^ And anyway, in the Tim Burton movie, the Joker had bleached skin but just put make up on to look normal. Which is pretty much like wiping off the white make up ...
Tom Hardy for Batman 3?
- Thread starter Captaindemotion
- Start date
^ Too scary for any movie.
That's a circular argument. The movie takes place whenever they want it to take place. The Batman Begins sequel could have been anywhere from 30 seconds to 3 years after the end of the first movie.
Once again, you're showing a remarkable talent for completely misunderstanding what I say. When I'm discussing Batman and I use the term "comic", 99% of the time, I'm talking about comic books, which are, y'know, where the character originated & everything. I'm amazed that I have to explain that to you, unless you're being this obtuse on purpose.
But since you brought it up, yes, humor is an essential part of the Joker's character, even if it's a dark humor. The only humorous moments the Heath Ledger Joker had that I can think of offhand are the pencil gag the when the hospital bomb was late in going off. In a 2 1/2 hour movie, that ain't much. Batman: The Animated Series was able to pull off the Joker being both funny and scary. So have the best Joker stories in the comics.
And why the hell would they need to "build the character again"? What wasn't working? The Joker has consistently been the most popular Batman villain in the comics since he was introduced in 1940. Obviously the creators were doing something right.
Again, he's fit perfectly well into the comic books they were adapting the movie from for 70+ years.
And after 70+ years, you don't like a little change once in a while?
Not if it changes the spirit of the character, no. A Joker who can wipe his makeup off is a almost completely different character.
Why do something analogous when you can actually do what the character is?
Didn't Joker start out as using make-up and later they added the bleached skin to his background?
Nope. They kept it ambiguous until they did the Red Hood origin story in the early 50s.
Last edited:
I really don't think Joker having face paint or facial scars is the end all or be all to what makes the character great. That's a surface thing. Even Morrison gave him scars during the start of his run on Batman. Brian Azzararo did the same thing months before Dark Knight came out on "Joker".
Agreed. Nolan's take on the Joker seemed pretty faithful to who he was in the comics. He was sadistic, psychopathic, played with people's minds and emotions, and represented pure chaos and anarchy. Seems like the Joker to me.
That was an element of the character that I would have liked to have seen but yeah it's possible it was too close to the Scarecrow's fear toxin. I would have loved to have seen a Jokerfied fish though just for fun.
More like Spock looking differently. No pointy ears and different haircut?
Nolan treated the characters like he treated Batman's gadgets. The Batmobile is now a prototype military vehicle, not some gothic form over function streamlined thing. His suit is a keflar body armour invented for soldiers, not a gray pyjama that offers no protection whatsoever. I can only say that I like that and had no complaints. I had many complaints about the silliness of previous Batman movies, though.
But if the warp nacelles are the wrong color, then all bets are off!
The Batman in The Dark Knight isn't necessarily the same Batman from Batman Begins. In fact, since Gotham City looks sooooooo different, we can safely conclude that it's a Batman from a preexisting alternate universe.
Agreed. That's still the best Joker story ever, just because of how insane his plan is.
...yeah. Pretty big role, too. He was Eames.