Why do they keep ditching the chemically bleached skin?
Whhhyyyyyyy
shareIt isn't even the chemically bleached skin, it is a complete disregard for how Batman created the Joker when he knocked him into the chemical. For some reason they keep pushing this revised version of the Joker was created outside of Batman and then met Batman when that is simply not the original story. They also keep screwing around with the age of the Joker vs Batman. At this point the TV show Gotham is closer to the original creation of Joker than any of the movie versions have been.
shareThis post is so whiny and bratty. They aren't "screwing around" they're just doing a different version. We've seen the Joker fall into a vat if chemicals because of Batman before. We don't need it every single time. This director is doing something new. And that's fine. Very few super hero movies are carbon copies of how the characters are in the comics, and that's a good thing.
shareIt isn't a good thing, if you don't want to tell the story as it was written then create a new story with a new character, otherwise it is just lazy on the part of the director to take a character with a well defined history and just jack around with it for no reason other than they were too lazy to create a completely new character on their own.
shareYou think that's the reason? Laziness?
And a strict adherence to the canon would say what about the director/writer's creativity?
Oh for God's sake, it's not laziness. Laziness would be just doing the same thing we've already seen on screen before. Thank God Nolan and Ledger didn't share your opinion, or we'd have missed one of the greatest adaptations of a character of all time.
Also, you clearly aren't familiar with the joker. He has no origin story. Falling into the chemicals is the most widely recognized, but it is not, and never has been, his definitive origin story.
The definitive origin is the first one that was in 1951 when he went into the chemical to escape Batman. You can yammer all you want about different versions that have come along since then but in 1951 when that origin story was printed it was the de facto defeinitive origin story. Since that story was created by the original creators of Batman I think it pretty much seal the deal for anyone with half a brain.
And while Nolan and Ledger might have created a nice character who is to say that it wouldn't have been an even better character if they had tried to come up with something completely new.
Again, you're just whining. Completely new? They were making Batman movies. What exactly should they have done differently? They had the characters, and put their spin on them. Like pretty much any character that's come from a book or comic book. Do you have the same complaint about every single comic book villain ever? Because almost none are carbon copies of the comic versions.
This is Todd Phillip's version of the joker. If you dont like it, that's fine. But whining because it's not exactly how you want it to be done is just pathetic. I can't imagine getting so worked up over something so ridiculous.
Is it any more ridiculous to find fault in it than it is for some idiot like yourself to so staunchly defend a movie you haven't even seen? Frankly you sound like the director mama the way you continually try to defend the movie.
shareI'm not defending the movie. It could very well suck. I did enjoy the trailer, but I can still see it being a huge letdown. I'm just pointing out how retarded it is to find such a ridiculous thing to cry and bitch about.
What do you think of some idiot having such hatred for a movie they haven't even seen? You sound like some high school girl that got rejected by the director the way you're continuingly criticizing it.
Really, sweetie, use your head.
Tommy, I don't think you're going to win this one. No one has shown up to agree with you.
These other guys are right: Just doing the same thing over and over would be boring. It would get stale. There's plenty of room for creativity with these characters and there's no need to be beholden to a 1951 comic book when sitting down to write a script.
Who gives a shit what was in a comic book in 1951?? You can re-read that all you want. The rest of the world cares only about the quality of the film. I can't think of many, if any, films based on comic books that stuck to the original comic as if it were gospel. Hell, even future comic books revisit and change characters and events. Look at Marvel's recent slate of MCU films. None of those adhere to the comics, and that's one of the main reasons they have been so successful, because what works in a funny book rarely translates well to the silver screen.
This new Joker film looks like it could be great. Maybe it won't be, but if it isn't, it won't be because the protagonist isn't pushed into a vat of chemicals by Batman.
Sure the movie good be great or it could suck, but it wont be the Joker because it has a different origin. So why use the name Joker if your making a movie about something else. It makes as much sense as making a movie called Santa Claus and having Santa Claus run around during Hanuka handing out dreidels. Lazy on the part of the people making the movie, too lazy to come up with their own character and too lazy to bother to do the character they picked the way it was intended.
shareLol, there have been a ton of santa clause movies with different origins. Not a good argument.
shareDid I say anything about the origin of Santa Claus? Or do you not understand what Hanuka and a dreidel is in reference to?
shareWe were talking about origin stories, and you brought up how silly alternative origins to santa clause would be,even sighting examples. So yes, you were very clearly inferring alternative origins to santa. Don't play dumb, because there are other people on this site that know how to read too.
shareSorry you ignorant idiot, I never once said anything about a Santa origin story. I said:
" It makes as much sense as making a movie called Santa Claus and having Santa Claus run around during Hanuka handing out dreidels. "
No because you appear to be so stupid as to not understand that, Hanuka is a Jewish holiday, a dreidel is a little top that is popular with Jewish kids at Hanuka... Santa is not someone you would have in a Jewish holiday... Do you understand now? They two things would make no sense, which was the point. It had nothing to do with the origin of Santa and everything to do with the problem of mixing up a story without looking at whether it made sense, which is what is happening with the Joker story. They are creating an origin that doesn't make sense when you know of the actual origin story.
Sure, double down on acting dumb and cling to "I never said origin" even though you made an obvious reference to his origins. As I said, anyone else reading this isn't fooled by what you meant. I didn't read beyond your first sentence, and I don't battle with head in the sand morons on the internet,so feel free to go fuck yourself. Have a nice day cupcake.
shareIf you are so illiterate that you can't understand basic English then there is no point in trying to tell you anything because it makes as much sense as talking to dog. I gave you the direct quote and "origin" was nowhere to be seen. Go take same remedial English classes and maybe you'll understand just how stupid your statements have been.
shareI don't think your argument stands up to scrutiny. When transferring a character from a literary source, be it a novel, comic book, or anything else, what matters are the character's defining traits. The defining traits of Santa Claus are centered around Christmas and the delivery of gifts, as well as being fat and jolly and living at the North Pole. So of course switching him to delivering Hanukah gifts would be unusual, unless that was the conceit of the film, i.e. turns out all the legends have been wrong and Santa is actually a Jewish guy.
When it comes to the Joker, his defining traits are his clown-like appearance, his utter lack of empathy, his laughter at other's pain, and so forth. His skin being white because of makeup or chemicals is as inconsequential as if he grew up in Muncie, Indiana in the comic but in the film it was changed to Rapid City, South Dakota. If Batman pushed him into chemicals, if he fell in by accident, or if he never encountered any chemicals has no bearing on the essential elements of who he is. He could be of Lithuanian ancestry or Nigerian, he could be left-handed or right-handed, his dog could be named Spot or Fido... none of that matters. As long as the filmmakers stay true to his defining characteristics, it's a Joker movie.
"Lazy on the part of the people making the movie, too lazy to come up with their own character and too lazy to bother to do the character they picked the way it was intended."
How many versions of characters exist in comic books at this point? Using your logic, all of them except the original are examples of laziness b/c they're just borrowing some elements instead of creating a brand new character. And in film, only a carbon copy of the original would show lack of laziness on the part of the writer and director. Do something different and you're lazy but mimic note for note and you're not?! Why do the comics themselves disregard "as intended"?
"Sure the movie good be great or it could suck"
Newsflash: Films are not made for one sliver of purists. The bulk of the audience has no knowledge of the things purists argue or will not care about them in the least. They want a compelling reason to go see any given film. Clearly the approach here is to differentiate from all the big budget, cgi laden, action/fantasy stuff we've been seeing with a dark and gritty character study, and drama that's as much psychological as anything else. And if it is great, meaning it works as a film, that's all that matters. No one will walk out of the theater saying "That was great! But it's not the way the original comic intended -- so I cant recommend it. If they had just copied the comic verbatim that would show originality rather than laziness."