Jared Leto IS The Joker - Part 6

[Greens]

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?

I don't know, I didn't make that decision. Maybe the costume designer felt that two black & red characters (Deadshot and Katana) were enough?

I just think that people get hung up on this stuff way too much.

 

[DOBSON10]

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.

Like I said in that post, some people will find that petty, that's fine. I don't care for the change. It's not just the hair, it's her entire costume's color scheme. But, regardless of what color it is, it could have been red and black, I still wouldn't like the costume/tats.

You can condemn the picture, but I'm hearing a lot of definitive statements about the character as a whole. Just wait and see.

No you're not. I'm talking specifically about their costumes because that's all we really have at this point. I've already mentioned a few times that I think Leto and Robbie have the potential to be great in these roles. From what I have seen in the set pics, Robbie seems as if her characterization will be pretty accurate in terms of her personality, hard to say but given her facial expressions and mannerisms it seems likely that she will do the character justice. Actually, Robbie is my favorite casting choice for the DCU since Henry Cavill, I think it's perfect casting.

But I've also said, no matter how great they are these roles, that won't make the designs of their appearance better, I'll never like them. In the end, yes, the characterization, personality and actor's performance is more important but they'll still look like crap even if they give the best performance I've ever seen. I've also already stated that I probably care more about how the characters look than most people do as well, it is part of the performance for me to some degree, but I understand why other people don't really care.

 

[Greens]

But I've also said, no matter how great they are these roles, that won't make the designs of their appearance better, I'll never like them. In the end, yes, the characterization, personality and actor's performance is more important but they'll still look like crap even if they give the best performance I've ever seen. I've also already stated that I probably care more about how the characters look than most people do as well, it is part of the performance for me to some degree, but I understand why other people don't really care.

I hate to bring up Heath's Joker again, but I used to hate the way he looked. I thought he looked stupid and not like the Joker at all. His performance changed that and made me "get" the character. That's why I think "I'll never like them" is a preemptive conclusion.

 

[DOBSON10]

I hate to bring up Heath's Joker again, but I used to hate the way he looked. I thought he looked stupid and not like the Joker at all. His performance changed that and made me "get" the character. That's why I think "I'll never like them" is a preemptive conclusion.

I don't understand that, an actor's performance doesn't change the way they look. As I said before, Leto and Robbie's performance might overshawdow how they look but they'll still look like crap in the end, that won't change.

 

[Greens]

I don't understand that, an actor's performance doesn't change the way they look. As I said before, Leto and Robbie's performance might overshawdow how they look but they'll still look like crap in the end, that won't change.

An actor's performance changes the way you perceive a character. Their look and the performance complement each other, and one without the other can seem weird or stupid.

 

[The Joker]

It depends how bad the look is. No good acting performance can over shadow a truly awful design for some people. It's naive to assume everyone can be won over that way. Just like a really good character design won't excuse a bland or bad acting performance.

Even wearing a suit that covers all those body tattoos, seeing that damaged label on his forehead, and the tear tattoo on his cheek is going to totally distract me from Leto's performance no matter how good it is

 

[Greens]

I never said the look will be unanimously loved in the end, I'm saying that it's too early in the game to draw this many conclusions.

 

[terry78]

I need to hear the voice. That is what Joker is to me, the tone he vocally sets.

 

[The Joker]

Why is that? People are assuming Leto will be brilliant (we've seen nothing of his performance yet). That the tattoos are not permanent. That if Leto is good enough the tattoos can be overlooked etc.

If it's not too early to make conclusions like that then it's not too early to say no good performance could distract from the awfulness of those tattoos.

 

[Samurai_Adam]

While I love Joker's new look(same with Harley), the only thing that really matters to me is the performance. Even if Leto's Joker was dressed similarly to Dr. Frank N. Furter, I'd still only care about his performance and how he carries the character.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Why is that? People are assuming Leto will be brilliant (we've seen nothing of his performance yet). That the tattoos are not permanent. That if Leto is good enough the tattoos can be overlooked etc.

If it's not too early to make conclusions like that then it's not too early to say no good performance could distract from the awfulness of those tattoos.

You can't overlook his tattoos...because they're like, you know, smack bang on the head?

I have no doubt Leto will kill in the role. But those tattoos are there, they can't be overlooked by us, and the film is no doubt going to put emphasis on them.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

When I first saw this Joker, the tattoos didn't feel out of place or distracting (but rather striking), so from a visual design standpoint I like it.

It was only until I read them that they began to distract and make me cringe. However, whether or not they'll distract in the movie really depends on their context and whether or not they go against the grain of his character, and right now we know nothing. Does 'Damaged' refer to his soul or to his head? Did he get the tats to be stylish or to be silly and ironic? Does he love his own persona, or is he mocking people who love the Joker? Did Harley do this to him while he was in a TDKR-style brain-dead state? Does he hate the tattoos or find them hilarious? Is it paint? We have no idea, and the explanation can drastically change our opinion on this design.

Like...if we were told that the white paint on Ledger's face was cocaine or if the red on his lips was from eating people for breakfast, then all of a sudden these visual elements become distracting and cringe-worthy because they don't fit with the character. Context matters.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Why is that? People are assuming Leto will be brilliant (we've seen nothing of his performance yet). That the tattoos are not permanent. That if Leto is good enough the tattoos can be overlooked etc.

If it's not too early to make conclusions like that then it's not too early to say no good performance could distract from the awfulness of those tattoos.

Just wondering are you planning to update your avy with the Leto joker?

 

[DOBSON10]

When I first saw this Joker, the tattoos didn't feel out of place or distracting (but rather striking), so from a visual design standpoint I like it.

It was only until I read them that they began to distract and make me cringe. However, whether or not they'll distract in the movie really depends on their context and whether or not they go against the grain of his character, and right now we know nothing. Does 'Damaged' refer to his soul or to his head? Did he get the tats to be stylish or to be silly and ironic? Does he love his own persona, or is he mocking people who love the Joker? Did Harley do this to him while he was in a TDKR-style brain-dead state? Does he hate the tattoos or find them hilarious? Is it paint? We have no idea, and the explanation can drastically change our opinion on this design.

Like...if we were told that the white paint on Ledger's face was cocaine or if the red on his lips was from eating people for breakfast, then all of a sudden these visual elements become distracting and cringe-worthy because they don't fit with the character. Context matters.

I have a couple problems with this, I keep seeing people mention "context" possibly making the tattoo's "better", I disagree. First, no amount of context, whether it be shallow or deep reasoning, will ever make me like the face tattoo's. They're just ridiculous and completely unnecessary no matter what the explanation is. I've seen tons of theories on the damaged tattoo and they're all just as pointless as the tattoo itself.

But even more importantly, if they spend time trying to explain the Jokers tattoo's, then something is wrong to me. That worries me about the writing of this movie, it's a completely pointless storyline that really adds nothing and is completely unnecessary. All those reasons you just speculated on, well, I don't care or think they should waste time on something like that. There are much better things to focus on. Outside of the possible Robin tattoo, which could be some sort of a reminder/trophy for the Joker's killing of one of Batman's sidekicks, there is no reason they should be wasting any time explaining tattoo's. The rest of them are so dumb that they don't deserve an explanation. If the guy has tattoo's, he has tattoo's, I don't freaking care why. In the TV show "Prison Break" explaining the tattoo's made sense, for the Robin tattoo, spend a small scene explaining that, fine, that makes sense but the rest of the tats, there is no reason I can think of that's interesting enough to waste time on them. I don't need context for something that's so pointless to begin with.

Maybe he got the tattoo's to make fun of prison culture, or because he thinks they're funny, or because he's in love with himself, or because Harley likes to doodle, guess what, don't care. It's a stupid plot point they shouldn't waste time on. Giving the Joker tattoo's doesn't make the character more visually interesting to me and to top it off, the tattoo's they gave him are stupid and lack purpose (again, outside of the Robin tat). The character of the Joker has a vast amount of interesting details to expand on without adding something as pointless as why he has tattoo's.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

 

[regwec]

Why is that? People are assuming Leto will be brilliant (we've seen nothing of his performance yet). That the tattoos are not permanent. That if Leto is good enough the tattoos can be overlooked etc.

If you're referring to me, you will remember that I made no such assumption. We had this conversation just a few posts ago, after all.

 

[The Joker]

Just wondering are you planning to update your avy with the Leto joker?

If we ever get a good pic of him that I like then yes definitely.

If you're referring to me, you will remember that I made no such assumption. We had this conversation just a few posts ago, after all.

I wasn't referring to you, reg.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I have a couple problems with this, I keep seeing people mention "context" possibly making the tattoo's "better", I disagree. First, no amount of context, whether it be shallow or deep reasoning, will ever make me like the face tattoo's. They're just ridiculous and completely unnecessary no matter what the explanation is. I've seen tons of theories on the damaged tattoo and they're all just as pointless as the tattoo itself.

But even more importantly, if they spend time trying to explain the Jokers tattoo's, then something is wrong to me. That worries me about the writing of this movie, it's a completely pointless storyline that really adds nothing and is completely unnecessary. All those reasons you just speculated on, well, I don't care or think they should waste time on something like that. There are much better things to focus on. Outside of the possible Robin tattoo, which could be some sort of a reminder/trophy for the Joker's killing of one of Batman's sidekicks, there is no reason they should be wasting any time explaining tattoo's. The rest of them are so dumb that they don't deserve an explanation. If the guy has tattoo's, he has tattoo's, I don't freaking care why. In the TV show "Prison Break" explaining the tattoo's made sense, for the Robin tattoo, spend a small scene explaining that, fine, that makes sense but the rest of the tats, there is no reason I can think of that's interesting enough to waste time on them. I don't need context for something that's so pointless to begin with.

Maybe he got the tattoo's to make fun of prison culture, or because he thinks they're funny, or because he's in love with himself, or because Harley likes to doodle, guess what, don't care. It's a stupid plot point they shouldn't waste time on. Giving the Joker tattoo's doesn't make the character more visually interesting to me and to top it off, the tattoo's they gave him are stupid and lack purpose (again, outside of the Robin tat). The character of the Joker has a vast amount of interesting details to expand on without adding something as pointless as why he has tattoo's.

It just seems weird to say something is flat out stupid and won't work without actually seeing it. And your explanations for why they're stupid seem to just be because you think they're stupid. Something isn't pointless simply because you don't like it. And you can't say something is pointless without seeing it first. Your whole post screams circular logic, but okay.

 

[DOBSON10]

It just seems weird to say something is flat out stupid and won't work without actually seeing it. And your explanations for why they're stupid seem to just be because you think they're stupid. Something isn't pointless simply because you don't like it. And you can't say something is pointless without seeing it first. Your whole post screams circular logic, but okay.

I'm not sure how you're having trouble understanding that, but OK. If they spent any significant time explaining a characters tattoo's choices, they're doing it wrong, IMO. And they're not just pointless because I don't like them, they're pointless because no matter what the reason is for including the tattoo's, they serve no real, tangible purpose to the storyline. They're there because the designers thought they looked cool, why I'll never know.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I'm not sure how you're having trouble understanding that, but OK. If they spent any significant time explaining a characters tattoo's choices, they're doing it wrong, IMO. And they're not just pointless because I don't like them, they're pointless because no matter what the reason is for including the tattoo's, they serve no real, tangible purpose to the storyline. They're there because the designers thought they looked cool, why I'll never know.

What's the storyline again?

 

[BravoNolanILuvU]

This guy has a time machine.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

I'm not sure how you're having trouble understanding that, but OK. If they spent any significant time explaining a characters tattoo's choices, they're doing it wrong, IMO. And they're not just pointless because I don't like them, they're pointless because no matter what the reason is for including the tattoo's, they serve no real, tangible purpose to the storyline. They're there because the designers thought they looked cool, why I'll never know.

You sure seem to know everything about the DCCU so I'll ask this:

what's the plot of all the movies?

 

[Boom]

It depends how bad the look is. No good acting performance can over shadow a truly awful design for some people. It's naive to assume everyone can be won over that way. Just like a really good character design won't excuse a bland or bad acting performance.

Even wearing a suit that covers all those body tattoos, seeing that damaged label on his forehead, and the tear tattoo on his cheek is going to totally distract me from Leto's performance no matter how good it is

The J teardrop I don't mind so much, as it compliments Harley's heart teardrop.

The forehead tattoo is awful, though. No argument there.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

The J teardrop I don't mind so much, as it compliments Harley's heart teardrop.

The forehead tattoo is awful, though. No argument there.

The ONLY tattoo I have an issue with. Everything else doesn't phase me.

 

[MrsKent26]

I don't have a problem with the tattoos. For some reason, I could see the Joker having something as obvious and silly as that simply for the sake of it. I wouldn't complain if they decided to take the tattoos away though.