Jared Leto IS The Joker - Part 6

[Batman_5]

Updated.

 

[Travesty]

...everything burns.

 

[John-An]

Have you been thinking that in comics Joker is inmune to toxins. As a fella already said, tattoos wouldn't be permanent on their skin? Have you gave a thought of that. Joker experts, opinion?

 

[regwec]

I don't know why it's assumed they are permanent, anyway.

 

[John-An]

Me too, but if they are indeed using permanent ink, Joker may know that they won't be permanent on his skin.

 

[The Joker]

Why would you assume they are not permanent? They were shown as a big part of the character's look in the big reveal photo. Unless they're just rub on tattoos that can easily come off, I see no reason to doubt that they are not part of his permanent look.

And in case anyone is going to try and sell the 75th anniversary theory again, don't bother. Never bought that for a second because it makes no sense. Nobody more than me wants to believe that those tattoos will vanish off his skin quick smart in the movie, but so far there's nothing concrete to suggest they will.

 

[regwec]

There is no reason to assume either possibility.

 

[The Joker]

Well yeah there is since they revealed them as part of his look. So that strongly suggests they are a permanent part of the character's design. I've never known such a significant visual element of a character's design in the first big reveal pic to just disappear altogether in the movie.

I think it's just wishful thinking because most of us want to believe we don't have to look at those eyesore tattoos for the whole movie.

 

[regwec]

I don't think this is a phenomena that can be interpreted meaningfully by inferring a pattern in reference to other movie promos.

We have an image of The Joker with body art. He doesn't usually have body art. You can interpret that as you please, until it's context is explained.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Best case scenario; he won't be shirtless most of the time.

 

[The Joker]

Well I think you can. It's logical to compare it to previous big character reveals, especially ones done by WB for major characters like this, and they have no track record of dropping major design elements like that. So it's more meaningful to interpret it like that, not to mention more logical, than to just assume this is not permanent just because most people don't like it. It wouldn't be the first time a character's design was hated, but the movie kept it anyway.

The fact that it's something the character doesn't usually have as part of their look is even less significant since there is a plethora of examples of movie adapted characters with visual changes that they don't usually have in the comics.

Like I said I hope they are not permanent, but right now the assertion that they're not has no basis.

 

[regwec]

I made no assertion that they weren't permanent. I said there was no compelling basis for the assumption that they were. Nobody knows.

 

[John-An]

As not being permanent, at least I refered that yeah they are part of (at least most of them) Joker's look but... I think they are part of his "play" on the prison of Belle Reeve and on this movie in general. That doesn't mean he was like that since he had his first encounter of Batman neither we can't be sure if he just will have them on his prison stay (as part of mocking their style) to then having him with a clean look (maybe with Batman's scars )

Again we don't know the meaning of them in the movie. And knowing that Joker is inmune to toxins, would have the knowledge that he just want it to play a little and to act as a part of the inmates in his own way.

What truly intrigues me is if Harley is bleached as Joker with the same procedure, cause Joker's seem to have different consequences and most drastic changes (eyes for example) but Harley can hide it with make up. I'm really not sure if she's bleached with the same procedure as Joker.

 

[The Joker]

You're right nobody knows with 100% certainty, but there is more of a compelling basis that they are permanent for the reasons I already mentioned, whereas there is none for the belief that they are not.

That's all I'm saying. So I don't know why anyone would ask why anyone would think they are permanent. There's plenty of logical and likely reasons to believe they are. It would be more accurate to ask why would anyone believe they are not.

 

[TheLongestDay]

I remember for months people swearing up and down that Heaths Joker was permawhite and that was gonna be a big reveal at the end...like he wore flesh makeup everywhere else apart from his face...


just sayin....just sayin.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

I remember for months people swearing up and down that Heaths Joker was permawhite and that was gonna be a big reveal at the end...like he wore flesh makeup everywhere else apart from his face...


just sayin....just sayin.

 

[craigdbfan]

Why would you assume they are not permanent? They were shown as a big part of the character's look in the big reveal photo. Unless they're just rub on tattoos that can easily come off, I see no reason to doubt that they are not part of his permanent look.

And in case anyone is going to try and sell the 75th anniversary theory again, don't bother. Never bought that for a second because it makes no sense. Nobody more than me wants to believe that those tattoos will vanish off his skin quick smart in the movie, but so far there's nothing concrete to suggest they will.

Well yeah there is since they revealed them as part of his look. So that strongly suggests they are a permanent part of the character's design. I've never known such a significant visual element of a character's design in the first big reveal pic to just disappear altogether in the movie.

I think it's just wishful thinking because most of us want to believe we don't have to look at those eyesore tattoos for the whole movie.

Well I think you can. It's logical to compare it to previous big character reveals, especially ones done by WB for major characters like this, and they have no track record of dropping major design elements like that. So it's more meaningful to interpret it like that, not to mention more logical, than to just assume this is not permanent just because most people don't like it. It wouldn't be the first time a character's design was hated, but the movie kept it anyway.

The fact that it's something the character doesn't usually have as part of their look is even less significant since there is a plethora of examples of movie adapted characters with visual changes that they don't usually have in the comics.

Like the Joker said it makes zero sense revealing your character to everyone and then omitting the most jarring and obvious design in the final release.

Like I said I hope they are not permanent, but right now the assertion that they're not has no basis.

You're right nobody knows with 100% certainty, but there is more of a compelling basis that they are permanent for the reasons I already mentioned, whereas there is none for the belief that they are not.

That's all I'm saying. So I don't know why anyone would ask why anyone would think they are permanent. There's plenty of logical and likely reasons to believe they are. It would be more accurate to ask why would anyone believe they are not.

So much yes.

What major character poster/promo reveal has been dramatically different when they appear on the big screen? Can't think of one aside from a few color hue changes here and there.

 

[DOBSON10]

Unfortunately I think we're stuck with the Clown Prince of Goth Rock and Hooker Harley Gaga. It's obvious Ayer thinks the tattoo's add something to the characters, not sure why though. Both are horrible costumes/designs but I've given up on hoping for the tattoo's to be fake (never bought into them being fake or removed to begin with) or for Harley to have different outfits.

Thankfully Leto and Robbie should be good enough in the roles to overshawdow the crap designs and maybe if these characters appear again in another DCU movie they will get much, much better designs. I hope that's the case, because I liked the casting choices and don't think either character should be limited to just 1 movie.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

Thankfully Leto and Robbie should be good enough in the roles to overshawdow the crap designs and maybe if these characters appear again in another DCU movie they will get much, much better designs. I hope that's the case, because I liked the casting choices and don't think either character should be limited to just 1 movie.

Well put.

 

[Roderick]

I highly doubt that these designs will be imprinted on Joker and Harley across the 10 years that Jared and Margot have agreed to stay for. I'm sure there will be redesigns of some sort, nothing too drastic perhaps.

But we will see.

 

[John-An]

We don't even know if those designs specially Joker are for all the movie

 

[DOBSON10]

I'm sure there will be redesigns of some sort, nothing too drastic perhaps.

The only drastic change they really have to make is removing the ridiculous face tattoo's. You can cover the body tats with clothing for either character. I don't have a problem with them having body tats in general but the ones they gave them are not the least bit creative and just plain corny to me. Removing face tattoo's might be troublesome story wise I guess but I definitely hope they do it for these characters if they appear in future movies.

As for costumes, just give them something that looks more traditional. With The Joker, it's pretty simple, his traditional purple suit costume is great, distinctive and iconic. I don't see any reason to ever drastically change it, it's one of the best costumes of any comic book character period. I never would have given him the white suit, I hate it, but having him wear it for one movie isn't going to kill me. I'd like for Jared Leto/The Joker to be a large part of the DCU, I think he should appear in 3-4 movies, if that's the case then there is plenty of time to put him back in his classic Purple suit. I hate the silver gangsta grill too but really just ditch the face tats, give him the purple suit and he's good to go.

As for Harley, I'm not one of the people who think her classic costume can't work in live action but I'm also not tied down to it and wouldn't have adapted it straight up either. I can understand why some think the Jester costume is/would look silly. I'm fine with them giving her something else, but this Joker themed trashy street walker look isn't doing it for me. I never would have went away from the red and black, especially for her first appearance, that's one of the more disappointing things about the costume. The pink and blue is something that I just don't care for, maybe for 1 movie, down the line just to change things up, whatever, but definitely not for her first appearance. I think the red and black is a perfect contrast and compliment to Jokers purple suit. I'm sure that seems petty to some people but I think it's great for the character of Harley and the relationship with Joker.

I would have given her an alteration of the Jester costume, taking away the more silly concepts, the headpiece, the white neck/wrist collars, the domino mask, basically making it a red and black jumpsuit type of deal but keeping everything else pretty much intact. For her hair, I would have went with a complete red/black split, not just the ponytails, black eye makeup/bright red lipstick. Maybe some people here wouldn't like that, maybe this is more flashy, less formulaic but that's would have been the best route to go for me.

The Joker and Harley Quinn are both very popular characters, their personalities and blunt craziness are enough to tell us who they are, we didn't need it spelled out all over their face/body and printed on their clothing. Both of the characters are great, both of their costumes were great, they didn't need to be changed, they didn't need to be covered in their catchphrases and turned into human bulletin boards of their characters. Have them do that with their dialogue and actions. I still can't believe they thought these were good ideas. But to each their own, I'll live, it's just disappointing.

 

[Roderick]

I understand entirely where you're coming from. Particularly because I hated Joker's look the moment I saw that photo, I wasn't too excited for the white suit either. After seeing Harley's appearance and how much it compliments Joker's, my perspective has been widened and I now anticipate seeing how the two translate together onscreen.

What I meant with my post above was that I can definitely see Joker and Harley's costume choices going back to their more traditional roots. I think the main reason they look so drastically different to what people expect is because they want to defy previous incarnations of the characters by having them look different from the get-go.

I may be entirely wrong, but I do not have a doubt in my mind we will see Harley in her traditional costume in this Batverse. There's even rumors of a Joker and Harley solo film in the works, who knows if it's true; but if it is, I think we can expect traditional costumes. t:

 

[Greens]

The pink and blue stuff... I mean.... I love the character, I love the comics. I just don't see why this is such a big deal. I don't understand why people get riled up because the color scheme of the tips of her HAIR has been changed a bit. I get this "who cares?" feeling. She looks like the character, she will act like the character, just embrace the damn look.

Obviously, Joker gets a bigger overhaul in this movie, but it's way too early to call foul after ONE official picture. You can condemn the picture, but I'm hearing a lot of definitive statements about the character as a whole. Just wait and see.

 

[matt47]

The pink and blue stuff... I mean.... I love the character, I love the comics. I just don't see why this is such a big deal. I don't understand why people get riled up because the color scheme of the tips of her HAIR has been changed a bit. I get this "who cares?" feeling. She looks like the character, she will act like the character, just embrace the damn look.

Obviously, Joker gets a bigger overhaul in this movie, but it's way too early to call foul after ONE official picture. You can condemn the picture, but I'm hearing a lot of definitive statements about the character as a whole. Just wait and see.

I guess people just think that if it's such a small thing like you say it is...why change it in the first place?