Jared Leto IS The Joker - Part 8

Not on sundays!!

 

And that's exactly how I'll appreciate and enjoy Leto's aesthetic.

 

I also enjoy Ledger's Joker in an "elseworld's" kind of way.

I can cut Leto's a bit more slack. Getting tattooed is something that The Joker might do, and certainly could do. A man wearing face paint is simply something he isn't, however.

Obviously, my opinion, doesn't have to be yours etc etc.

 

Despite their conceptual differences, I don't view Ledger's Joker as being any less of "The Joker" than Leto's will be, nor do I view Nicholson's Joker as being any less of "The Joker" than Ledger's is.

They are all different, they are all technically "elseworlds" versions, but they are all very much The Joker.

 

I agree with this. I'm not a huge fan of Nicholson's Joker but it works and many have called him the best live-action Joker. My issues stem from personal preference. I feel like there is too much Jack in the performance but it's still entertaining.

 

I didn't find it any more a stretch than a living man made of clay, or a man living in sub zero temperatures only, or a 700 year old man coming from a pit that resurrects the dead etc. The realism, or lack thereof behind it wasn't the problem. It was the visual ugliness of it.

Maybe not to you, but they are to me in terms of how bad they look. The cut off face look is worse, as is The Batman cartoon one, but the tattooed grills look is in the bottom percentage of awful Joker designs with them.

I also think the damaged tattoo by itself is stupider than anything on those latter two designs. I think even the Joker would find that too stupid. Putting labels like that on himself. It's like trying to explain a joke. A good joke is you see it/hear it, you get it, you laugh. You see Joker, you see what he does, you know he's messed up in the head. He doesn't need it labeled on his forehead. It's like a comedian putting a funny label on them. Even if it is meant to be a joke stating the obvious, that is just as stupid. If not more so.

 

My point was that such heightened fantasy had never been applied to the character, which is why I found that design choice particularly jarring.

But therein lies a problem. We are talking about a fictional character that has been depicted any number of ways over the years. Maybe this Joker doesn't think tattooing self-aware images onto himself is stupid, just as Heath Ledger's Joker didn't think it was stupid to throw on sloppy greasepaint, half-assedly dye his hair, and maybe even slice his own face up. These characters are still embellishing their own visual personas - tying into their warped senses of vanity.

And you're entitled to that opinion of course. For my part, I speculate that the character is making a joke of 21st century culture; people tattooing themselves with images and phrases that they think are deep and meaningful, and that convey a sense of identity and individuality, but at the end of the day are just blots of ink. I could see him finding that amusing and stupid - which makes it ripe for mockery.

In that sense, the Joker's tattoos are redundant, self-aware, ironic, and hint at an inflated sense of self importance. I think that is plenty in-keeping with the character's core attributes. It's really just a matter of aesthetic preferences.

 

Fair enough. In a Batman universe full of heightened fantasy, even more so than a face being cut off and reattached, it wasn't an issue for me. It's easier to accept and overlook. How bad it looked was far more jarring.

It doesn't make any difference that this version doesn't think it's stupid or not himself. You can say that about any ugly character design we've had to suffer in a CBM. The character sporting it didn't think it looked bad. That doesn't change that it still looks bad.

That doesn't even work for me because when Joker wants to mock something for being stupid or wrong or what ever, he doesn't use his own body to mock it. If he wanted to mock tattoos he'd be more likely to horribly mutilate someone with some ugly tattoos to get his point across that they are awful. That's more his style.

He wouldn't defile himself with the very things he thinks are stupid, and also in the process make himself the butt end of jokes and ridicule about how ridiculous they look. He makes the jokes, not make himself the butt end of them.

 

I do enjoy our debates, Joker .

For what it's worth, I would have preferred it if they ditched the "Damaged" tattoo (believe it or not I've come to like the others). But it's as I said when the trailer came out. The forehead tattoo is so small, written in such fine script, and placed so close to the hairline that it probably won't be all that noticeable from a distance. And in close-ups? Well, let's hope Leto's eyes and mouth hold your attention.

 

Thanks Boom

You're always a class poster. For what it's worth I hope you're right. Because it's sad for me to say as a die hard Joker fan, he is the only part of the SS movie that I am not totally sold on yet. Harley, Deadshot, Croc, Waller etc I love everything I'm seeing of them so far and the movie in general. It's just Joker, more specifically his visual design not the casting or acting style I've seen of him, that is holding him back for me.

 

I do feel bad for guys like you and Travesty. We'll all such big fans of the character. It's a shame that we all couldn't be rejoicing in a uniformly-praised design.

Still, while I certainly wouldn't get your hopes too high for this, there is always the possibility that he'll look different in future appearances. Maybe the Batman solo is a prequel? Maybe the character has them removed or simply puts makeup over them.

Nothing's really out of bounds here, considering the character's penchant for taking on new guises and reinventing himself.

 

It's a shame most of the posters from the permawhite debates are gone. Can you imagine telling them, "ten years from now, you'll wish makeup was in the mix in order to get the classic Joker".

 

True.

"It's just a light layer of foundation!"

 

So I'm not checking through 8 threads to see if this has been posted yet but it popped up on my facebook just now.

http://www.dorkly.com/post/75333/this-fan-theory-about-jared-letos-joker-is-kind-of-brilliant

I can kind of get behind this fan theory

 

God. Hell no.

 

Yeah...... I stopped reading that at "our new Joker is none other than Jason Todd"

nope
nope
nope

 

Kind of interesting to think about, but I'm going to echo the No votes.

Plus, Leto was born a year before Affleck, it just wouldn't make sense to me.

 

Opened the link, read your comment, closed the link.

 

Well to be fair;
Arkham Knight spoiler. Read at own risk.
[blackout]the J tattoo on Joker is in the same area as Jason Todd's scar in Arkham Knight[/blackout]

 

The thing about this theory is... it's completely unnecessary. There's nothing that needs to be explained. Joker is Joker, Todd is Todd.

The J could stand for Jennifer Anniston, too! Oh my God!

 

Joincidence?
You know, that's Coincidence, with a J...

 

It's a really stupid idea, and it troubles me that I have seen it more than once.