Recent content by PurpleStar

I am sympathetic to the points made here tbh. I also feel that a better route would be to lean into the more colourful aspect of Joker would be refreshing. I am not particularly obsessed with Ledger's Joker, but I do think this new one does takes similar beats as that one which imo it must not...

That's fine. A permanent smile is a stylistic addition that can add something, and be interesting. I was just assessing the history of it. Plus, this is why I've sort of moved on to the colour scheme actually being the more important thing. How and why Joker smiles is just something that you can...

Well with respect, no one is saying that it's wrong. We are just discussing the concept, the history of it, what it adds or doesn't add, and whether it is a necessity or not.

Absolutely about Ledger. That look is a variation, but it's good because it still retains the classic colours, just does the reason for them differently e.g. white make up, rather than bleached skin. So, that colour scheme is fundamental. You can play around with the why and how of the look, but...

I agree. I'm not against new variations on the look, since it can be interesting. All I'm ambivalent about is the perception that the default is an always smiling Joker, because it isn't really. Actually I think the most important aspect of Joker visually is the colour scheme. Which is white...

You make good points here about the Joker always smiling thing. In terms of comics prior to Batman 1989 (since I've read a lot of Bronze age, silver age and golden age Joker stories), Joker is not always drawn to smile constantly in most iterations. He actually has a lot of varied expression...

Love that Joker I think giving him a colourful but modern outfit like this could work well. And maybe make the hair more Bolland style. I think this would balance out the misgivings some have with this being a very monstrous looking Joker. I mean, the Mckean Joker is like that more or less, so...

When I saw the cameo scene in the film, as you could really only see Joker in profile silhouette, it did have a very Joker look at first glance, and very Bolland Joker ish hair. So,personally I prefer if they make a few adjustments to how it looks in this deleted scene going forward, to capture...

Yeah, Hopkins is iconic, but his Lecter is very pantomime villain almost. It's very over the top, but people love theatricality. Cox is more subdued and more realistic. Plus Manhunter is a better film than Red Dragon, and Petersen is the better Will Graham.

Must be made of titanium.

I think seeing the actors eyes is a compromise you have to make for live action because it's simply too important to the acting performance, especially since the mask covers most of their face already.

The closest I've ever seen to comic book Joker in look without prosthetics, just make up, is the cosplay by Anthony Misiano. That is due to having the right face to work with, strategic shading with the make up, and being a realistic look of what the classic Joker features would be in real life...

Considering that Joker was only given the red hood origin in 1951, so was featuring as a character for over a decade without explanation of why he looks like that or who he was before, I don't mind if there's no explanation for it. Even in the man behind the red hood story, it's still fairly...

I agree. Tbh the thought of another make up Joker kind of disinterests me as it's like oh that "realistic" approach meaning make up again... but I've seen that before so why retread. It's not necessarily unrealistic for someone to have skin discolouration from chemical damage, or even a severe...