decades ago, and two animated versions, one of which was changed to a monkey-jumping no shoe wearing version. Was that good just because it was something different? Just because there's a change doesn't mean the change is always good. It has to be a good change for it to be good. Would you trade your house for a different one right now just for a change if it was smaller, painted odd colors, and didn't have some necessary parts to it (ala if you're a brick aficionado and this one had aluminum siding)? So why change the Joker to a simpler version just for the hell of it when you've got a character that people have loved for decades and decades, only having the tiniest bit of change in all those years?

What so just because he doesnt have permanent makeup that makes him simpler. Thats quite shallow.

Originally posted by NoFate007

To have a Joker that just applies makeup and is nothing but a normal guy? With the permanent bleaching/dye and smile, that man IS the Joker for the rest of his life. With the makeup, that man IS "the normal guy", and he simply BECOMES the Joker with makeup. If you take off that makeup, he isn't the Joker just as much as Christian Bale isn't Bruce Wayne. A Joker with makeup is a criminal acting the part of "the Joker", as opposed to "The Joker being himself." That's the best way I can explain my distaste from what I've seen so far of this character.

Sorry but you are wrong. Even if the Joker did not have makeup on he would still be the joker. In the movie there is till a hint that the joker gets disfigured and thats what pushes him over the edge, just because his whiteness is not permanent is complaining about a small detail. In the killing joker disfigurment pushed him over the edge and that seems to be whats going to happen in the movie.

Furthermore if Selina made such a good point about 2 face why is it in DKR some doctors made 2 face's face normal? Do you know what he did? 2 face went right back out there and commited more crimes I was going to scan the conversation between Batman and 2face but I dont want to damage the graphic novel by stretching the cover so im just going to paraphrase it

2face :Those people think they cured me, but they dont understand that the scars are pyschological.

*Batman looks at 2face and eventhough he sees a nomarl looking Harvey he looks deeper and sees 2faces disfigured face through his minds eye*

Batman: When I look at you I see a reflection a madman like me.

At the end of the day Batman, Joker, 2face and Riddler dont have any powers they're powers are they're madness.

Batman: "Just think of it as one Riddle, Edward, and remember the words of the Cheshire Bat..."We're all mad here." " (Hell I just noticed that Batman said Cheshire bat instead of cheshire cat. That just shows you how deep Batman comics can be).

Originally posted by NoFate007

Its about as pointless of a change as how there isn't going to be a batcave or Wayne Manor in this despite how they set up at the end of BB that they were going to be remodeling and time has passed.

Really? Didnt Batman move his base of operation to Arkham Asylum after an earthquake smashed up Waynes Manor? You're not making a good case.

Comparing the Asian Magneto idea was to illustrate the point that details do matter, not just the spirit of the character. Obviously if they had a Magneto that looked exactly like his comic counterpart but shot plastic spikes out of his ass it would be just as stupid as an Asian Magneto. And yes, Nolan's Joker does have the appearance of most of the Joker aspects, but does that mean that if we DID have that Asian Magneto, and then he has some weird accident happen to him to make him look like an old Caucasian man, that just because he eventually does look similar, it doesn't matter the process in which it happens? The point I'm making here isn't "the Joker doesn't look like the Joker at all and I have no clue what character that is", its "the details matter along with the essence of the character itself, because if Bruce Wayne had found a Batman costume and just went 'shoot, I'll just use this' then is that a good idea because its just a minor detail how he got the costume and as long as he wears a Batman costume that's all that matters? See what I mean?

How is it shallow that I think what is widely considered "the birth of the Joker" being thrown out of the character is making it simpler? There's no way to explain how that's simpler, because its a simple idea in itself. If you have "a guy who is somehow bathed in chemicals and his skin is permanently dyed and bleached to green hair and white skin along with a permanent smile and now he's stuck looking as he does after that" compared to "thug in makeup"....how do you not see that that's simpler? Dent wearing makeup or a mask on one side of his face in comparison to being scarred by Maroni or someone else, that's what we're basically looking at, but on a grander scale.

In regards to the Joker being the Joker no matter what happens and the same case being for Dent, look at it this way: When did Dent go nuts? When he was scarred. When did Joker go nuts? When he had the chemical bath. What happens most of the time when Dent goes back to normal and they repair his face? He scars himself back up and goes back to being a criminal? Why? Because of the fact that yes, its a mental thing, but without a catalyst and a representation, they're calmed. If the Joker isn't permanently the Joker and he can just decide at any time to wash off his makeup and become a law abiding citizen, then no, he isn't the Joker, he's an actor playing the part of the Joker. If you take one or two isolated incidents from comics in comparison to the norm, you can make an argument for anything. Same goes for the absence of the Batcave. Sure, in AA he used a different set up than the batcave, but should you put it in a movie just because it has occurred at some point? Not necessarily. Should you put Darkseid in a Batman movie as the villain just because he's fought against them in the JLU cartoon too? There needs to be a balancing judgment in movies. Film versions of characters set out to be a 2 hour representation of the mythos on a kind of general plateau. You take the basics of the character and apply them, take the most popular villains and suit them into the stories so that it can all mesh together, and if you're good enough to do your research, you add tons of little details that the fans will like (ala the piano in Batman Begins). Bruce Wayne and Batman have the batcave...everyone knows that. That's his house, that's his abode, that's his Fortress of Solitude. The X-Men have Xavier's mansion. Should they have a new place just for something different and not have the danger room and the mansion and so forth, because maybe at one point in the comics, they used something else? If they only make it a temporary thing in the film, sure, that's a FANTASTIC little touch to have a hearkening back to Arkham Asylum and using a different one. Should he be absent from the batcave the entire film, when you're only going to have most likely 3 films in the series? Why? Just for a change? If the biggest argument here is "I want change just because I want something different" then I can't possibly argue with you, because to me, change is only good if its a good change, not if its simply a change good or bad.

Originally posted by Firelord Ozai
Think about it, the mystery of who he truly is would be ruined if he just applied make-up because when he gets arrested by the cops & they wash the face paint off, they'll know who he is. The Joker should be an unknown unknown in the Batman universe.

Well, wasn't there a rumor about the cops capturing him, but they couldn't figure out who he is because he had no finger prints, etc?

If that's true, then the mystery of just who he really is would still be intact... Just speculation, of course...

The best way to sum up my argument is to say that if we're all supposed to like Nolan's Joker just because he looks close enough to the Joker that we can identify him and don't think he's Mr. Freeze, then we might as well all like Halle Berry's Catwoman because she had on the leather and the whip and looked somewhat like Catwoman - we should just bypass the name change and all the details with the cat powers and stuff, because all that matters is that we get something close enough that we know what it is, and we should be perfectly fine with Jim Carey's Riddler because he was a thin guy in a green question mark suit, and we should be perfectly fine with Batman Forever's version of Two-Face that wouldn't abide by his coin flip because he simply looked like Two-Face, and the Penguin in Batman Returns was perfect because he looked more like the Penguin and nobody confused him with Poison Ivy.........If we took out the killing of Bruce's parents and had everything else about Batman the way we're used to, am I supposed to like that? Everyone stays with a product for a reason, whether it be a fictional series, a shampoo, whatever - because you like it the way it is. That's why we have Coca-Cola Classic, because New Coke wasn't better just because it was different. That was the theory behind Nolan's Batman Begins: The previous films were straying from what the public liked, so we gave them what they liked again. HOPEFULLY I'll be pleasantly surprised and things won't be as bleak as they look for the character now, but until then, we're most likely going to just be saying over and over that one person's nitpicking is another person's overlooking of detail.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Well, wasn't there a rumor about the cops capturing him, but they couldn't figure out who he is because he had no finger prints, etc?

If that's true, then the mystery of just who he really is would still be intact... Just speculation, of course...

something like that...

I hope people will start talking about the joker on THIS thread instead of the new hate towards batman 89 thread.

Originally posted by NoFate007
The best way to sum up my argument is to say that if we're all supposed to like Nolan's Joker just because he looks close enough to the Joker that we can identify him and don't think he's Mr. Freeze, then we might as well all like Halle Berry's Catwoman because she had on the leather and the whip and looked somewhat like Catwoman - we should just bypass the name change and all the details with the cat powers and stuff, because all that matters is that we get something close enough that we know what it is, and we should be perfectly fine with Jim Carey's Riddler because he was a thin guy in a green question mark suit, and we should be perfectly fine with Batman Forever's version of Two-Face that wouldn't abide by his coin flip because he simply looked like Two-Face, and the Penguin in Batman Returns was perfect because he looked more like the Penguin and nobody confused him with Poison Ivy.........If we took out the killing of Bruce's parents and had everything else about Batman the way we're used to, am I supposed to like that? Everyone stays with a product for a reason, whether it be a fictional series, a shampoo, whatever - because you like it the way it is. That's why we have Coca-Cola Classic, because New Coke wasn't better just because it was different. That was the theory behind Nolan's Batman Begins: The previous films were straying from what the public liked, so we gave them what they liked again. HOPEFULLY I'll be pleasantly surprised and things won't be as bleak as they look for the character now, but until then, we're most likely going to just be saying over and over that one person's nitpicking is another person's overlooking of detail.

good point Nofate.

I just don't understand why you can bash the Joker's look into the ground, when...

1. We haven't seen anything about the plot yet
2. No one had a problem with Ras not being Arabic, which is unaccurate

If it doesn't float your boat, that's your prerogative, but I just don't get it is all...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I just don't understand why you can bash the Joker's look into the ground, when...

1. We haven't seen anything about the plot yet
2. No one had a problem with Ras not being Arabic, which is unaccurate

If it doesn't float your boat, that's your prerogative, but I just don't get it is all...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I just don't understand why you can bash the Joker's look into the ground, when...

1. We haven't seen anything about the plot yet
2. No one had a problem with Ras not being Arabic, which is unaccurate

If it doesn't float your boat, that's your prerogative, but I just don't get it is all...

Good spoken words

are we even 100% sure the joker's FACE isnt just bleached white and only the eyes and lips are make up? i could be totally wrong but i dont remember seeing a picture so far where you could see normal skin under the white, i remember smeared black and red but not white....