The Jared Leto is The Joker(?) Thread

[Wildcard]

Him "pining" for Harley makes him no more or less of a doofus than Napier pining after Vicki Vale the entire movie.

 

[The Joker]

Yeah it does, since Napier at least had other goals besides stalking Vicki. He tried to poison Gotham, he had a vendetta to get Batman. His world didn't revolve around Vicki. He wasn't pining for her when he wasn't around her. And when he was in her company he tried to spray her face with his acid flower, and threw her off the side of a building.

 

[shauner111]

 

[gdw]

The worst part about the love sick puppy dog characterisation ruining Leto's Joker is that it's NOT how the character was written, acted, or filmed for the movie.

 

[Wildcard]

Yeah it does, since Napier at least had other goals besides stalking Vicki. He tried to poison Gotham, he had a vendetta to get Batman. His world didn't revolve around Vicki. He wasn't pining for her when he wasn't around her. And when he was in her company he tried to spray her face with his acid flower, and threw her off the side of a building.

No, it doesn't, especially when Joker in SS has more history with HQ than Joker in '89 had with Vicki Vale. Joker typically sees Harley as his property, and even beyond that, why would he want his creation risking her life for someone's else's end goal?

Considering this wasn't a Batman movie, if they weren't going to make Joker the primary antagonist then his role as is works to perfect effect. As already stated, he's important to Harley's story, her development and her narrative. He didn't need another side-story for that.

And yeah, Nicholson's Joker did that. But Leto's would've done a lot worse if WB didn't get cold feet this time considering he was constantly smacking Harley around and trying to kill her. If Leto's Joker got his due, he would've been painted as a far sicker bastard than Nicholson's ever was. What could've been....

The worst part about the love sick puppy dog characterisation ruining Leto's Joker is that it's NOT how the character was written, acted, or filmed for the movie.

Precisely.

 

[The Joker]

No, it doesn't, especially when Joker in SS has more history with HQ than Joker in '89 had with Vicki Vale. Joker typically sees Harley as his property, and even beyond that, why would he want his creation risking her life for someone's else's end goal?

Yes it does, because how much history Joker has with Harley is totally irrelevant. It's how you write the characters that counts. We don't excuse Schumacher's awful treatment of the characters just because they have a long comic book history together. Just because Joker has more stories with Harley doesn't mean he should be rewritten into a pining lovesick wuss who moves heaven and earth just so he can be with her.

I didn't like the Joker stalking Vicki angle either, but compared to Letoker it was Oscar worthy because he didn't spend all his time and energy wanting to be with her, and treated her exactly the way Letoker should have treated Harley when he was with her.

Considering this wasn't a Batman movie, if they weren't going to make Joker the primary antagonist then his role as is works to perfect effect. As already stated, he's important to Harley's story, her development and her narrative. He didn't need another side-story for that.

Joker can be important to Harley's story without reducing him to a pathetic pining lovesick puppy. If Ayer understood these characters as people constantly told us he did when SS was in production, it would have been Harley who was pining for her puddin' and trying everything she could to find him and be with him. Not the other way around.

 

[Wildcard]

Yes it does, because how much history Joker has with Harley is totally irrelevant. It's how you write the characters that counts. We don't excuse Schumacher's awful treatment of the characters just because they have a long comic book history together. Just because Joker has more stories with Harley doesn't mean he should be rewritten into a pining lovesick wuss who moves heaven and earth just so he can be with her.

My point, however, was that it makes more sense for Joker to be pursuing Harley than it is for him to be pursuing Vale, someone he holds no prior connection to and he somehow becomes infatuated with via just a picture.

I didn't like the Joker stalking Vicki angle either, but compared to Letoker it was Oscar worthy because he didn't spend all his time and energy wanting to be with her, and treated her exactly the way Letoker should have treated Harley when he was with her.

Joker here going to great odds to retrieve Harley is, imo, no different than TAS stories where he sees her doing well on her own and wants to step in to reassert his dominance over her.

Joker can be important to Harley's story without reducing him to a pathetic pining lovesick puppy. If Ayer understood these characters as people constantly told us he did when SS was in production, it would have been Harley who was pining for her puddin' and trying everything she could to find him and be with him. Not the other way around.

Except you're over-exaggerating the whole "lovesick puppy" bit. Was he strictly going after Harley in this movie? Yes. Does that him pathetic or pining? No, it doesn't, because he wasn't. It wasn't ever the other way around, it was just Joker being Joker.

 

[The Joker]

My point, however, was that it makes more sense for Joker to be pursuing Harley than it is for him to be pursuing Vale, someone he holds no prior connection to and he somehow becomes infatuated with via just a picture.

That's exactly why the Vale one works better. Because there is no set in stone precedence between the two characters. So fans are not thrown off when they see Joker act totally different in a well established character dynamic like they did in SS.

Joker here going to great odds to retrieve Harley is, imo, no different than TAS stories where he sees her doing well on her own and wants to step in to reassert his dominance over her.

Name one TAS story where Joker did that. The only time Joker actively sought out Harley in TAS is when she teamed with Ivy and they went on a huge successful crime spree. And when he tracked her down it wasn't to get her back, it was to swipe all the loot they'd stolen.

Except you're over-exaggerating the whole "lovesick puppy" bit. Was he strictly going after Harley in this movie? Yes. Does that him pathetic or pining? No, it doesn't, because he wasn't. It wasn't ever the other way around, it was just Joker being Joker.

There is no exaggeration. It is exactly like that. He wanted Harley back because he missed her. That makes him pining and pathetic. Name one story where Joker went looking for Harley for no other reason than he wanted her back. Then you can say it was just Joker being Joker.

 

[Wildcard]

That's exactly why the Vale one works better. Because there is no set in stone precedence between the two characters. So fans are not thrown off when they see Joker act totally different in a well established character dynamic like they did in SS.

He wasn't acting differently, though. You're making it as if he was saying "I can't live without her, I'll die!" or going on long monologues about why they must be together. Waller wanted to use her for her own purposes, Joker decided to break her out and steal her back for himself. It's as simple as that.

If he was as much of a lovesick puppy as you say he wouldn't have left her for Batman to take in in the first place.

Name one TAS story where Joker did that. The only time Joker actively sought out Harley in TAS is when she teamed with Ivy and they went on a huge successful crime spree. And when he tracked her down it wasn't to get her back, it was to swipe all the loot they'd stolen.

You already named a story for me, and yes, the endgame is different but the set-up is virtually the same. And, if not for the cuts, the tone would've been the same as well.

There is no exaggeration. It is exactly like that. He wanted Harley back because he missed her. That makes him pining and pathetic. Name one story where Joker went looking for Harley for no other reason than he wanted her back. Then you can say it was just Joker being Joker.

I'm still seeing nothing in the performance that points to pining and pathetic. And there are those two instances of Joker both skinning a man alive for hiring Harley as a stripper and then him legitimately crying to her on his knees.

There was nothing "pathetic" about it. Him taking back what he views to be his is seriously pathetic?

All righty then.

 

[shauner111]

That Batman scene was a flashback. The present day scenes show Joker as yes, you guessed it...a lovesick puppy. Just look at him sitting there with the knives surrounding him. That entire scene is a major "HUH!?" he looks like he's super pissed and wounded emotionally when he gets the news.

 

[The Joker]

He wasn't acting differently, though. You're making it as if he was saying "I can't live without her, I'll die!" or going on long monologues about why they must be together. Waller wanted to use her for her own purposes, Joker decided to break her out and steal her back for himself. It's as simple as that.

Yes, he was acting differently. Dedicating all his time and effort to getting her back for no reason other than he missed her is him acting differently. It had nothing to do with Waller using her. Did you ever see him trying to get her back when she was roped into the SS in the comics?

If he was as much of a lovesick puppy as you say he wouldn't have left her for Batman to take in in the first place.

Yeah because Harley being arrested means he can never get her back again. It's not like the ending of SS showed us that

You already named a story for me, and yes, the endgame is different but the set-up is virtually the same. And, if not for the cuts, the tone would've been the same as well.

I didn't name a story for you. I named an instance where Joker tracked her down to steal her stolen money. How is that the same as tracking her down to get her back? Joker tracked down Two Face once to use him for a crime spree in the comics. Does this mean Joker wants to be with Two Face?

I'm still seeing nothing in the performance that points to pining and pathetic

Yeah because sitting on the floor brooding in a dark room asking where is she is totally not pining for her. Joker does that all the time when Harley's not around.

And there are those two instances of Joker both skinning a man alive for hiring Harley as a stripper and then him legitimately crying to her on his knees.

Where the heck did you get the idea he skinned that guy because Harley was a stripper? He skinned him because he was running a strip club and it was Joker brand black humor. Joker killed him and then used the place as a hideout.

As for crying to her, he cried in front of his henchman at the mock funeral they had for Batman in TAS;

Does this mean he cares about his henchmen, too?

There was nothing "pathetic" about it. Him taking back what he views to be his is seriously pathetic?

All righty then.

By that logic if Bane spent a movie trying to get back his childhood teddy bear, Osito, just because he viewed it as his, that would be great and not pathetic at all.

 

[gdw]

Yes it does, because how much history Joker has with Harley is totally irrelevant. It's how you write the characters that counts. We don't excuse Schumacher's awful treatment of the characters just because they have a long comic book history together. Just because Joker has more stories with Harley doesn't mean he should be rewritten into a pining lovesick wuss who moves heaven and earth just so he can be with her.

I didn't like the Joker stalking Vicki angle either, but compared to Letoker it was Oscar worthy because he didn't spend all his time and energy wanting to be with her, and treated her exactly the way Letoker should have treated Harley when he was with her.



Joker can be important to Harley's story without reducing him to a pathetic pining lovesick puppy. If Ayer understood these characters as people constantly told us he did when SS was in production, it would have been Harley who was pining for her puddin' and trying everything she could to find him and be with him. Not the other way around.

Please stop blaming Ayer for the studio's reshaping of the film and character motives/relationships.
What Ayer actually shot of Joker and Harley shows how much he clearly DOES understand the characters.

Joker was originally portrayed to be going after Harley as a possession. One that no one else can have, but him.

It was WB's hack-job that cut out all of his abuse, and put them on par with each other, that showed a clear lack of understanding of the characters.

. . .
There was nothing "pathetic" about it. Him taking back what he views to be his is seriously pathetic?

All righty then.

Wildcard, you are constantly arguing from the point of view of the way the Joker was intended to be shown, and was originally shot, as opposed to what was in the final film.
The Joker (the user here) is speaking exclusively about what was on the final screen.

You can make reference to the original intention, as I have multiple times, but you can not argue as if that intention was what made it to the final edit.

We are debating the portrayal that made it to the screen. What is, NOT what was supposed to be.

 

[shauner111]

Ayer stands by the cut as HIS cut, and he's happy with it. So studio meddling or not, Ayer is responsible for the film that we saw.

 

[The Joker]

Please stop blaming Ayer for the studio's reshaping of the film and character motives/relationships.
What Ayer actually shot of Joker and Harley shows how much he clearly DOES understand the characters.

Joker was originally portrayed to be going after Harley as a possession. One that no one else can have, but him.

It was WB's hack-job that cut out all of his abuse, and put them on par with each other, that showed a clear lack of understanding of the characters.

I know, that's still not showing an understanding of the character either. Joker doesn't care enough to treat her in a possessive manner that he would track her down and retake ownership of her. The only times in the comics, or in TAS, when Joker has tracked down Harley is because she either has something he wants, or he has a specific use for her in some scheme he's doing.

As Batman pointed out in Harley's infamous origin story, Mad Love, Harley was pegged as nothing but hired help by Joker;

Neither cut was a proper portrayal of their relationship. It was screwed either way. Joker doesn't go tracking down the hired help because he's possessive of them. He only uses them when they are useful.

Wildcard, you are constantly arguing from the point of view of the way the Joker was intended to be shown, and was originally shot, as opposed to what was in the final film.
The Joker (the user here) is speaking exclusively about what was on the final screen.

You can make reference to the original intention, as I have multiple times, but you can not argue as if that intention was what made it to the final edit.

We are debating the portrayal that made it to the screen. What is, NOT what was supposed to be.

Thank you

 

[OutOfBoose]

^Lol at Batman's laugh and Harley's reaction. Dini and Timm forever. Words cannot describe how I LOVE this graphic novel. My favorite of all time. I bought hardcover Deluxe Edition (thanks a lot, DC, wonderful print ), and I rarely buy physical versions of comics. Only when it's something truly special. I have only 7 books overall. The rest is digital stuff, thank god for sites like comixology.

Back on topic. I agree with The Joker. There was absolutely no reason for him to break Harley out, to save her from the crashing helicopter (he cares for her?) and again break Harley out.

 

[shauner111]

That Batman/Harley bit from Mad Love should be in the next Batman movie.

 

[gdw]

Ayer stands by the cut as HIS cut, and he's happy with it. So studio meddling or not, Ayer is responsible for the film that we saw.

Standing by the film simply means he feels there's enough of his contribution there for him to still claim. Not to mention the fact that the studio probably bullied him into it.

Keep in mind Snyder also claimed that he was pushing for the BvS cuts as hard as anyone. Only to later claim that, no no, the ULTIMATE EDITION is the "true" version of the film.

I'm sure Snyder would never disown the theatrical cut of BvS. He'd still claim that as "his" film. That doesn't mean he's the one to blame for the atrocity that was the theatrical cut. Keep in mind, I am, in no way, excusing Snyder's role in all of the films flaws, same with Ayer.

Simply that the majority, or rather the majority of the flaws everyone has focused on with the film(s) (meaning 90% of the matters being brought up here) has been objectively traced directly to the studio's interventions.

Every film has them, to one degree or another, and MOST director's will still claim their films, despite all the studios grimy finger prints all over it. That does not suddenly make those the director's finger prints.

I know, that's still not showing an understanding of the character either. Joker doesn't care enough to treat her in a possessive manner that he would track her down and retake ownership of her. The only times in the comics, or in TAS, when Joker has tracked down Harley is because she either has something he wants, or he has a specific use for her in some scheme he's doing.

As Batman pointed out in Harley's infamous origin story, Mad Love, Harley was pegged as nothing but hired help by Joker;

Neither cut was a proper portrayal of their relationship. It was screwed either way. Joker doesn't go tracking down the hired help because he's possessive of them. He only uses them when they are useful.



Thank you

There have been MANY times Joker has gone out of his way to "reclaim" Harley, WHEN it suits him.
Harley is his possession, and his creation. His design. This is what sets her apart from the rest of his "hired help." Less so in her original TAS origins, and similarly during her time as Harleen, but that is still very much what her character, in his eyes, has become.
She is meant to serve HIS purposes, HIS designs, and his alone. At least as long as it holds his interest.

Someone else "taking" Harley, or "using" her for their intentions , would be similar to someone else taking credit for a serial killer's victim.

 

[OutOfBoose]

She is meant to serve HIS purposes, HIS designs, and his alone. At least as long as it holds his interest.

Someone else "taking" Harley, or "using" her for their intentions , would be similar to someone else taking credit for a serial killer's victim.

Nothing of this is true. She wasn't meant for anything. She's just yet another toy of his, he has her heart and she proves useful from time to time. But mostly he doesn't give a damn about her, he isn't even interested in her whereabouts.

 

[The Joker]

There have been MANY times Joker has gone out of his way to "reclaim" Harley, WHEN it suits him.

Name them.

What OutOfBoose said is spot on.

 

[Boom]

I mean look at the animated series alone:

- When The Joker inherits money from a deceased mob boss, he chooses to let Harley rot in Arkham and holds auditions for her replacement.
- When Harley teams up with Ivy, The Joker swoops in and tries to steal their loot.
- When Harley tries to kill Batman in order to impress The Joker (hanging Batman upside down in a tank full of piranhas), The Joker throws her out of a building.

He uses her for his own gains, but has shown time and time again that he's willing to throw her to the wayside.

 

[The Joker]

I mean look at the animated series alone:

- When The Joker inherits money from a deceased mob boss, he chooses to let Harley rot in Arkham and holds auditions for her replacement.
- When Harley teams up with Ivy, The Joker swoops in and tries to steal their loot.
- When Harley tries to kill Batman in order to impress The Joker (hanging Batman upside down in a tank full of piranhas), The Joker throws her out of a building.

He uses her for his own gains, but has shown time and time again that he's willing to throw her to the wayside.

That was hilarious when he's looking at the audition line up for new henchgirls.

[YT]m3pJ9mE5ogo[/YT]

And well said, Boom

 

[The Joker]

To add to Boom's list, another TAS example was in the episode, Harlequinade, when he stole an atomic bomb and was planning to nuke all of Gotham, but never bothered to go and save Harley from Arkham first before he blew up the whole city. So funny when Robin called him out on that in front of her;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkcvRI-J8hw&t=0m15s

 

[The Guard]

Where is The Joker depicted as a lovesick puppy again?

 

[shauner111]

In Suicide Squad

 

[2kt09]

Where is The Joker depicted as a lovesick puppy again?

Dunno if this quite counts
[YT]1LXGB1rDfJc[/YT]
I seem to also recall he went after her because he was a fan.