I hated the look from the jump, but some parts of it have actually grown on me, like the grill and the lack of eyebrows. But the Damaged tattoo, the jewelry and some of the clothes are truly hideous.
People saying they should leave the design alone, but in the very next sentence suggest getting rid of the Damaged tattoo.![]()

Considering he's wearing clothes most of the time, I don't think ditching the body tattoos is a "complete" overhaul. Hell, considering the facial tattoos are the most visible (literally at all times), getting rid of those would be more of a noticeable change than removing the body tats. It's still a key visual feature. So either you guys advocate changing things, or you don't. But you can't say you want them to keep the look as it is, and in the next breath suggest changing a key feature. Otherwise it's really not that much different than the rest of us wanting normal-looking teeth.So? There's quite a difference in doing a complete overhaul and being rid of one small element.![]()
Yea why focus on eye brows?
God people, you are so obsessed with the psychical.
I say, don't change a thing. The look is set, it's IMO works for Leto, it's different then before and just power through the hate. Don't crumble DC, don't crumble to the pressure.
Honestly, i don't care because on the whole his performance including the look worked for me. He didn't look or sound like Leto to me. Maybe some slight adjustments to the makeup, size of the grills and such aren't out of the question - you know, perfecting the look, but on the whole I wouldn't change a thing.
Pretty much how I feel. Only thing I'd change is making both he & Harley more chalk-white in skin tone.
Sure there are, but this Joker likes the cheap shock value I guess. His apperence is stricking to me. I can't imagive a single person save for Harley feeling confertable or even moderatly safe in his presence. Maybe it's too on the nose for some of you, but it ultimatly workes as far as I'm concerend.
Sure there are, but this Joker likes the cheap shock value I guess. His apperence is stricking to me. I can't imagive a single person save for Harley feeling confertable or even moderatly safe in his presence. Maybe it's too on the nose for some of you, but it ultimatly workes as far as I'm concerend.
I really think he should be in the first Batman movie, maybe the first two. I'd definitely do a death of Robin and red hood thing. It's not known by the general audience. I usually don't like going back with prequels but if the 2nd was in " present time" I'd dig it.
You can't just shelve the joker IMHO.
It's better when it's shown in more subtle ways, and not that I have anything against the tattoos.Joker shouldn't be about cheap shock value (not that I see what is so shocking, cheap or otherwise, about tattoos). Joker doesn't need to resort to gimmicks like that to shock people. He's naturally terrifying. Nobody should feel comfortable in his presence either because he's the Joker, which like his ego, can be shown in much better ways than ugly distracting tattoos.
I am happy to finally see Deathstroke at any rate, and he might work better as a 2nd villain. Even one that appears in more than one film. I do like that Joker has been introduced into the DCEU outside of a Batman film and also that he won't be the main villain in the first film. It would really make the Bat-world across all film iterations feel small if Joker is the main villain too often without a break and it helped the Nolan trilogy and the Joker's impact within by saving him for a 2nd film having set up the new Bat-universe beforehand.One thing I think they are doing right is seemingly making Joker sit out the first Batman movie. I can't say Deathstroke is a villain I'd choose as a main baddie when other more worthy Bat villains are aching for an on screen debut or return, but I'll gladly take him over this Joker.
As someone who is not good with tones of color, can you speak a little more about the changes you desire in skin tone? Did you think it wasn't white enough or did you just want the paint to be more caked on?
I personally liked that they went in another direction than Ledger who is possibly my favorite performance ever, and I didn't mind the tatoos, grill etc. just like I didn't mind the cutsmile and make-up in TDK, just as long as they keep the spirit of the character. I also liked that they were going back to the Joker gangster roots. I just wanted more, especially from such a great character as the Joker and wished he hadn't been shoehorned in that film.
I liked Leto in the purple Lamborghini video too and I still think he could shine with the right material, hopefully in the Batman solo film.
Yeah I don't mind the lack of eyebrows either.
Even if I didn't have any, I would still say it's going a little far to basically say those that have them look "idiotic" by definition.
Had they/Ayer made Leto's Joker the main antagonist, I think the overall movie would've flowed a lot better.
I come here to discuss the things I enjoy that are of interest... for the most part. 
And this is the part where I am just going to roll my eyes and shake my head and...slowly disappear to a magical happy place and be like "Aww yeah..." instead of getting involved in an argument that will most likely lead to gobstoppers being shoved down certain people's throats "Choke on this, why don't ya!" ... k I know...I don't mean that is what will happen literally...who knows, it just might.
lols. Me, I don't like to get involved in heated discussions where everyone jumps on one another. It's not why I come here.I come here to discuss the things I enjoy that are of interest... for the most part.
So...this whole Tattoo thing...considering I am interested in getting one myself...yeah...what MydnightPhoenix said.
*tips hat*![]()
I would say the only tattoo I truly hate is the "damaged" one. The rest are ok with me.
If I'm correct Gotham was based on Chicago. And if you look at the "chi-raq" criminals the j face tattoo and the the star make total sense to me.
t:I'm generally a defender of the tattoos, but I do concede as far as execution it left a lot to be desired. For a 150+ million dollar blockbuster, I was hoping to get some top-notch artwork on full display. It seems like Ayer didn't even try, I read in the Art Book they found their main artist at a local street shop whilst they were filming on-location. Strange method of picking the main designer of such an iconic character.I would say the only tattoo I truly hate is the "damaged" one. The rest are ok with me.