No. Almost certainly this movie will pit the two against each other (with Batman against the Joker and probably a friend of Dent’s as he is in various portrayals). If this movie deals with Two-Face at all, Two-Face will probably end up created as a result of something the Joker does, and continue to be his enemy (albeit now as an insane supervillain). This also fit several portrayals in the comics and elsewhere where Two-Face and the Joker are mortal enemies.
The poster in which joker makeup is applied to Dent is probably a classic Joker-defacing or implying that Joker has killed/disfigured Dent.
I really don’t see the problem with a grin-less Joker. Not for the whole movie, of course, but for one pictures, a lack of grin is OK. I’ve seen instances where the Joker was not smiling and he looked as evil as ever.
I’m apprehensive because I don’t see how this Joker could possibly appear cheerful; he looks like he’s just at the “I’m scarred and smiling, isn’t this ironic and disturbing?” phase. But I liked Batman Begins a lot, and I like Christopher Nolan, so I’ll wait and see how this works out.
I’m glad to hear it. Coincidentally enough, just the other day I got into a big argument with a fictional associate about whether “acid burns” counted as a form of “scarring.” The fool insisted that the medical definition of “scarring” required the actual presence of scar tissue, which is why tattoos are not generally classified as “scars.” As evidence, he cited the 1951 AMA Pocket Guide to Vigilantism-Induced Facial Disfigurement. I naturally objected, as it was almost certainly outdated by now, having been published back in the 1930s.
He infuriatingly refused to concede his error, so eventually I was forced to throw acid on him. Of course, the horrible scarring left his skin bleached white yet completely unblemished, as well as permanently turning his hair green, as acid burns are wont to do. We had a good laugh about it afterward.
I’m glad you’re backing me up on this one, since I trust that your medical expertise is fully as accurate as your grasp of comics history. Thanks again for your educational insights.
Are they? The fact that the heroic characters are having arguments and conflicts doesn’t prove any of them are “bad guys”. In fact, arguments and conflicts make for better drama which is why the project impressed me so much.
Agreed … how do we know from this fanfilm that Dick Grayson’s efforts weren’t unscrupulous? Superman might have still been serving the side of justice because Robin was up to no good? It would appear that Superman was being used as a pawn of police corruption, but it’s only a trailer and there’s no real film, so there’s no way to tell what their agendas really are. Like Bryan said, conflict between characters thought to be on the same side makes for good drama.
I’m curious, does anyone know if there’s more than one image that exists of Joker as he was imagined in the Arhkam Asylum comic? I stumbled across this image one day and it’s undoubtedly the coolest, most frightening Joker I’ve ever seen. I haven’t read the comic, sadly, but I’ve looked for more images from it and haven’t been able to find any. If Nolan could make the Joker appear like that, I’d be absolutely giddy.
Thanks for this link. I actually watched “Mr. Sardonicus” this weekend on On Demand (fearnet is having a William Castle marathon of some sort) and I knew it had some connection with The Man Who Laughs.
Yeah, that’s one creepy fucking clown. One of the things I didn’t like about Nicholson’s Joker was that the grin was the direct result of physical scarring and botched plastic surgery. In the comics, the grin was the result of the Joker being completely off his nut. He could assume different expressions, he just didn’t usually need to because, every situation filled him with the same manic glee. But he had the range to use other expressions if he needed to: pretend concern, feigned shock, or genuine fury. The problem in translating the character to film is that, while the grin is “natural,” it’s still grotesque, and that’s a lot harder to capture with a real human face than it is in a comic panel. The scarring on Nicholson’s Joker captured the grotesque, at the cost of giving the character any sort of range. It looks like Nolan’s found a balance between the two, by having a Joker with disfiguring facial scars, who is none-the-less capable of other facial expressions. I’m obviously blue-skying, here, but I can already envision a very effective introduction scene where the Joker starts with the unsmiling face we saw in that first viral ad, starts smirking like we see on the Empire cover, and then breaks out the full-on Joker rictus grin and shrieking laughter.
