Jared Leto IS The Joker - Part 10

[hellblazer103]

Nor I. But a lot of people here were champing against any kind of perma smile this time.

idunno, man. i like when joker is able to convey more facial expressions than " maniacal smile " , but he IS influenced by a character with a permanent smile after all...

 

[Boom]

Including the perma smile?

I was more referring to his characterizations and not so much his aesthetics.

 

[The Joker]

I was more referring to his characterizations and not so much his aesthetics.

I thought so, but Joker changing his face and giving himself a perma smile was a significant part of the Morrison characterization. So I figured that was part of what you were talking about. Like his whole prose 'Clown at Midnight' story in Batman #663 was a build up to him revealing that he'd done it to himself after his face was hidden in bandages for most of the story.

 

[Majik1387]

Perma-smile was always the dumbest idea for Joker to have. For his victims it works and makes sense, for Joker, it's ridiculously stupid.

 

[The Joker]

It's not dumb at all. It ensures he's always smiling no matter what. It's creepy and it totally makes sense. That's why he likes it.

Cutting off his face and wearing it like Leatherface, having a damaged tattoo on his forehead....things like that are the dumbest ideas for Joker to have.

 

[Majik1387]

The Joker wouldn't need to ensure he's smiling no matter what.

I'm also not a fan of the Leatherface Joker, and I've already said the only thing I would honestly change about Leto Joker is getting rid of that 'Damaged' tattoo, although I would take the latter over a Chelsea grin any day.

 

[The Joker]

He would and he has, considering several versions of the character have done it. Including Morrison's, whom Leto has sought advice from. It's not something that was made up for a movie or an elseworlds tale.

If you don't like it then fine. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid or something Joker wouldn't do or need to do, when he clearly would, and has done. This is fact not opinion. You of all people should relate to that, Majik, considering you use the same kind of argument for the Jason Todd Joker theory having some validity based on there being a precedent for Robin being the Joker. Those examples are not even canon like these perma smile ones.

 

[Jekecy]

Yeah he would, considering several versions of the character have done it. Including Morrison's. It makes a twisted kind of sense, which is why it works.

No version has ever needed to put tattoo labels on his face though.

How do you distinguish two concepts which are merely years apart in age, relative to several decades of the character existing without them at all?

 

[The Joker]

How do you distinguish two concepts which are merely years apart in age, relative to several decades of the character existing without them at all?

I'm not sure why that would be necessary or even relevant. The facts would still be the same. Joker would still be a character who has had a perma smile several times, and never used tattoos on his face.

The age of the concepts has no relevance. Does it make any difference that the Suicide Squad only got Harley Quinn as a member in the comics in recent years, as opposed to if she was a member since her inception in the 90's? No. Because the concept still exists, whether it's for 4 years or 20 makes no difference.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Glad Leto reached out to writers to understand the character. Doubly glad it was Morrison.

Now if only he would reach for the mirror...

 

[Jekecy]

I'm not sure why that would be necessary or even relevant. The facts would still be the same. Joker would still be a character who has had a perma smile several times, and never used tattoos on his face.

The age of the concepts has no relevance. Does it make any difference that the Suicide Squad only got Harley Quinn as a member in the comics in recent years, as opposed to if she was a member since her inception in the 90's? No. Because the concept still exists, whether it's for 4 years or 20 makes no difference.

Of course it does. The scarred smile only started getting mildly welcomed as Heath's take slowly overtook the image of what the modern Joker was supposed to be. As that definition changed, so did our expectations of the grin. As more and more iterations utilized the extended Romero smile, people like Morrison integrated the scars as well.

I don't need to look far back to know this would not have been the case had either Heath's performance been lambasted or TDK was not universally loved. I still remember when Bermejo's original Joker redesign was introduced, and at best, people congratulated it for an "off-shoot" Joker story. But never the canonical one. Nowadays you rarely hear a whisper of complaint because it's practically commonplace.

Who's to really say the tattoos won't have a similar trajectory? It may not be as so specific as the "damaged" ink, but considering the pre-established rockstar interpretations of previous years, it's not a far-fetched next step in that evolution.

 

[Boom]

I'm on the opposite side of the fence with this one, Joker.

I've always found a natural smile much creepier than a permanent one. There's a suggestion of sincerity there that is especially unsettling. He's smiling because he wants to, not because it's forced. Furthermore, if the Joker's legitimately angry, I like to see it on his face. If you're able to piss off the guy who laughs at almost everything, that's a recipe for pants-****ting.

Besides, Nicholson and Ledger each had fixed smiles. If for no other reason than a change of pace, a natural smile is very much welcome in my book.

 

[DeadStroke]

Morrison's Joker has been on the more intriguing takes of the character I've seen over the years. Absolutely thrilled Leto gave a personal call, that tells me there's going to be loads of influence on his performance.

Anything from Morrison is the way to go really.

Do you prefer Morrison's Joker over Scott Snyder?

 

[terry78]

I am curious to see this portrayal, as the guy that played Jerome on Gotham was going for kind of a Nicholson/Ledger hybrid.

 

[The Joker]

Of course it does. The scarred smile only started getting mildly welcomed as Heath's take slowly overtook the image of what the modern Joker was supposed to be. As that definition changed, so did our expectations of the grin. As more and more iterations utilized the extended Romero smile, people like Morrison integrated the scars as well.

I don't need to look far back to know this would not have been the case had either Heath's performance been lambasted or TDK was not universally loved. I still remember when Bermejo's original Joker redesign was introduced, and at best, people congratulated it for an "off-shoot" Joker story. But never the canonical one. Nowadays you rarely hear a whisper of complaint because it's practically commonplace.

Who's to really say the tattoos won't have a similar trajectory? It may not be as so specific as the "damaged" ink, but considering the pre-established rockstar interpretations of previous years, it's not a far-fetched next step in that evolution.

That's a totally different argument you're making. We were not talking about how accepted the look may or may not become after the movie is released. But since you want to go down this road I'll address it.

This was done in February 2007, long before we ever saw a glimpse of Ledger's Joker, before TDK even went into production;

Then Batman Confidential did it in mid 2007.

That's perma smile Jokers before the world even saw TDK. Then the Bermejo Joker did it. Of course Nicholson's Joker had the perma smile, too. Did TDK make the perma smile even more acceptable and popular? Absolutely. But there was a precedent for it well before TDK was released. The argument that Joker wouldn't do the perma smile, when he has several times, is false. That's what I was saying. Nothing to do with how it was perceived after the movie.

Conversely there is no precedent for a tattooed face Joker. And as to whether it will be more acceptable after Suicide Squad is released is anyone's guess. But personally I hope it never is, because the last thing I want to see is the Joker of the comics writing moronic things like damaged on his face.

I'm on the opposite side of the fence with this one, Joker.

I've always found a natural smile much creepier than a permanent one. There's a suggestion of sincerity there that is especially unsettling.

Fair enough I can understand that. But we get that from all the villains. They all smile when they want to. So that's nothing special really in that regard. With the Joker, the one who wears a perma smile like a badge of honor, I think it's more creepy because he ALWAYS wants to look like he's grinning, because inside he's always laughing at the world.

He's smiling because he wants to, not because it's forced. Furthermore, if the Joker's legitimately angry, I like to see it on his face. If you're able to piss off the guy who laughs at almost everything, that's a recipe for pants-****ting.

I don't understand that, because the Joker's perma smile has never hid when he was angry, confused, upset, or even scared. Any emotions really. It's always been clearly evident;

Besides, Nicholson and Ledger each had fixed smiles. If for no other reason than a change of pace, a natural smile is very much welcome in my book.

That train of thought I can understand.

 

[Boom]

But see, those still perpetuate an illusion. Angry, sad, stoic, he always has a smiling face.

I just don't think this:

Is as striking of an image with a permanent smile.

 

[The Joker]

But see, those still perpetuate an illusion. Angry, sad, stoic, he always has a smiling face.

How is it an illusion if he is actually angry, sad, or stoic and it clearly shows on his face? The smile doesn't hide that. It doesn't hide that he is feeling those things. That's the beauty of it. If it did that would be a different story. It would be neutering the character's emotions and it doesn't. That's part of why it works.

I just don't think this:

Is as striking of an image with a permanent smile.

Personally I don't think it's a striking image at all, because as you know I can't stand those tattoos and grills. The addition of a perma smile wouldn't alter it though. He'd still be making that same grimacing snarl and it would be as evident as those pics I posted above of what he was feeling.

 

[AnneFan]

I agree with The Joker on this. When Nicholson was angry or sad you could easily tell.

 

[Boom]

Because regardless of what his actual mouth is doing, the scars extend the edges of his mouth up into a smile. It's like Ledger's Joker says. "Now I'm always smiling."

You see a smile no matter the emotion. It's not my cup of tea.

 

[The Joker]

I agree with The Joker on this. When Nicholson was angry or sad you could easily tell.

You could with all of them. You'd have to be blind or unable to read simple facial expressions to not see it on their faces.

Because regardless of what his actual mouth is doing, the scars extend the edges of his mouth up into a smile. It's like Ledger's Joker says. "Now I'm always smiling."

I know, that's why it's called a perma smile lol. But the point is it doesn't hide the character's emotions. If it did then I could totally see it as a problem for expressing anger, sadness etc because you need to be able to see that on any character, unless they're supposed to be emotionless.

You see a smile no matter the emotion. It's not my cup of tea.

That's fair enough if it's not your preference. I get that. I respect it. It was the notion that it somehow hides Joker's emotions is what I took issue with. It's just not true.

 

[Boom]

Then I probably did a poor job of communicating my point.

When Nicholson's Joker was scared, he was obviously scared.
When Ledger's Joker was angry, he was obviously angry.

But with their fixed smiles, no matter what emotion they were going through, there was a smile on their face. It's an intentional juxtaposition. Nobody smiles when they are sad or infuriated. It's an unnatural reaction to an emotional response. Which is perhaps the appeal of the concept to some people.

I don't particularly care for that with the Joker. When things don't go his way, and his smile slowly turns into a rage-filled grimace, I don't want to see a smiling face.

 

[The Joker]

So then not anything from Morrison's Joker is a-ok in your book after all

 

[Rodrigo90]

Jack's perma-grin was, and still is, deeply unsettling. The lips obviously moved with expression as we can clearly see, but the eyes are what made the other half of it that way.
As AnneFan said, we could tell what his expressions were - when he was angry or sad. The eyes gave it away especially, and those, combined with his lips, made his face disturbing to look at.
You could see when he was angry or sad, but those lips made him a little muddy to read and that's what was compelling.

 

[Boom]

So then not anything from Morrison's Joker is a-ok in your book after all

If we're taking the comment super-literally instead of taking it at face value (a hyperbolic remark meant to express my love of Morrison), then sure.

Besides, I was more referring to his characterizations and understanding of these characters in general. In other words, the Joker being "super sane" and constantly reinvented himself in order to adapt to and cope with the ever-changing world around him. So again, you can chalk that up to poor wording on my part if you'd like.

 

[Jekecy]

This was done in February 2007, long before we ever saw a glimpse of Ledger's Joker, before TDK even went into production;

Spoiler

Then Batman Confidential did it in mid 2007.

That's perma smile Jokers before the world even saw TDK. Then the Bermejo Joker did it. Of course Nicholson's Joker had the perma smile, too. Did TDK make the perma smile even more acceptable and popular? Absolutely.

I'm well aware of the history. Bermejo was the one which spearheaded the conversation 2 years prior in this BOF interview, in which his concepts were introduced. Given how TDK was just beginning to ramp up, these conversations were already brewing amongst fanboys well before Heath's casting and eventual reveal (in early '07). I don't think it's any coincidence the scarred smile made its debut one year prior to the film's release. DC probably ok'd those stories to test the waters a bit and get the fans' feet wet for what was to come. Complete conjecture on my part, but given the timeline all too convenient for Joker to just suddenly have his scars (for the first time in several decades), in three separate instances, months within one another.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of that Morrison story and Batman Confidential (which in itself was always meant as a one-shot), I don't recall the scarred Joker making recurring appearances in other canonical titles.

But there was a precedent for it well before TDK was released. The argument that Joker wouldn't do the perma smile, when he has several times, is false. That's what I was saying. Nothing to do with how it was perceived after the movie.

I just don't think it's much of a solid point considering any writer could come up with a novelty, and then even for a moment, it becomes canon. Voila; precedent. Some sort of time to "settle in" should at least be accounted for.

And as I'm sure you'll agree; the quality of an idea exists irrespective of its medium. It really shouldn't matter if it appeared in some form or another at one point. If it's great, it's great. If not, well it sucks no matter where it's featured.

Conversely there is no precedent for a tattooed face Joker. And as to whether it will be more acceptable after Suicide Squad is released is anyone's guess. But personally I hope it never is, because the last thing I want to see is the Joker of the comics writing moronic things like damaged on his face.

And there was no precedent for a Joker who applied his own make-up. Still is (unless you count Flashpoint) the only iteration to feature this, and that so happens to be the most popular version to date. Regardless of how one feels about any given concept, I think the popularity of Heath's version in particular just goes to show how the "classical" can be usurped practically overnight if all the stars align.