Jared Leto IS The Joker - Part 9

Who do you think will play the real Joker? Jared Leto again without the tattoos? Margot Robbie?

Probably one of the most annoying fan theories around at the moment. I almost hope that the people who keep pushing the rumor are just trolling but I'll relish their disappointment all the more if they are legit at this point

 

I honestly don't care one way or the other which way they go so I wouldn't even be disappointed at all if none of this happens. I can't wait for these movies and am excited all the same. I just think that with all we know, the probability of the Joker being Jason Todd is very high and it's what I would put my money on if I had to.

 

My sources tell me Chris Pine is actually up for the role of the real Joker.

 

No Chris Pine is the new Steve Trevor Joker hybrid. Did no one see his bullet wounds on his upper pelvis?

 

Chris Pine is obviously playing Steve Trevor as the Secret Cheetah.

 

I hope someone else holds your money for you...

 

I'll take that bet, I'm always interested in making easy money, lol. I'd say the chances that they hired Jared Leto to play a knockoff Joker are 0.000000001%.

 

wut?

What does this even mean? How would Jason even become the Joker if there wasn't a prior Joker?

This theory gets stupider all the time.

 

If you really believe this, I have another theory to sell you.

 

I'm glad to see people keeping the theory alive. Some people call me an idiot, others call me a master troll -- just for bringing up the theory that Joker = Robin, and Robin = son of gordon. Either way, we'll never see this idea coming at you until it's too late in the theatre

I strongly think the flashback we'll get isn't of a joker killing Jason, but of someone killing Commisioner gordon while Gordon's son is trying to help Batman as Robin (think Batgirl in The Batman cartoon), and whoever his son is (either Jim Gordon Jr, Richard Gordon or Jason Gordon) will go crazy like Dick did in TDKR. Batman feels responsible, puts the kid in a mental institution to get better, but instead he gets worse and turns into the joker. The writings on the suit/body, the 'damaged', is the spectacle of a fallen Robin going crazy. No good guys are left, none stayed that way, and Batman ultimatley retires for the first time because of this horrific chain of events. (Oh yeah, Alfred talking about cruelty is reminding Bruce about Robin in this case too). You see, IT ALL WORKS!


I won't re-iterate all the reasons this works, but just offer up what Christopher Nolan said -- Robin as a character is unfilmable. You give the general public Bruce at a Circus (Circuses are largely de funct now, or outright protested), or you have this weird thing where Bruce picks up stray kids and trains them because... reasons? And even if you changed the Robin backstory to something cool/new/different, Batman having a sidekick in a big screen movie just lessens the Batman character in a movie setting (movie screen time is precious, we need to see how awesome Batman is before giving him help). And in this case, when we do give Batman help, we want Batman and Superman teaming up and sharing screen time, not Batman training a wet-behind-the-ears Robin, or ole Robins, or bringing new Robins. It works in the comics where you can go book by book and build it up, but for 2-3 hours at a go, ever few years - no way.


Let's at least all agree that whatever Robin we get, he'll be on screen for less than 15 minutes and then go away/die, leaving Batman alone.

 

Robin is hard to pull off so... Joker is Robin? You've said exactly zero things with this paragraph.

 

So, Robin is The Joker and is also the son of Gordon?

 

Only to highlight that for all intents of purposes, whatever Robin exists in the DCCU, it's equivalent to Thomas/Martha Wayne. We may see him, something happens, and the audience is left to see Bruce deal with it. Whatever this event is, will obviously be relevant to both BvS and SS given the minimal visual tie in of the Ha Ha Ha's. If it's nothing more then that, a traumatic event to help set the tone - and give a little bit of non-controversial backstory, then fine. I'll be a happy camper, but I think it'll be a missed story telling opportunity.

In a large sense, DC movies highlight consequences. Batman Begins/TDK hit this nail on the head w/ the escalation path to the joker, bringing down the mob, etc.

MOS plays on this nicely with what appeared to be a rather standard alien invasion/destruction scenario is actually a brilliant setup for BvS. Even after watching the trailer, we can go back and watch MoS and see action/consequence dynamics. (Pa Kent essentially commits suicide to protec the secret, Superman destroys the drone and clearly says things will be on his terms). Likely the consequence of that will be the opening act of BvS.

So that leaves Batman, whatever happened to Robin, and Batman's ultimate villian the Joker. Retelling the story akin to The Batman where Batman's first sidekick is Gordon's son, helps bring in the consequence of Gordon's actions (he bends the law a bit and enables Batman, his son/daughter look up and join Batman). Rather than a mysterious social commentary on Batman's actions like in TDK, we could get something direct -- you sign up to work w/ Batman, you risk getting in harms way and something bad happening.

Anyway, this is just a way to tighten up the plot lines and help push Batman into the Justice League, rather than what we often see - "I'm a part time member... i better get back to Gotham. I'm needed in Gotham." If we see Bruce peace out of something in JL because he's needed in Gotham, that'll be pretty weak.

So getting back to the Joker -- if you think about the Under the Red Hood animated movie. In it's climactic end, Jason Todd tries to force Batman to first answer why he won't kill the Joker, and then manipulate him into killing him. The answer he gives falls somewhat flat... "if i do that, I'll never come back." As if Batman letting harm happen to the Joker would immediately turn him into some blood-thirsty murderous villain-like vigilante.

i say, we want a heart-wrenching reason Batman won't kill the joker (or otherwise indirectly let him die a-la Ras in Batman Begins). One of the best reasons would be, deep down, he wants to save him/loves him/etc, and what better way to do that than to have Joker be once his side-kick, one of his few friends. No cops out "your one rule", no wish-washy Anakin scenario ("If i go to that dark side, my next step is to kill younglings).

so yeah, I think Joker was once Robin. I hope they tighten the plot and involve Gordon so we don't have extra Bat stuff hanging around Gotham to drag Bruce back there. And most of all, I want to see something new that we haven't seen before in comics/animated form. If we get Robin flashbacks, and a Red hood "ta da" moment with 0 build up, that'd be pretty lame - a handful of deus ex machinas to placate the fans, but we won't care.

 

Easy change. The Graysons are part of a Cirque du Soleil-type show.

 

Bruce is lowkey Gordon too

 

Is Batgort trolling again?

 

I don't buy the robin is joker theory, but it's FAR from stupid.

It's not my preference but there is a lot of storytelling potential if that is the case.

Again, I don't think it's true, but the theory is very interesting and definitely not dumb like many of you make it out to be.

 

Nope.

 

Agreed.

 

This is all reminding me of the perma-white conspiracy debate back in 2007.

 

Batman is actually Superman
Superman is actually Martian Manhunter
Aquaman is actually Khal Drogo
Donkey Kong is actually Mario
Peanut Butter is actually Fudge
Keanu Reeves is actually three little people in a trench coat

 

I don't like this thread anymore.