The Joker Thread - Part 1

[gdw]

My money's still on this guy .

Ugh, he felt far too derivative of Heath in that show, despite the fact that he was largely aping Oldman.

 

[Jekecy]

Pitt's a fantastic talent but he does not have a good reputation personally or professionally in recent years. I'm surprised he even got a job for GHOST IN THE SHELL.

Doubtful they'll entrust such an important role to a wildcard like him, if there is a recast. Though ironically that may be an appeal.

 

[SatsuiNoJXA]

Keep Joker hope again

This would look even better without the "Damaged" tattoo on his head.

I just hope that if we do see Leto's Joker again that they revamp his personality and in some way get rid of the Damaged Tattoo. But I definitely don't see that last part happening unless Joker just suddenly decides to make frequent visits to a laser tattoo removal specialist.

 

[thebatfan5194]

He looks amazing in that picture... such a waste.

 

[Wildcard]

One of the many scenes that actually should've made it into the movie, especially given the tension in it with Harley.

 

[Jekecy]

Most people will say Ant-Man is a better movie than BvS or MOS. But is it really? Well, that's up to you. But would Ant-Man really have a better rating than those movies if the character was as iconic as Batman, if there were already OUTSTANDING Ant-Man movies and if this last movie portrayed the character in a less common and more controversial way? Well, nobody can possibly convince me that that movie would have the same rating as it has today.

You're not wrong, but it's not much of a point either. Why shouldn't current iterations be prepared to be compared with their predecessors? They've reached this iconic status because of standing on shoulders of those giants.

If the bar is raised, it should be met or raised even higher. Both Ayer and Leto have acknowledged multiple times the legacy they're following, so it's not like they've oblivious of their tasks. They simply went under par in many people's eyes.

I honestly wouldn't shed a tear if they start all over with this character. They had their big shot, which itself is a grand once in a lifetime opportunity. And unlike Burton/Nicholson and Nolan/Ledger, they had a chance to build a foundation which they could cement the character for years to come in sequels to fan excitement. They fell short.

I'm sure there are other fresh duos who could pull it off better.

 

[Jekecy]

Not saying they shouldn't try to raise the bar. Just saying that there's isn't much of a point comparing DC to Marvel when there are completely different stakes associated with each.

I don't know if the comparisons are really anything deeper than just "here's an example of (a competitor) doing adaptations right".

Everyone can likely acknowledge DC has a deeper history in film and pop culture, so inherently have a tougher job to accomplish.

 

[Slade W]

When i see people talking about Jared Leto's Joker, i don't see them simply commenting on the quality of the performance. I see them comparing him to Heath Ledger and complaining about him not being a faithful adaptation of the character. It's not just about quality, it's about other things too.

This is definitely not true. Plenty of people have called him cringe-inducing and have said he was overacting, without mentioning other portrayals. Plenty of people have said Ledgers Joker was not faithful to the source material too, but it didn't stop him from receiving plenty of praise (and he had to compete with previous portrayals that were popular too, like Romero, Nicholson and Hamill). Letoker wasn't just a bad Joker or bad in comparison to previous portrayals of the character, he was just a bad character in general, IMO (I also felt that Leto's performance was terrible by any standards).

This right here is one of the main reasons why DC is so criticized nowadays. People love to say "hey, look at Marvel and how great they're doing, compared with DC". Right. But Marvel doesn't have a Batman. It doesn't have a Superman. It doesn't have a Joker. It doesn't have these iconic characters that, not only have giant fanbases, but also have been really well portrayed several times. It's easy to creat big expectations and be very demanding with these movies. You don't go watch a Batman movie with the same "clean" state of mind you would watch Ant-Man.

TDKT had to compete with previous versions of the character that were very popular, like Adam West, Keaton and Conroy, but it was still successful. There is the James Bond franchise too. It can be done, but Snyder and co. have not been up to the task.

Marvel has its own challenges too, like getting people to care about a lot of their characters which are B or C-listers, which is not something DC have to worry about with the characters you mentioned. People will turn up to see them, even if the movie receives lots of criticism.

It could be said that a big reason the movies made money, despite being panned by critics and leaving a lot of fans unhappy (more than most other recent CBMS) is because of them featuring these big characters like Batman.

Other than MOS, which I thought was ok, BVS and SS were bad movies by any standards and not just in comparison to previous movies featuring the characters IMO.

 

[The Joker]

This is definitely not true. Plenty of people have called him cringe-inducing and have said he was overacting, without mentioning other portrayals. Plenty of people have said Ledgers Joker was not faithful to the source material too, but it didn't stop him from receiving plenty of praise (and he had to compete with previous portrayals that were popular too, like Romero, Nicholson and Hamill). Letoker wasn't just a bad Joker or bad in comparison to previous portrayals of the character, he was just a bad character in general, IMO (I also felt that Leto's performance was terrible by any standards).



TDKT had to compete with previous versions of the character that were very popular, like Adam West, Keaton and Conroy, but it was still successful. There is the James Bond franchise too. It can be done, but Snyder and co. have not been up to the task.

Marvel has its own challenges too, like getting people to care about a lot of their characters which are B or C-listers, which is not something DC have to worry about with the characters you mentioned. People will turn up to see them, even if the movie receives lots of criticism.

It could be said that a big reason the movies made money, despite being panned by critics and leaving a lot of fans unhappy (more than most other recent CBMS) is because of them featuring these big characters like Batman.

Other than MOS, which I thought was ok, BVS and SS were bad movies by any standards and not just in comparison to previous movies featuring the characters IMO.

Well said.

No. They're not bad by any standards.

People need to stop talking in absolutes.

Nice contradiction.

 

[Greens]

Audiences can like bad movies. Hell, I like some bad movies.

 

[Wildcard]

Audiences can like bad movies. Hell, I like some bad movies.

I honestly think everyone has some bad movie(s) they like in some capacity or another.

 

[The Joker]

It's not a contradiction. You just don't have the ability to understand what i said.

Way too deep for me. Just like the DCEU.

 

[The Joker]

For someone who's only been here 10 days, you have formed a remarkably large opinion of me. I thought it was suss when you jumped to misslane's defense yesterday about how she is always ridiculed and how other long term posters who criticize her posts contribute nothing. We best get the moderators onto you because I think we have a PBU in our midst.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

None of the original movies even had a great critical reception.

Both the Burton movies were critically well received. Moreover, the individual components, like Keaton, Nicholson, Pfeiffer, not to mention the production design were incredibly well received. Not to mention the Animated Series is considered the gold standard for Batman in any medium. The Nolan movies had a lot to deal with.

 

[Slade W]

You're missing the point. Nobody's saying that there aren't people who called him whatever. Nobody's saying Heath Ledger wasn't criticized. What i'm saying is that when you're dealing with DC properties you need more than something simply good and you're gonna have to satisfy the audience on levels that go beyond the simple the simple quality of the performance. Ledger's performance was obviously superior and he had better material to work with. It still doesn't change the fact that Joker's romantic relationship with Harley, his looks, tattoos and grills were a very common, loud and recorrent complain, which obviously had an impact on the way the character was received. Less iconic characters don't have to deal so much with all these factors. So it's easier for them to not to piss people off.

Can you prove all these claims?

Got it?.

Yes t:.

Again, you're missing the point. Nobody's questioning what TDKT had to do. Those movies were obviously great. But let's not pretend that to please people after B89, BR, BF and B&R is just as difficult as to please people after they've seen TDKT. None of the original movies even had a great critical reception. The best had a decent critical reception, but nothing close to TDKT. Oh, and if TDKT had one strong precedent, BvS had two. The stakes were much higher..

If we are talking critical reception, then it isn't like BVS even came close. Its score is around the same as plenty of movies that are considered the worst in the genre. You perhaps would have had a point if it wasn't so far off in that regard. The 60s Batman show, Burtons movies and B:TAS were very well received and very popular btw, but Nolan didn't need excuses.

Plenty of movies with even less known characters manage to receive decent, good and even great ratings. Generally only CB movies, adaptations from very well known novels and movies from big franchises deal with larger than life characters. It's a lot harder to make a fair judgement of a movie when you go with your head full of expectations and preconceptions.

Right, but again, DCEU movies have scores that are the same as CBMS that are considered the worst in the genre. You would have more of a point if they came much closer.

Yes. So what? They make money because they're Batman and Superman. Marvel movies make money because they're super hero movies and people know that, even if they don't know the characters. They even know the brand by now. It's not that difficult to attract people who like action to watch an Ant-Man movie. It's not like there is 100 SH movies a month. You have a date, you wanna go to the movies, you like action, Ant-Man is on, the reviews aren't bad, you go watch it. It really doesn't have that much to do with how good the movie is. Most of these movies will make some money, unless they're just horrible.

People go see them because Marvel made them into stars and interesting and likeable characters. It is through their great work that the Marvel brand is so big. What the have done is far more impressive than what DC are doing now. The were much more reliant on quality to get people to turn up, as they did not have the luxury of big names like Batman and Superman, until now that is, as the have Spider-Man back. Marvel are as responsible as anyone for Superhero movies being so popular these days.

But none of this changes the clear fact that even fans will complain about the movie if it doesn't meet their expectations. And with Batman and Superman the expectations are high. So it's easy to be disappointed.

I would have more sympathy if they had come close, but like I said, their score are similar to those that are considered the worst in the genre.

No. They're not bad by any standards. They aren't bad by my standards.

To each their own, of course, but they sure have received a lot of ridicule and criticism for movies that are not "bad". I mean, you cannot factually prove a movie is good or bad, but I cannot think of many movies that are considered good that have received as much criticism and ridicule.

And i'm not even the minority.

I never said you were .

People need to stop talking in absolutes. Don't be afraid to accept the painful reality that your opinion is just your opinion.

I mean, I don't know how to make it much more clear that I do t::

Other than MOS, which I thought was ok, BVS and SS were bad movies by any standards and not just in comparison to previous movies featuring the characters IMO.

I disagree with you.

That is fair enough.

According to most data available, over 60% of the audience disagrees with you too.

A similar percentage of the audience disagree with me when it comes to Amazing-Spider-Man 2 and Wolverine Origins as well, it seems.

 

[The Joker]

Thank you to who ever banned badboy. I knew it was a former troll.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Lol...

What compels a person to create more accounts than I have ice cubes in my fridge just to defend....a movie?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

what an enormous pain in the ass that guy was.

Typical "You don't enjoy something that I do, and here's why you are wrong" kind of person. Sad!

 

[Wildcard]

Lol...

What compels a person to create more accounts than I have ice cubes in my fridge just to defend....a movie?

Too much time on their hands, I'd imagine. I couldn't imagine juggling a bunch of accounts. No point to it at all.

 

[Robin91939]

I'm a big fan on Leto's Joker ... but if they were to recast, an actor I could get behind is Dan Stevens.

-R

 

[StarLord]

Pitt's a fantastic talent but he does not have a good reputation personally or professionally in recent years. I'm surprised he even got a job for GHOST IN THE SHELL.

Sam Riley pulled out of GITS at the last minute so Pitt was hired.

 

[shauner111]

I'm a big fan on Leto's Joker ... but if they were to recast, an actor I could get behind is Dan Stevens.

-R

Dan Stevens? Hahah what? He's always incredibly stiff to me. The opposite of the Joker.

 

[Robin91939]

Dan Stevens? Hahah what? He's always incredibly stiff to me. The opposite of the Joker.

His work on Legion has been extremely strong.

His performance in Chapter 5 had me sold. As he's being more and more influenced by The Yellow-Eyed Devil, his performance has been incredibly creepy.

He has an intensity that bubbles to the surface. Where he can seem calm but there's always a glint of insanity in his eyes. An unpredictability. Like he could smile or lash out at you for a jump-scare at any second.

He's a very good actor.


-R

 

[thebatfan5194]

I'm still not really convinced they would recast Leto as I'm sure they made a lot of money merchandise wise off of his version of the character... If they were to recast though they would need to get someone like Jake Gyllenhaal, or another Oscar-calibre actor. I am worried however that with the Oscar for hair and makeup that the tattoos and gangbanger aesthetic is now somehow validated and they won't change it...

 

[metaphysician]

You're not wrong, but it's not much of a point either. Why shouldn't current iterations be prepared to be compared with their predecessors? They've reached this iconic status because of standing on shoulders of those giants.

If the bar is raised, it should be met or raised even higher. Both Ayer and Leto have acknowledged multiple times the legacy they're following, so it's not like they've oblivious of their tasks. They simply went under par in many people's eyes.

I honestly wouldn't shed a tear if they start all over with this character. They had their big shot, which itself is a grand once in a lifetime opportunity. And unlike Burton/Nicholson and Nolan/Ledger, they had a chance to build a foundation which they could cement the character for years to come in sequels to fan excitement. They fell short.

I'm sure there are other fresh duos who could pull it off better.

To be fair, you can't *always* raise the bar. Sometimes you have to settle for doing something different and interesting.

The problem here is, Letoker is different but *not* interesting. It doesn't raise the bar because it can't really see it, and contributes little to the mythos of the character other than a cautionary tale. One should be careful not to allow "different isn't automatically worse" to be used as an excuse, because sometimes ( quite often even ) different *is* worse.