The Joker Thread - Part 1

[Boom]

Custom figure:

 

[Marvel united]

The scene basically starts with Barry's Joker making homo-erotic suggestions at Batman that sound like they came straight out of Dark Knight Returns.

I feel like a weird thing I've noticed recently is that whenever a Joker actor just...talks without being overly flamboyant about it ala Hamill, people attribute that to ripping off Ledger. Beyond a few select ticks here and there, that's all Barry's Joker really does which I've seen be attributed to Ledger. Which I think is kinda silly as that as a concept can more or less be found as early as Dark Knight Returns. If Barry went the exact opposite direction, it wouldn't be seen as unique. People would think he was just ripping off Hamill. It's lose lose.

That and the psychoanalyzing (of Batman) that the Joker does in the scene all feel mimetic, like Reeves is almost "imitating" the character, imitating certain "beats" he has to hit. None of it feels genuine.

I also don't think it makes much sense for a "proto" version of this character to have already found his core philosophy. It's another reason why the scene feels almost parodical, because there's no weight or impact to the things the Joker is saying-- it's the character's thesis awkwardly inserted into the scene.

Overall I think trying to expect something radically new when we've had 4 vastly different Jokers (with only 3 actually being good) in the last 50 years is setting yourself up for disappointment a little bit.

This is a character that's 80 years old. The fact that we even got those 4 and they're considered vastly different to each other is honestly a bit of a miracle considering the character honestly hasn't radically changed other than getting edgier since the 80s. But I think we've reached that point where it's not really possible to do it again. I'd say that's pretty clear given the only real suggestion anyone has had for "something different" is essentially ripping off BTAS Joker. Which isn't necessarily a bad idea, I'd be all for it. But it does show that it's becoming much harder to make the character different and that future interpretations are always going to be a little too reminiscent of previous versions. And given Reeves' approach of trying to develop these prototype versions of the character into who they are in the comics, they obviously need to resemble the source material a lot more than previous iterations who could be much more radically different so that evolution feels natural.

Obviously the heart wants what the heart wants, so there's nothing wrong with wanting something radically different. But I am starting to wonder how likely that really is.

I don't think it's THAT hard. I just outlined two different directions that Reeves or any filmmaker could go, to seperate their "take" on the Joker from the myriad of others. Sure, it might be a little bit difficult navigating those areas of familiarity, but it's hardly impossible.

All it takes is ingenuity and imagination. I think, to keep going back to the same framework knowing that it's been mined to death by other filmakers, to the point where you're almost "imitating" it, is the bane of laziness. You're simply relying on what's "safe" , instead of stepping out of the creative comfort zone, and finding a new way to tell the story.

Nolan & Ledger didn't completely revolutionize the genre by staying in the aesthetical comfort zone established by Burton.

I appreciate the feedback! Even if we end up disagreeing on points, I really do want to have a proper discussion on this stuff.

All is good. I also enjoy having a honest discussion about these things. A conversation w/out the intellectual dishonesty you tend to see from fans in circles, is refreshing.

As for your main point, I still find it funny that some people such as yourself and others feel like Keoghan is "ripping off" Ledger's Joker or that he's merely doing a poor imitation of Heath's performance. It really doesn't feel like that to me at all! There's some small details like the lip smack, but overall I don't think it's super prominent. Obviously though, our mileages vary!

It's really the presentation of the Joker as this grungy, erratic character with an outwardly nihilistic philosophy combined with Keoghan's obvious attempts to channel Ledger, however slight you feel, that makes the this Joker feel like a soulless imitation of what Nolan was trying to do.

Maybe it's because I'm kind of on the opposite side of the spectrum as a fan, where as much as I adore Mark Hamill as Joker and love the version in BTAS, I worry a lot about how unconvincing the character might come across to me and other audiences if it were in a serious live action film. Think of how people still make fun of Bale's BatVoice and how unintentionally silly it got over the course of the trilogy. Heath struck an incredible balance of "animating" his Joker voice, while not allowing it to get distracting.

Well, it doesn't have to be TAS specifically, but something more in that wheelhouse. I'd argue that the Joker being portrayed as this outwardly flamboyant, colorful character could serve a thematic and aesthetic purpose, by creating this DISTURBING contrast between the Joker and the (muted) world he inhabits. It could serve as an almost paradoxical inversion of the Batman imagery-- the Joker is bright, colorful and loud, but represents evil personified, while Batman is dark, muted and subdued but represents the goodness in every man.

I think this would've been so much more interesting than just having the Joker once again blend into the darkness of the world.

And I don't think it would an imitation of Mark Hamill, because TAS is simply the most accurate adaptation we've ever had of what the Joker was in the comics for almost 50 years.

To me, it just sounds like Barry using a slight variation on his American accented voice in Killing of a Sacred Deer. Hell, his laugh as Joker especially stands out to me as being different from the rest of the actors who've come before him.

I really hate the laugh it's so forced. You can tell the actor is straining his larynx doing that laugh. Everything about the performance is tryhard, like Keoghan is TRYING to be scary and "off", and it's just not working for me. It doesn't feel natural.

That said, as for characterization and the source of inspiration behind each Joker, I don't entirely disagree with you that it's well-tread territory at this point. It really feels like Reeves is going back to the same swimming pool as basically every other director before him has with Joker; The Killing Joke.

Burton took from it, just a year after its publishing. Nolan took from it in TDK. Todd Phillips too for Joker. It's the perennial Batman-Joker story in the mythology at this point, and like Nolan before him, I guess Reeves is likely inspired by the philosophical conflict depicted in the book over the conflict of Nihilism and Joker's staunch beliefs. It makes sense in hindsight, given how much Reeves talked about how he wanted his Batman to be a very humanist take on the character.

After all, if you're going for a humanist Batman, it makes total sense for the ultimate opposition or challenge to Bruce's beliefs to be a nihilistic Joker. And what better book to turn to for inspiration than The Killing Joke in that regard?

Well, that's the thing. I think the philosophy that Miller outwardly established (it was always there, but never outwardly stated) is absolutely worth exploring in Reeves' world. But there's a way to completely REINVENT how that philosophy displays in the character, and in the story.

Nicholson and Ledger had similar nihilistic philosophies, but how they manifested and affected their characters' outlooks, was completely different. You can hit those classical beats without the same set of drums as a previous musician.

I was really looking forward to seeing how Reeves would interpret "One Bad Day", but I'm disappointed to see that arrive in the mold of something so familiar and played out.

It's not the themes of the character that are the problem, it's the execution.

Contrast that with Burton and Snyder as filmmakers who were both clearly enamored with a specific comic, but either had a rather different 'reading' of the text than the average fan or just didn't feel obligated to wholly commit to being accurate to the finer nuances of the source material.

That we can agree on. I'd also add Ayer to the mix. His Joker very much was a surface level reading or "One Bad Day". Leto at one point literally says this, what his philosophy is, with nothing to show for it, and no power behind it. It's similar to Keoghan In many ways

More and more I'm just feeling myself disappointed in Reeves' choice of Keoghan. The level of unconventionality that Ledger (and Pattinson) brought to their roles, that made their performative choices so exciting to see, is just not here. Barry Keoghan is known for playing psychos and deviants, so why go with someone so predictable in their acting choices, esp to match Pattinson? The two have have NO chemistry in that scene. It just feels like stock casting.

I would've preferred someone more outside-the-box, like Adam Driver, Miles Teller, Bill Hader, Thomas Brodie-Sangster or even Lakeith Stanfield. Actors who would bring an exciting level of unpredictability to the role, matching Pattinson's energy.

 

[Drop Head]

Custom figure:

 

[Boom]

We don't have to look at those manips anymore.

 

[AndyTrevino]

I'm sorry Marvel United but Lakeith would've been uninspired simply because of his endless campaigning for the role, even if he would've been awesome, and as much as I love him, Bill Harder probably wouldn't have fit the rest of the cast super well.
Miles Teller is only good to me when playing a *****ebag and I just find his whole look for the role very "meh".

 

[AndyTrevino]

Custom figure:

View attachment 54680

MAAAJOR Bermejo vibes

 

[C Prometheus]

Morrison should be the blueprint.

That'd be ideal IMO, but I'm not entirely sure how plausible that is for this Joker, going off of what we've seen so far and what Reeves has said about his spin on the character. Or at least, I'm not sure that we'll be seeing Reeves incorporate Morrison's "super-sanity" concept here.

All is good. I also enjoy having a honest discussion about these things. A conversation w/out the intellectual dishonesty you tend to see from fans in circles, is refreshing.

Tell me about it! The Internet and the World at large is already opaque enough as it is these days anyway!

It's really the presentation of the Joker as this grungy, erratic character with an outwardly nihilistic philosophy combined with Keoghan's obvious attempts to channel Ledger, however slight you feel, that makes the this Joker feel like a soulless imitation of what Nolan was trying to do.

I can definitely see how one could come to that conclusion, even if I don't agree with it. On the dialogue and Word-of-God commentary side of things, it's obvious that The Killing Joke is the primary blueprint for how both Nolan and Reeves write their Jokers. Likewise, on the visual side of things, they're both clearly quite indebted to Lee Bermejo's design of the character. That's especially clear after seeing that new bust of Keoghan's Joker.

I guess it doesn't really phase me due to the various differences in how they both borrow from those same pools. Nolan opted to merge the Glasgow Smile with TKJ's concept of how Joker is an unreliable narrator and that any story we hear about how he "got those scars" is likely farcical. Meanwhile Reeves opted for something completely different with the Joker being quite literally born in that inciting incident of madness and how that ultimately paved the way for his perspective and apparent M.O. as a brilliant manipulator whose nihilism seems to allow him to see the darker aspects of a person buried below the surface.

To me, it's like comparing a bunch of rock or metal bands from the same era. They typically share a lot of the same influences and backgrounds, sometimes even sharing key band members, so there's a lot of overlapping and similarities present in the music. But there's just key nuances and quirks that give the best of those bands their unique voices.

Well, it doesn't have to be TAS specifically, but something more in that wheelhouse. I'd argue that the Joker being portrayed as this outwardly flamboyant, colorful character could serve a thematic and aesthetic purpose, by creating this DISTURBING contrast between the Joker and the (muted) world he inhabits. It could serve as an almost paradoxical inversion of the Batman imagery-- the Joker is bright, colorful and loud, but represents evil personified, while Batman is dark, muted and subdued but represents the goodness in every man.

I think this would've been so much more interesting than just having the Joker once again blend into the darkness of the world.

And I don't think it would an imitation of Mark Hamill, because TAS is simply the most accurate adaptation we've ever had of what the Joker was in the comics for almost 50 years.

See, I've wondered about that a lot over the past few years myself, because I can see how that contrast could work. But then I look back at the history of depictions on Joker across numerous mediums and it really stands out to me how even in the animated projects, video games or comics, when the writers need to have a more demented or violent Joker, the visuals typically mirror that to some extent.

Again, not to say that that idea can't work! I'm just not entirely sure either which way at this point myself.

I really hate the laugh it's so forced. You can tell the actor is straining his larynx doing that laugh. Everything about the performance is tryhard, like Keoghan is TRYING to be scary and "off", and it's just not working for me. It doesn't feel natural.

Really? I'm surprised you think it's forced. It's definitely a different take from the norm, but what impressed me was how genuine and natural it sounds. It's not just an "evil" or demonic sounding laugh like most Jokers opt to go for, there's an inherently gleefulness in Keoghan's laugh that works really well for me.

Ah well, different strokes as they say!

Well, that's the thing. I think the philosophy that Miller outwardly established (it was always there, but never outwardly stated) is absolutely worth exploring in Reeves' world. But there's a way to completely REINVENT how that philosophy displays in the character, and in the story.

Nicholson and Ledger had similar nihilistic philosophies, but how they manifested and affected their characters' outlooks, was completely different. You can hit those classical beats without the same set of drums as a previous musician.

I was really looking forward to seeing how Reeves would interpret "One Bad Day", but I'm disappointed to see that arrive in the mold of something so familiar and played out.

It's not the themes of the character that are the problem, it's the execution.

It's a minor quibble, but it was Alan Moore that wrote The Killing Joke, not Frank Miller!

As for how Reeves is interpreting the "One Bad Day" concept, I think it's worth keeping a proverbial "So Far..." asterisk in mind for him and Keoghan. After all, this Joker isn't the standard "One and Done" we've seen in other live action films and we're basing all of our opinions on this new take off of seven or so minutes of footage "so far."

Like I said in that initial breakdown of my thoughts on FilmSpeak's essay- as someone who really loved the scene and enjoyed Keoghan's performance in it, it is wayyyyyyy too early for me to even consider ranking Keoghan's Joker overall. I really like it, but this is just a start so far. We're bound to see a lot more of this character in other films and projects down the line.

That we can agree on. I'd also add Ayer to the mix. His Joker very much was a surface level reading or "One Bad Day". Leto at one point literally says this, what his philosophy is, with nothing to show for it, and no power behind it. It's similar to Keoghan In many ways

More and more I'm just feeling myself disappointed in Reeves' choice of Keoghan. The level of unconventionality that Ledger (and Pattinson) brought to their roles, that made their performative choices so exciting to see, is just not here. Barry Keoghan is known for playing psychos and deviants, so why go with someone so predictable in their acting choices, esp to match Pattinson? The two have have NO chemistry in that scene. It just feels like stock casting.

I would've preferred someone more outside-the-box, like Adam Driver, Miles Teller, Bill Hader, Thomas Brodie-Sangster or even Lakeith Stanfield. Actors who would bring an exciting level of unpredictability to the role, matching Pattinson's energy.

I disagree that Rob and Barry are lacking chemistry. Quite the opposite IMO, they play off of each other really well in the scene. Just because Batman isn't getting incredibly angry and yelling at Joker at any point in the scene doesn't mean that they aren't vibing together. In particular, I like how unnaturally gentle Batman behaves towards Joker in the scene, especially given how huge a contrast it is to his behavior to almost everyone else in the whole film. And even when the scene starts getting more intense, the pacing of how Rob and Barry cut over each other in their dialogue works really well.

 

[AndyTrevino]

I really have a SUPER hard time equating Leto to TKJ's Joker. He goes through hell and back, completely snaps, and.....becomes a flashy pimp?

 

[Drop Head]

MAAAJOR Bermejo vibes

YUGE BERMEJO’s for sure. So happy with the design choice.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

I'm sorry Marvel United but Lakeith would've been uninspired simply because of his endless campaigning for the role, even if he would've been awesome, and as much as I love him, Bill Harder probably wouldn't have fit the rest of the cast super well.
Miles Teller is only good to me when playing a *****ebag and I just find his whole look for the role very "meh".

LaKeith would've been cringier than Leto.

I like Miles Teller, but idk for Joker. Maybe Dent

 

[AndyTrevino]

LaKeith would've been cringier than Leto.

I like Miles Teller, but idk for Joker. Maybe Dent

Lakeith is often a far better actor than Leto so I don't know about that myself.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

Lakeith is often a far better actor than Leto so I don't know about that myself.

I just keep thinking of his L in Netflix Death Note lol. That kind of overacting nonsense

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I just keep thinking of his L in Netflix Death Note lol. That kind of overacting nonsense

I actually thought Lakeith’s super cartoony performance in Death Note was the only fun part of that movie. He sure as **** wasn’t L, but he seemed like the only person who had any affection for Death Note involved.

Check out Atlanta. Man is amazing on it.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

I actually thought Lakeith’s super cartoony performance in Death Note was the only fun part of that movie. He sure as **** wasn’t L, but he seemed like the only person who had any affection for Death Note involved.

Check out Atlanta. Man is amazing on it.

I do like Atlanta. I like him in most stuff I've seen him in. There's just some roles that work with him and some that dont

 

[PurpleStar]

That and the psychoanalyzing (of Batman) that the Joker does in the scene all feel mimetic, like Reeves is almost "imitating" the character, imitating certain "beats" he has to hit. None of it feels genuine.

I also don't think it makes much sense for a "proto" version of this character to have already found his core philosophy. It's another reason why the scene feels almost parodical, because there's no weight or impact to the things the Joker is saying-- it's the character's thesis awkwardly inserted into the scene.



I don't think it's THAT hard. I just outlined two different directions that Reeves or any filmmaker could go, to seperate their "take" on the Joker from the myriad of others. Sure, it might be a little bit difficult navigating those areas of familiarity, but it's hardly impossible.

All it takes is ingenuity and imagination. I think, to keep going back to the same framework knowing that it's been mined to death by other filmakers, to the point where you're almost "imitating" it, is the bane of laziness. You're simply relying on what's "safe" , instead of stepping out of the creative comfort zone, and finding a new way to tell the story.

Nolan & Ledger didn't completely revolutionize the genre by staying in the aesthetical comfort zone established by Burton.
All is good. I also enjoy having a honest discussion about these things. A conversation w/out the intellectual dishonesty you tend to see from fans in circles, is refreshing.


It's really the presentation of the Joker as this grungy, erratic character with an outwardly nihilistic philosophy combined with Keoghan's obvious attempts to channel Ledger, however slight you feel, that makes the this Joker feel like a soulless imitation of what Nolan was trying to do.


Well, it doesn't have to be TAS specifically, but something more in that wheelhouse. I'd argue that the Joker being portrayed as this outwardly flamboyant, colorful character could serve a thematic and aesthetic purpose, by creating this DISTURBING contrast between the Joker and the (muted) world he inhabits. It could serve as an almost paradoxical inversion of the Batman imagery-- the Joker is bright, colorful and loud, but represents evil personified, while Batman is dark, muted and subdued but represents the goodness in every man.

I think this would've been so much more interesting than just having the Joker once again blend into the darkness of the world.

And I don't think it would an imitation of Mark Hamill, because TAS is simply the most accurate adaptation we've ever had of what the Joker was in the comics for almost 50 years.

I really hate the laugh it's so forced. You can tell the actor is straining his larynx doing that laugh. Everything about the performance is tryhard, like Keoghan is TRYING to be scary and "off", and it's just not working for me. It doesn't feel natural.


Well, that's the thing. I think the philosophy that Miller outwardly established (it was always there, but never outwardly stated) is absolutely worth exploring in Reeves' world. But there's a way to completely REINVENT how that philosophy displays in the character, and in the story.

Nicholson and Ledger had similar nihilistic philosophies, but how they manifested and affected their characters' outlooks, was completely different. You can hit those classical beats without the same set of drums as a previous musician.

I was really looking forward to seeing how Reeves would interpret "One Bad Day", but I'm disappointed to see that arrive in the mold of something so familiar and played out.

It's not the themes of the character that are the problem, it's the execution.



That we can agree on. I'd also add Ayer to the mix. His Joker very much was a surface level reading or "One Bad Day". Leto at one point literally says this, what his philosophy is, with nothing to show for it, and no power behind it. It's similar to Keoghan In many ways

More and more I'm just feeling myself disappointed in Reeves' choice of Keoghan. The level of unconventionality that Ledger (and Pattinson) brought to their roles, that made their performative choices so exciting to see, is just not here. Barry Keoghan is known for playing psychos and deviants, so why go with someone so predictable in their acting choices, esp to match Pattinson? The two have have NO chemistry in that scene. It just feels like stock casting.

I would've preferred someone more outside-the-box, like Adam Driver, Miles Teller, Bill Hader, Thomas Brodie-Sangster or even Lakeith Stanfield. Actors who would bring an exciting level of unpredictability to the role, matching Pattinson's energy.

I am sympathetic to the points made here tbh. I also feel that a better route would be to lean into the more colourful aspect of Joker would be refreshing. I am not particularly obsessed with Ledger's Joker, but I do think this new one does takes similar beats as that one which imo it must not do otherwise it becomes a redundant iteration. One doesn't have to be particularly hung up on Ledger's Joker to make this observation, but I know that some seem to think so. Personally l, I really hope when we get a fuller performance of this new Joker, we get things fleshed out more especially to differentiate it. There are promising things in the small scenes we've seen, but honestly there are some things which worry me.

Not sure about the alternative actors suggested here as I've not really seen them much. I think Barry is promising from what we've seen so far, it's just that the true test will be seeing him in actual Joker costume rather than Arkham patient attire, and also with more to do.

 

[C Prometheus]

Morrison should be the blueprint.

While I don't think there's any chance to see the full scope of Morrison's "Super-Sanity" concept in action in ReevesVerse with Keoghan's Joker, the more I sit on the idea, I can possibly see the potential for Reeves to incorporate the basic premise of the "Super-Sanity" to Joker's development over the course of the films and spinoff shows. He'll never be a merry prankster or relatively tame cartoon villain, but you could use the Super-Sanity concept as a means of showing Joker morphing and adapting his methods over the course of multiple appearances.

After all, we already know that he's currently still essentially just "John Doe" and will ultimately embrace the Joker moniker at some point in response to Batman. He has the makings and seeds of what we all know from Joker, but the sheer scope and audacity of Joker's crimes and havoc aren't there yet. So maybe in the Arkham show, we could see an episode or story arc that stars Barry and draws heavy inspiration from The Clown at Midnight and puts audiences in John Doe's shoes as he essentially "morphs" for the first time in this timeline into the Joker by the end of the episode?

 

[Matt Parker]

I have to say I’m a little shocked that folks are talking about how gritty this take is, because beyond the aesthetics, I think he’s pretty off the page modern Joker in terms of personality and performance. In fact, I would say this is maybe the closest we’ve gotten to Mark Hamill’s Joker in a live action film. Especially the Arkham games and the later animated stuff, maybe not so much the more lighthearted BTAS appearances earlier on.

In fact, watch the scene from Mask of The Phantasm where the Joker terrorizes Arthur Reeves before gassing him, and I think the energy is almost identical between what Hamill is doing there and what Koeghan does in this Arkham scene.

What I’m saying is, this feels like a very traditional Joker with a new paint job (and I mean that as a positive). Plus, I think there’s almost more chemistry between these two than there ever has been for Batman and the Joker in a live action film. I loved the dynamic between Bale and Ledger, but it wasn’t chemistry so much (but I think Bale’s performance as Batman in that film is a little stuff, especially with the voice.

 

[Gothamsknight]

 

[Boom]

I'm away.

 

[BMW 224]

Speaking of "Damaged" what's your thoughts on this Joker gaining or already having a Harley Quinn ?

I personally want to see the ****ed up dynamic between Joker and Haley finally realized how it should be on the big screen.

And I think Barry Keoangh version would be perfect for it.

 

[AndyTrevino]

I don't have any real desire for another Harley right now.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

I don't have any real desire for another Harley right now.

Everyone talks about "Joker fatigue" but I'm feeling way more "Harley fatigue" lol

 

[Matt Parker]

I’m super burned out on Harley Quinn and am completely fine if she doesn’t pop up for a while in this universe.

Also, non-sequester, but I re read Man Who Laughs, the one shot that Ed Brubaker and Doug Mahnke put out that retells Batman’s first battle with the Joker in modern continuity (updating the original Joker appearance to fit into the gritty Year One world), and that comic works as what Batman’s offscreen encounter with the Joker might have been in this universe.

For one, the Joker seems to want to poison the city with laughing gas because he wants everyone to be cursed with his gruesome visage, and I think that motivation fits in really well with the backstory Reeves described for this Joker.

Plus, in that story, Batman predicts what the Joker’s plan is and is able to blow up the reservoir before the Joker can poison the city’s water supply, which would sort of justify the Joker’s comment in the deleted scene about Batman usually being “so ahead of the curve”.

It even ends with Gordon lighting the bat signal for the first time, which lines up with how this movie starts.

I’m not saying that it’s necessarily confirmed canon that Man Who Laughs is what Reeves is using as his backstory for the Joker, but I think it works in a head canon kinda way.

 

[KGBANE]

MAAAJOR Bermejo vibes

I saw that too and love it!

 

[AndyTrevino]

I saw that too and love it!

Long time no see! Haven't seen you around here since before that very first teaser trailer