Smilex
Gotham Tourist
Posts: 21
|
Post by Smilex on Feb 1, 2006 0:37:33 GMT -5
I was on the site www.comics2film.com recently visiting the fan art section. An artist calling himself Nightscroller did a mock up of Micheal Keaton as the Joker in the Begins sequel. What's so bad about that? The artist claimed to have heard a rumor that, in the sequel, the Joker's grin would be cut into his face. His face mutiliated and ripped apart so his cheeks exhibit a permanent grin! See the pic here: www.comics2film.com/DCG/index.php?f_start=33&f_order=1&f_dir=2&f_minRate=0&f_ssn=AHH! Now, no offense to Nightscroller, and to his great Keaton pic, BUT GOD! WOULDN'T THAT JUST BE THE STUPIDIEST depiction of Joker in the known universe. I'd hate to think that just because the Nicholson Joker in 1989 had a permanent grin on his face that, somehow, Hollywood got it etched into its collective Hollywood mind that the Joker is a character with a permanent grin fixed on his face. Because, all us loyal batfans kow that THE JOKER DOES NOT HAVE A PERMANENT GRIN. In case you missed it: THE JOKER DOES NOT HAVE A PERMANENT GRIN. Sure, the character very often smiles. But to give him a permanent grin would toitally limit the character's ability to express cunning, fear, anger, and all the emotions the Joker exhibits. The Joker is manic and emotional. I would hate to think that, for two Hollywood movies n a row, my favorite villain of all time has his character skewed by Hollywood and is given a "permanent grin". That is...in my opinion...REALLY STUPID and a highly poor choice. Sure. I could accept it once...in 1989. Okay, maybe Burton had a certain vision he wanted to try. But to imagine that all films from here on in will depict Joker with a permanent grin...is just too much to take.. I think I'll be sick if this happens. Can anyone hopefully disavow this dreaded rumor? A very worried Joker fan,
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Feb 1, 2006 0:53:34 GMT -5
Smilex, there is no basis to that rumor. It stems from a Batman on Film interview with (amazing) artist Lee Bermejo. He did a few pieces of art for BOF, including how he might like Joker to look. (see pic below) Its in no way an official idea that we know of. To be perfectly honest, I would love Joker to look this way. Sorry to be contrary..but I feel that this is the edge the Joker needs to be plausible in this new Batman film universe.
|
|
Smilex
Gotham Tourist
Posts: 21
|
Post by Smilex on Feb 1, 2006 10:51:01 GMT -5
Hey,
While that IS a scary version of the Joker (and the Joker is supposed to be scary, no question) - do you not feel it limits the actor's ability to cycle through the broad emotional gamut the Joker displays?
It seems like a BIG departure from the character to me. If he is depicted this way, he no longer is a mad guy with a propensity for giddyness - but just a deformed crook.
It is too much of a departure for me to stand I'm afraid.
I think a GREAT actor can pull off a scary Joker that fits in the BEGINS universe without a deformed smile on his face.
Perhaps the answer is to just elude to his origin, but not actually tell it, you know, leave the audience wondering if it is make up or not.
The hardcore fans like us know the origin already - so if the vat of acids is to hard to swallow in the BEGINS universe - just leave it out - and have a guy show up with a white face and green hair and red lips and commit crime - no origin needed.
That's my 2 cents...
|
|
|
Post by jabsy on Feb 1, 2006 13:22:44 GMT -5
I agree with you on this one /\/\att. The Begins film is a completely new thing and the real life version of the story IMO. A nasty cut up style of Joker is the only way to go. A huge grin and the acid thing just wont work in this instance.
Dont get me wrong, i love the Jackl Nicholson and the cartoon versions but just not for this film.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Feb 1, 2006 15:24:16 GMT -5
I am against the cut up Joker. I admit that the pics are both cool looking, I don't want that to be the Joker. I have said it before, and I'm saying it again. Joker isn't JUST a maniac. He is extremely intelligent. Versions that don't have him as an incredibly smart guy, they just rub me the wrong way. They have to find a balance, and Joker cutting himself up and everything would completely overtake his intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Feb 1, 2006 17:26:46 GMT -5
meh... I'm ultimately undecided. On one hand I'm against a complete dramatic unecessary overhaul of the character. While on the other hand, I ultimately dig this idea and think it could/would likely be a neat element on film? (Batman or otherwise). BTW anybody get the irony? with this version, he would a "cut up"!? lol that alone could be a groovy line/scene! I just dont know?
I would personally disagree with Darknightwing though, I've never considered the Joker to be particularly "intelligent"? In fact, I would classify him as being of below average intelligence... pretty much just an everyday shlub. To me, all of his "abilities" (primarly his dangerousness), is a result of his unpredictability and absolute indifference... All of which stem from a "fractured" mind that has been "liberated" by madness?. Ive never thought of Joker as having any real motivation, scheme or goal beyond his own "entertainment" and or personal hunger for the spotlight. I cant see him nec. randomly robbing banks, plotting some grand schem or having a "master plan" of any kind for a personal benefit or winfall. Just my interpretation of the charater. but of course Joker has never really been my fave villain either.
|
|
|
Post by wayneson on Feb 1, 2006 21:10:50 GMT -5
Good discussion here. I'm also on the fence...like Matt and Batlaw, I think that a permanently disfigured Joker is an interesting idea, but it's hard to dismiss the classic look from my preferences for the character. Maybe the disfigured grin comes later in the story, sending him beyond "craziness" into full-blown insanity? Hmmm...maybe Dent has something to do with that disfigurement, and then...well, an eye for an eye. I don't want to write the story (Goyer/Nolan will outdo "Begins" with this sequel), but that type of scenario would seem to make sense in the "Begins" world.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Feb 1, 2006 21:19:58 GMT -5
/\/\att, I like the picture you posted. It seems to fit into 'Nolan's world' I mean clearly if you fell into a pit of acid your face wouldnt be without and scars and just pale white. I think that the friend of yours has a very focused imagination (oxy moron?) It's very creative and I could definately see it as part of the sequel.
Yeah, wasnt too 'wow'ed by Jack Nicholson's Joker "appearance" the acting was alright but it all seemed to happy go lucky and such, which is how Joker's portayed these days (in the cartoons) I'd like to see a darker side of Joker, with just hints of humor like in comics and such.
|
|
|
Post by HUSH on Feb 2, 2006 21:31:05 GMT -5
I don't like the idea. Joker doesn't smile and laugh because he is disfigured, he does so because he is the Joker. It's who he is. Anyway, they don't have to tell his backstory, but IMO they should NOT make it something other than the acid tank story. Just because these films take place in the real world, doesn't mean they have to throw away the classic ideas that have been around for decades. There has never been a Joker origin story that doesn't involve him falling in acid, and there shouldn't be, IMO. Also, Joker should be depicted as very intelligent, IMO. Sure, he's not a rocket scientist, but he is a great strategist and is able to think on his feet. He is very witty and very clever.
|
|
Christopher Jones
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Member of the Bat-Comic Industry
Batman Strikes Artist Christopher Jones, Causing Minor Injuries.
Posts: 231
|
Post by Christopher Jones on Feb 2, 2006 22:42:24 GMT -5
While I imagine that we'll see some kind of "origin" for the Joker in the Batman sequel, I'd love to see them pick up on the indication from the end of Begins that the Joker is already at large and just hit the ground running. He's got white skin, green hair and he's a crazy killer.
The biggest reason I can see not to go too far with disfiguring the Joker as a motivation for his insanity, is that it makes him too similar to Two-Face, who they apparently plan to introduce in the third film.
I've always been struck by the image of a brooding Joker as he was at the beginning of his very first appearance in the Batman comic. I'd like a Joker with a full range of emotions who is sadistic and twisted, and who gets increasingly hysterical when on a murderous rampage. Much like my feelings of an overly obsessive, phsychotic Batman, I think that while those extreme qualities are absolutely a part of the overall character, they become boring if portrayed as constantly at that extreme.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Feb 2, 2006 22:44:26 GMT -5
Joker should be depicted as very intelligent, IMO. Sure, he's not a rocket scientist, but he is a great strategist and is able to think on his feet. He is very witty and very clever. Bravo! I have thought about this, and I decided B:TAS (and any DCAU appearances) really exhibit what I am talking about. And in that universe, Harley uses one of Joker's plans to come closer to killing Batman than anyone had ever come before (the name of this episode escapes me, but I believe it was for TNBA). It really showed how smart Joker was. How he drew up all those plans, and had to include some punchline. I thought that involved a lot more motivation and intelligence than unpredictability. This was a great way to show Joker and Harley together as well. Another episode that showed this off was "The Last Laugh". This is my favorite Joker episode to date. Joker was brilliant in this episode. Between the garbage ship poisoning gotham, the robotic Captain Clown, and the entire conveyor belt sequence, this was incredible. Feel free to disagree with me. I can deal with that. Feel free to agree too.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Feb 2, 2006 23:13:04 GMT -5
I'm not saying Joker is stupid by any means really, just dont personally picture him "smart / intelligent" traditionally sense? To me, and in my experience, people of all IQ levals have the potential for insanity (often oddly enough its the MORE intelligent that tend to "turn") but Ive never experienced and cant picture someone being and maintaining both insanity and classic "intelligence"? let alone high leval inteligence... seems contradictory to me? it doesnt work for me... the very definitions of each trait kinda cancel one or other out? youre eaither all there or all checked out, and to me the joker has always been totally checked out lol. not to say one cant go "back and forth" or that certain forms of psychopathic individuals arent "self aware" enough to maintain an appearance of "normalcy", but thats a dif type of madman that what I percieve the Joker to be. I dunno, im going to be accepting and receptive im sure to whatever they choose? Im confident the sequel will be ultimately better than Begins one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by HUSH on Feb 3, 2006 0:37:39 GMT -5
The Dark Nightwing, I totally agree that the DCAU Joker(B:TAS, TNBA, JL, JLU, Return of the Joker) is an excellent interpretation of Joker's intelligence- it fits my impression of how smart he is. The episode in which Harley uses one of Joker's plans to capture Batman was Mad Love(a really great ep. for Joker and Harley, both).I also thought that the JL episode "Wild Cards" showed off his strategic brilliance. Batlaw, I also see where you're coming from. I just prefer to think of Joker as possessing above average intelligence, and I think there are plenty of stories in comics, animation, etc. where he is written that way.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Feb 3, 2006 22:53:26 GMT -5
You know, I thought it was Mad Love, but I started to think that it was a completely different episode. It has been far too long since I watched that gem.
|
|
|
Post by jimgordon on Feb 5, 2006 11:19:02 GMT -5
I have to say I was a little nervous the first time I saw an image of Christopher Nolan's Scarecrow for Batman Begins. My vision of the Scarecrow never incorporated a guy in a suit with a burlap sac over his head. But damn if that wasn't a great Scarecrow! A Joker with a mutilated face forcing it into a permanent grin is a concept no Batman fan is used to but given the way EVERYTHING worked in Batman Begins, I'm inclined to think it will look phenomenal and will be faithfult to everything that character was and is today. One of the best depictions of the Joker in my opinion comes from the graphic novel "Arkham Asylum". The Joker is described as soemoene who receives so much information in his brain that he simply cannot process it. That's what causes him to act the way he does. This is all the result of the accident that deformed him. He's not stupid or a wacky clown, he suffers from a severe form of brain damage. I remember an issue of JLA (I think) recently where the Martian Manhunter does something to the Joker to block the flow of information into his brain and for a moment, he becomes normal.
I think Christopher Nolan should focus on something like this for the Joker. Based on Matt's incredible photo that he posted (thanks so much for that by the way), maybe the Joker will be someone that is so horribly deformed that he just cannot handle it and he's driven to madness. That's a practical Joker that would almost work in reality. That is in keeping with everything Christopher Nolan is doing with these Batman movies.
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Feb 5, 2006 15:18:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ??The Riddler?? on Feb 5, 2006 15:23:21 GMT -5
Whoa he looks okay as Joker but it's a little unusual. I don't really like it but....
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Feb 5, 2006 17:36:36 GMT -5
Ehh I dont like the Michael Keaton picture....
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Feb 5, 2006 18:19:41 GMT -5
Short and simple for the Keaton pic: NO!
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on Feb 5, 2006 19:53:58 GMT -5
[shadow=purple,left,300]I'd actually like to see this origin incorporated into the comic universe first before I agree or disagree with it. It's not a bad idea, but I haven't seen it before and am a bit iffy on changing things around when it comes to Joker's origin. But we'll see what happens.[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Feb 5, 2006 20:09:21 GMT -5
While I imagine that we'll see some kind of "origin" for the Joker in the Batman sequel, I'd love to see them pick up on the indication from the end of Begins that the Joker is already at large and just hit the ground running. He's got white skin, green hair and he's a crazy killer. The biggest reason I can see not to go too far with disfiguring the Joker as a motivation for his insanity, is that it makes him too similar to Two-Face, who they apparently plan to introduce in the third film. I've always been struck by the image of a brooding Joker as he was at the beginning of his very first appearance in the Batman comic. I'd like a Joker with a full range of emotions who is sadistic and twisted, and who gets increasingly hysterical when on a murderous rampage. Much like my feelings of an overly obsessive, phsychotic Batman, I think that while those extreme qualities are absolutely a part of the overall character, they become boring if portrayed as constantly at that extreme. Chris I see what you're saying Chris, but of interest SPOILER WARNINGS!! TURN BACK NOW joker and two-face will be closely tied. its been said that two-face will be a result of Joker....therefore, a similar disfigurement isn't out of the question. Two-face is about the duality, whereas Joker is just about one side. The evil one.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Feb 5, 2006 20:50:23 GMT -5
The whole Keaton thing IMO is one of those ideas that just works best on paper and in theory... fun to think about and run with etc. but at the end of the day you come to your senses and realize it's not the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Feb 5, 2006 21:15:48 GMT -5
Hmm I had a feeling already TwoFace was going to be the outcome of Joker, which I based on my TwoFace story. Thanks for the clarification. DO yopu have any idea which sequel it will be?
|
|
|
Post by HUSH on Feb 5, 2006 21:23:38 GMT -5
Hmm I had a feeling already TwoFace was going to be the outcome of Joker, which I based on my TwoFace story. Thanks for the clarification. DO yopu have any idea which sequel it will be? David Goyer, the writer of Batman Begins(and the sequels) has said that Joker will be in the second film, and Two-Face in the third.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Feb 5, 2006 22:10:52 GMT -5
Hmm I had a feeling already TwoFace was going to be the outcome of Joker, which I based on my TwoFace story. Thanks for the clarification. DO yopu have any idea which sequel it will be? David Goyer, the writer of Batman Begins(and the sequels) has said that Joker will be in the second film, and Two-Face in the third. It should be noted that Harvey will be showing up in the next film, and we don't know if he'll be two face by the end of the film or if they'll wait completely until the third...its still speculation at this point
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Feb 6, 2006 12:01:21 GMT -5
clearly they don't want the Joker in this new franchise to be running around in a purple suit and over-the-top makeup, so the idea of cutting the smile permanently into his face is quite a good one, in my opinion, as it makes him scary (as they want him to be), but also they have a reason to call him "Joker" because his disfigurement looks almost like a permanent "smile", but not a "happy smile like Nicholsons.
about Two-Face, Harvey will definitely be in the next film, as they want to really build up the relationship between him and Bruce, so when it all goes horribly wrong (either at the end of the 2nd movie, or solely in the 3rd movie) we actually care about the ex-friends-turned-enemies.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Feb 6, 2006 12:54:21 GMT -5
I still say Dent shouldve been in the 1st movie and brought out as two-face in the second(#2 film lol). Comparisons to the first franchise be damned. Plenty of missed oportunities in the 1st movie IMO but fully think the sequel will be a greater movie than Begins because the crew will surely be given greater freedom and breathing room... wont have to take so many "safe choices" Etc. as they did with Begins Pt.1.
|
|
|
Post by HUSH on Feb 6, 2006 22:45:33 GMT -5
about Two-Face, Harvey will definitely be in the next film, as they want to really build up the relationship between him and Bruce, so when it all goes horribly wrong (either at the end of the 2nd movie, or solely in the 3rd movie) we actually care about the ex-friends-turned-enemies. Has it ever been affirmed that Harvey will be Bruce's friend in the sequels? In the comics, as exemplified by Year One and The Long Halloween, he seemed to barely know Bruce; he was a friend of Batman's. I think Batman: The Animated Series is the only instance where he was a friend of Bruce's rather than Batman's...I won't mind if he is Bruce's friend in the next film- in fact, that would be a good idea as long as he knows the real Bruce, and not just the goofy playboy act- but has Nolan or Goyer or anyone else actually stated that Harvey will be Bruce's friend?
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Feb 7, 2006 16:33:59 GMT -5
come to think of it, i don't think they have officially confirmed they'll be friends, and it could be just a rumour, or the fans' idea of how the relationship should be.
it would be nice though if they were friends, because then it adds an extra angle in their battles later on as Two-Face and Batman, instead of just being a battle on the single level of bad guy vs. good guy.
|
|
|
Post by arkhaminmate on Apr 1, 2006 2:23:44 GMT -5
Altough it isn't confirmed ( as far as i know) I believe so. Not doing so, would completely screw up the plots ( in my opinion) but this is all speculation for the most part
|
|