The Joker Thread - Part 1

[BMW 224]

This is probably just Reeves' way of taking the character back to his roots with the Man Who Laughs influence.

This too.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

You didn't answer my question. Why does the Joker need some type of backstory when it comes to his smile? I'm talking about how he either has scars, or some condition. It seems like a fairly recent idea.

how someone has their "scars" rather they be physical and psychological scars is the core foundation of what makes them who they are....

that's like saying, do we really need to know the backstory that Bruce lost his parents (I know right its' like they bring it up in every version of batman every, can't we get something new)

those are the "scars" that he bares, which turned him into the man (or the Batman if you will) he is today

where Bruce's scars are more metaphorical/ Joker having physical Scars that he can't hide from the world (the same way Bruce does) is a big part of the character

recent article suggests that what Reeves and co where going for with this take is that his scars are from a condition {that he had his whole live) an it's the suffering of what he went throught from the judge and prosecution that drove him to madness (not that he smiles because of his madness)

 

[Art Vandelay]

I must not be expressing myself all that well....

Prior to Nicholson, most Joker's didn't haven't scars, or some birth defect to explain why they were always smiling, they just smiled and it was accepted by the audience that this is just who the character was. Now, there's often some actual reason they're always smiling. What I'm saying is, why has there been a recent push to do this? I don't recall The Animated Series having some tragic backstory to why Joker was always smiling.

 

[AndyTrevino]

I must not be expressing myself all that well....

Prior to Nicholson, most Joker's didn't haven't scars, or some birth defect to explain why they were always smiling, they just smiled and it was accepted by the audience that this is just who the character was. Now, there's often some actual reason they're always smiling. What I'm saying is, why has there been a recent push to do this? I don't recall The Animated Series having some tragic backstory to why Joker was always smiling.

Honestly, I have no earthly idea. Nicholson did it, Ledger did it (in a way), and now I guess it's just a sort of "thing" they do with him now.
It's usually used as a way for directors to put their own visual stamp on the character.

 

[SuperestHero]

You both make a very good point which has irritated me with every live action portrayal of this character since 89.

Leto’s Joker was the only one who didn’t have some sort of “permanent smile” in shape or form. And well, they royally buggered that interpretation up visually and performance wise.

The Joker is NOT always smiling. Even in his first appearance which was “inspired” by The Man Who Laughs.

He shouldn’t always be smiling.

I also really dislike that recent comic interpretations and other media even extend his smile with lipstick or whatever.

I don’t inherently dislike this look too much. It took a bit, it’s certainly disturbing. But why is the smile such an important thing? It’s not necessary. And it’s been DONE.

I also agree with the other posters that have said this Joker is Ledger Like. Both Jared and Barry are clearly using Ledger’s voice as inspiration for their respective voices.

BTAS Joker is still hands down the most faithful adaptation of the character from the comics that proceeded it.

I’m still interested to see where they go with this Joker, but I am disappointed they took the “perma grin” route (while unique)

I don’t know how they’ll market this character moving forward, it’s a very distressing visual.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

I must not be expressing myself all that well....

Prior to Nicholson, most Joker's didn't haven't scars, or some birth defect to explain why they were always smiling, they just smiled and it was accepted by the audience that this is just who the character was. Now, there's often some actual reason they're always smiling. What I'm saying is, why has there been a recent push to do this? I don't recall The Animated Series having some tragic backstory to why Joker was always smiling.

I wouldn't even say Nicholsons Joker was scared (in the same way as Ledger was, or how this newest version is) he had a perma-smile which was very much a characteristic in the comics, and tho the early comic version may not have had the character scared or disfigured to give him that smile, his smile was rather unrealistic/unnatural looking, so in terms of translating comic art to live-action some liberty's were taken... (tho, even the comics have used this look since, so, it's not compliantly just made up for the movies)

don't get me wrong I full heartily agree scars are unnecessary (didn't think they were necessary on Ledger, don't think it's necessary here) my point was simply that you can't introduce a character who's that obviously disfigure without address it

 

[PurpleStar]

You both make a very good point which has irritated me with every live action portrayal of this character since 89.

Leto’s Joker was the only one who didn’t have some sort of “permanent smile” in shape or form. And well, they royally buggered that interpretation up visually and performance wise.

The Joker is NOT always smiling. Even in his first appearance which was “inspired” by The Man Who Laughs.

He shouldn’t always be smiling.

I also really dislike that recent comic interpretations and other media even extend his smile with lipstick or whatever.

I don’t inherently dislike this look too much. It took a bit, it’s certainly disturbing. But why is the smile such an important thing? It’s not necessary. And it’s been DONE.

I also agree with the other posters that have said this Joker is Ledger Like. Both Jared and Barry are clearly using Ledger’s voice as inspiration for their respective voices.

BTAS Joker is still hands down the most faithful adaptation of the character from the comics that proceeded it.

I’m still interested to see where they go with this Joker, but I am disappointed they took the “perma grin” route (while unique)

I don’t know how they’ll market this character moving forward, it’s a very distressing visual.

You make good points here about the Joker always smiling thing. In terms of comics prior to Batman 1989 (since I've read a lot of Bronze age, silver age and golden age Joker stories), Joker is not always drawn to smile constantly in most iterations. He actually has a lot of varied expression, it's just that the Joker grin is most famous.

Probably the most famous example of this would be the first Joker story, because the first on panel appearance has him frowning/in contemplation, and then in the next panel you get him smiling. Tbh, the only artist I can think of who constantly has Joker smiling out of the 1940s-1980s comics I've read, is Dick Sprang. But that's mostly a stylistic choice.

And the acid bath origin describes his transformation as turning his skin chalk white, lips rouge red and hair emerald green - I.e. looks like an evil clown. Nothing about giving him a permanent smile. That idea is first presented in Batman 1989.

Although, tbf, you can see how the perma smile is sort of going back to the Conrad Veidt inspiration because Gwynplaine has a permanent smile due to disfigurement. However, Kane/Finger/Robinson do not seem to have intended to incorporate that aspect (since those 40s comics depict Joker as not always smiling). They literally just used the look as a reference, but the characterisation and origin is completely different. (Although, they didn't really give Joker an origin at first, just hints that he has some previous criminal past, and might not have always looked like this because other characters who are implied to have met him before do not recognize him).

Of course, in general public ideas of Joker, the permanent smiles of Ledger and Nicholson are quite dominant, so perhaps this idea has become default (not in comics though, or games for that matter). But imo the best way to get out of the shadow of those two live action Joker's would NOT be to repeat a permanent smile again, even though it's a different explanation. It would actually differentiate more to have him not smile permanently. But, the issue in live action is wanting to do a version of the unrealistic smiles Joker is drawn with, but as those are not possible in real life usually, they go to a 'realistic'route of giving him scars etc for a permanent smile.

 

[SuperestHero]

You make good points here about the Joker always smiling thing. In terms of comics prior to Batman 1989 (since I've read a lot of Bronze age, silver age and golden age Joker stories), Joker is not always drawn to smile constantly in most iterations. He actually has a lot of varied expression, it's just that the Joker grin is most famous.

Probably the most famous example of this would be the first Joker story, because the first on panel appearance has him frowning/in contemplation, and then in the next panel you get him smiling. Tbh, the only artist I can think of who constantly has Joker smiling out of the 1940s-1980s comics I've read, is Dick Sprang. But that's mostly a stylistic choice.

And the acid bath origin describes his transformation as turning his skin chalk white, lips rouge red and hair emerald green - I.e. looks like an evil clown. Nothing about giving him a permanent smile. That idea is first presented in Batman 1989.

Although, tbf, you can see how the perma smile is sort of going back to the Conrad Veidt inspiration because Gwynplaine has a permanent smile due to disfigurement. However, Kane/Finger/Robinson do not seem to have intended to incorporate that aspect (since those 40s comics depict Joker as not always smiling). They literally just used the look as a reference, but the characterisation and origin is completely different.

Exactly. The characters smile was and has not been a mitigating factor of the character.
It shouldn’t be the focus to justify the “clown” motif.

The Joker is more than his smile, no need to make that a focal point in terms of design. And I think that’s been lost in recent iterations.

Be that at is may, I’m hypnotised by this scene, I can relate to fellow poster @Boom, with the obsession.

I joined this forum immediately after Batman Begins, specifically because I was interested in the speculation following the card reveal. I wasn’t happy with the first Ledger reveal, but ended up loving it.

I am content with this new version. Just slightly bummed that they couldn’t have worked a more traditional look with the grounded and new perspective they are going with. And that’s so minor in the scheme of things.

Ledger/Nolan’s Joker really changed my point of view on “comic accuracy” in the visual sense, so I hope this is the same. As mentioned, I’m warming up to this pretty quickly.

We can’t all have our “perfect” Joker, it’s just strange to me that they focus on the smile as a visual trait when personally, there’s a larger visual picture to the Joker to me. And it is pretty simple.

On the Elephant Man thing, I can get Matt’s jive, Joseph Merrick was born with a disease, but it didn’t take effect immediately, it grew and degraded the man over time, which is what was so sad, so if Matt is using that as inspiration, I’m interested to know if that is the case with this new Joker. Has his appearance degraded over time? Will the disease/deformity continue to affect his appearance over said time? If so, that’s a pretty interesting spin. This Joker will possibly look even more hideous as his story continues. Pretty shocking interpretation if this is the route they go. And I’m all in for that.

 

[PurpleStar]

Exactly. The characters smile was and has not been a mitigating factor of the character.
It shouldn’t be the focus to justify the “clown” motif.

The Joker is more than his smile, no need to make that a focal point in terms of design. And I think that’s been lost in recent iterations.

Be that at is may, I’m hypnotised by this scene, I can relate to fellow poster Boom, with the obsession.

I joined this forum immediately after Batman Begins, specifically because I was interested in the speculation following the card reveal. I wasn’t happy with the first Ledger reveal, but ended up loving it.

I am content with this new version. Just slightly bummed that they couldn’t have worked a more traditional look with the grounded and new perspective they are going with. And that’s so minor in the scheme of things.

Ledger/Nolan’s Joker really changed my point of view on “comic accuracy” in the visual sense, so I hope this is the same. As mentioned, I’m warming up to this pretty quickly.

We can’t all have our “perfect” Joker, it’s just strange to me that they focus on the smile as a visual trait when personally, there’s a larger visual picture to the Joker to me. And it is pretty simple.

I agree. I'm not against new variations on the look, since it can be interesting. All I'm ambivalent about is the perception that the default is an always smiling Joker, because it isn't really.

Actually I think the most important aspect of Joker visually is the colour scheme. Which is white, green, purple (and red). Ledger has that. Nicholson has that. Even Leto has that lol. Pheonix has that, except it's red rather than purple but that's acceptable seeing as Romero also has the red/magenta suit, and sometimes the clothing has variations. In my copy of The Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told (1988), the print of The Laughing Fish/Sign of The Joker has Joker in a blue suit with purple coat and hat. But generally, the colour scheme always has purple somewhere, with white skin green hair. So,imo absence of the colour scheme is an issue that can make something less Joker like, maybe even just different for the sake of it.

So, that's why I think if we see this Joker out of Arkham, the clothing will be important, and that's why I think there it would be good to go with something more traditional. I really like the idea of uncanniness of this facially freaky looking Joker, but in bright tailored clothes. Plus, the hair a bit brighter green and less balding.

I think as long as you have the following things you have Joker:

1. White skin. Whether that be because he's very pale, albino, chemically bleached or wearing grease paint.
2. Green hair. Either dyed or permanent chemical cause.
3. Bright colour clothes. Usually purple, but can have variation.

The absence of these three aspects however would be an issue because then you visually have less Joker, and more just disfigured looking guy, which is devolution of the look really. Its the colour scheme which makes Joker striking.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I'm not saying I think it's bad or that Ledger should own all of those mannerisms, I was just surprised that other people aren't seeing/hearing it. Goes to show that this stuff hits us all differently. I didn't even think twice about the "commissioner" thing, but I completely hear a lot of similar vocal techniques at play even if Barry's voice is different.

But hey, not gonna die on this hill, I just feel that Heath kind of created a template for this character that several of the live action actors that have come after him have pulled from in some form another. It is more of a testament to Heath's imprint on the character than anything in my book.

I do think Barry is doing his own version/riff on it though. It's like music to me. You hear influences in things. And they are always there, whether conscious or not.

You aren't the only one. The way he delivered that line felt familiar, but I love it honestly haha. Im sure with how big of a fan of Ledger Barry is that he wanted to adopt some of it, but still make it his own thing which he seems to have.

 

[SuperestHero]

I agree. I'm not against new variations on the look, since it can be interesting. All I'm ambivalent about is the perception that the default is an always smiling Joker, because it isn't really. Actually I think the most important aspect of Joker visually is the colour scheme. Which is white, green, purple (and red). Ledger has that. Nicholson has that. Even Leto has that lol. Pheonix has that, except it's red rather than purple but that's acceptable seeing as Romero also has the red/magenta suit, and sometimes the clothing has variations. Actually, in my copy of The Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told (1988), the print of The Laughing Fish/Sign of The Joker has Joker in a blue suit with purple coat and hat. But generally, the colour scheme always has purple somewhere, with white skin green hair. So,imo absence of the colour scheme is an issue that can make something less Joker like. So, that's why I think if we see this Joker out of Arkham, the clothing will be important, and that's why I think there it would be good to go with something more traditional. I really like the idea of uncanniness of this facially freaky looking Joker, but in bright tailored clothes. Plus, the hair a bit brighter green and less balding.

And on that, wasn’t it great when we finally saw Heath (fellow Aussie) in that colour scheme.

It screamed Joker. For the ingrained fans, and the general public.

I’m not saying all this Joker needs is a purple suit. But man, when we see him out of his Arkham gear, I have a feeling, we are all gonna flip, in a good way.

I welcome Barry to the fold, I was just making a point that once again visually, the smile was a focus in terms of design.

Still, it’s a very f-ing great time to be a Batman fan. Bring it all on.

The film was incredible. I can’t wait to be immersed into this new Gotham.

 

[BatLobster]

To be fair, Leto's didn't have a perma-grin...

The one thing I'll say with this version is I think clowns are inherently creepy. There's a fine line for me where if you lean too hard into the horror/monster element, sure it's scary and I know it's been done in the comics more in recent years...but it kind of loses some of what makes Joker, Joker, for me. I guess I just prefer a bit of a simpler look when it comes down to it. The simplicity of Heath's look is part of what made it so iconic. Everyone did it for Halloween because- white makeup, panda eyes, red smile, boom you're done. Or remember that viral marketing thing where you had to sent your Joker pics? So much fun. Yes, he had a prosthetic, but it wasn't his entire face. The iconography was there without it.

I don't want to hold out hope for something that isn't coming, but I still think the fully formed version of Barry's Joker could be hit nice sweet spot if he applies a layer of makeup to his face. The Joker is theatrical after all, so I'm not sure why he wouldn't lean into the clown motif that he's been cursed with. I agree about the color scheme thing.

I'm not normally one to get too hung up on aesthetic choices for these characters, so it's not gonna be a deal-breaker for me, but like a lot of things in this universe-- I'm waiting to see how it evolves.

 

[BMW 224]

The Joker "permanently smiling" is not from the comics correct.

But why does that make it bad ?

The bat cave grappling hook and many other concepts weren't originally from the comics either.

I think the "permanent smile" concept not only make sense for the special type of madness and philosophy Joker is but also strengths the character.

Now I'm not saying that Joker without a permanent smile is bad the comics obviously shown that to be false.


But for cinematic purposes it makes sense for Joker to have some twisted reasons to be "smiling" because is paints the picture of his joy and theatrics being almost a mask to hide the true monster within.

I love the permanent smile and the reasons behind it personally.

Does Joker get trapped in one emotion which is inaccurate to the comics ?

I don't think so personally because the actors eyes always tell the real story which the joker actors know they may always be smiling on the outside but they are not always smiling in the inside.

All of the joker actors show tuns of different emotional while all still having that hideous smile on there face like battle between the physical and the mental.

It's irony at it finest and it's origins give a physoclilgal reasoning for there insanity in the same way the famous killing joke panel of him seeing his new clown look and surrending to laughter and madness.


Just my opinion I understand if you don't like the permanent smile trope for Joker but personally I do.
.

 

[PurpleStar]

To be fair, Leto's didn't have a perma-grin...

The one thing I'll say with this version is I think clowns are inherently creepy. There's a fine line for me where if you lean too hard into the horror/monster element, sure it's scary and I know it's been done in the comics more in recent years...but it kind of loses some of what makes Joker, Joker, for me. I guess I just prefer a bit of a simpler look when it comes down to it. The simplicity of Heath's look is part of what made it so iconic. Everyone did it for Halloween because- white makeup, panda eyes, red smile, boom you're done. Or remember that viral marketing thing where you had to sent your Joker pics? So much fun. Yes, he had a prosthetic, but it wasn't his entire face. The iconography was there without it.

I don't want to hold out hope for something that isn't coming, but I still think the fully formed version of Barry's Joker could be hit nice sweet spot if he applies a layer of makeup to his face. The Joker is theatrical after all, so I'm not sure why he wouldn't lean into the clown motif that he's been cursed with. I agree about the color scheme thing.

I'm not normally one to get too hung up on aesthetic choices for these characters, so it's not gonna be a deal-breaker for me, but like a lot of things in this universe-- I'm waiting to see how it evolves.

Absolutely about Ledger. That look is a variation, but it's good because it still retains the classic colours, just does the reason for them differently e.g. white make up, rather than bleached skin. So, that colour scheme is fundamental. You can play around with the why and how of the look, but without the colour scheme I don't believe you have Joker. You would have... some other thing lol

 

[PurpleStar]

The Joker "permanently smiling" is not from the comics correct.

But why does that it make it bad ?

The bat cave grappling hook and many other concepts weren't originally from the comics either.

I think the "permanent smile" concept not only make sense for the special type of madness and philosophy Joker is but also strengths the character.

Now I'm not saying that Joker without a permanent smile is bad the comics obviously shown that to be false.


But for cinematic purposes it makes sense for Joker to have some twisted reasons to be "smiling" because is paints the picture of his joy and theatrics being almost a mask to hide the true monster within.

I love the permanent smile and the reasons behind it personally.

Does Joker get trapped in one emotion which is inaccurate to the comics ?

I don't think so personally because the actors eyes always tell the real story which the joker actors know they may always be smiling on the outside but they are always smiling in the inside.

It's irony at it finest and it's origins give a physoclilgal reasoning for there insanity in the same way the famous killing joke panel of him seeing his new clown look and surrending to laughter and madness.


Just my opinion I understand if you don't like the permanent smile trope for Joker but personally I do.
.

Well with respect, no one is saying that it's wrong. We are just discussing the concept, the history of it, what it adds or doesn't add, and whether it is a necessity or not.

 

[BMW 224]

Well with respect, no one is saying that it's wrong. We are just discussing the concept, what it adds or doesn't add, and whether it is a necessity or not.

I guess it wasn't phrased well enough but I was simply giving my opinion on what it adds while addressing some the things people say it takes away from which I disagreed with.



Sorry if it sounded confrontial or something.

 

[SuperestHero]

To be fair, Leto's didn't have a perma-grin...

The one thing I'll say with this version is I think clowns are inherently creepy. There's a fine line for me where if you lean too hard into the horror/monster element, sure it's scary and I know it's been done in the comics more in recent years...but it kind of loses some of what makes Joker, Joker, for me. I guess I just prefer a bit of a simpler look when it comes down to it. The simplicity of Heath's look is part of what made it so iconic. Everyone did it for Halloween because- white makeup, panda eyes, red smile, boom you're done. Or remember that viral marketing thing where you had to sent your Joker pics? So much fun. Yes, he had a prosthetic, but it wasn't his entire face. The iconography was there without it.

I don't want to hold out hope for something that isn't coming, but I still think the fully formed version of Barry's Joker could be hit nice sweet spot if he applies a layer of makeup to his face. The Joker is theatrical after all, so I'm not sure why he wouldn't lean into the clown motif that he's been cursed with. I agree about the color scheme thing.

I'm not normally one to get too hung up on aesthetic choices for these characters, so it's not gonna be a deal-breaker for me, but like a lot of things in this universe-- I'm waiting to see how it evolves.

Correct, Leto’s Joker was the only live action Joker that didn’t. And he was the worst. (I haven’t watched Gotham, and I have no plans to, but have seen the designs)

Pretty sure I didn’t insinuate that he did. But I think I’ve made my point about “design”.

Portrayal is something I’m looking forward to, because the visual of this particular Joker is decided on. So we’ll have to watch and see.

But I have to say, I’m loving all this discussion, I haven’t been involved with this stuff since 2008, so it’s all very exciting.

And it’s great to see people of different ages getting passionate about something I am pretty interested in, so keep it up. It’s only gonna contribute to more Batman films. Keep up the buzz.

 

[BatLobster]

Absolutely about Ledger. That look is a variation, but it's good because it still retains the classic colours, just does the reason for them differently e.g. white make up, rather than bleached skin. So, that colour scheme is fundamental. You can play around with the why and how of the look, but without the colour scheme I don't believe you have Joker. You would have... some other thing lol

I love on one of the behind the scenes pieces with Lindy Hemming, they have all these swatches of different shades of purple. And how they were experimenting with the darker shades, but she was like "No...we gotta do it....gotta bring it back to the purple..."

That said, I'll still never forget the meltdown over this::

But then you actually see him in the movie and it's this:

Amazing how much of a difference the green hair and some wardrobe makes. And the brighter red lips too.

Point being...while our look at Barry isn't a makeup test, it IS a pre-Joker who's locked up in Arkham and I think they can push the iconography more later on.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I love on one of the behind the scenes pieces with Lindy Hemming, they have all these swatches of different shades of purple. And how they were experimenting with the darker shades, but she was like "No...we gotta do it....gotta bring it back to the purple..."

That said, I'll still never forget the meltdown over this::

But then you actually see him in the movie and it's this:

Amazing how much of a difference the green hair and some wardrobe makes. And the brighter red lips too.

Point being...while our look at Barry isn't a makeup test, it IS a pre-Joker who's locked up in Arkham and I think they can push the iconography more later on.

It's so funny, when that first pic dropped I was kinda speechless, but not in a bad or good way. I was just like "that's so different than what I'm used to", but was because of the makeup. I still thought it looked like The Joker, but I was so used to Jack and stuff. Now it's not only my favorite live action Joker look, but one of my favorite villain designs ever.

 

[PurpleStar]

I guess it wasn't phrased well enough but I was simply giving my opinion on what it adds while addressing some the things people say it takes away from which I disagreed with.



Sorry if it sounded confrontial or something.

That's fine. A permanent smile is a stylistic addition that can add something, and be interesting. I was just assessing the history of it. Plus, this is why I've sort of moved on to the colour scheme actually being the more important thing. How and why Joker smiles is just something that you can play around with in a few different ways, especially because as I've said in a previous post, it's difficult to replicate the unrealistic smiles Joker is drawn with to live action, which is why they frequently move to a perma smile in some way. It doesn't really matter though, as it's the colours which pull the look together really, so as long as you have that it works.

 

[BatLobster]

It's so funny, when that first pic dropped I was kinda speechless, but not in a bad or good way. I was just like "that's so different than what I'm used to", but was because of the makeup. I still thought it looked like The Joker, but I was so used to Jack and stuff. Now it's not only my favorite live action Joker look, but one of my favorite villain designs ever.

Yep, I had that same "I don't know what to think" feeling. But then every picture that came out after that, the more we saw of him, I loved it more and more.

 

[BMW 224]

I think there's something special about Barry's Keoangh Joker not looking as iconographic and instantly clown like.

Usually I would prefer the classic look.



I'm expecting him to get a war drobe change but I think the more colorful look were used to on the actual body is absent on purpose to make it so that this specific Joker isn't the type to have thousands of followers represent the people and be fun to see in every piece of marketing.

The clown part is still there just way more subdued.


I suspect and this may be proven to be completely wrong in the future but I think Barry Keoangh and Matt Reeves wanted to step away from the seductive quality of past Joker takes.

Will see how it pays off though.

 

[SuperestHero]

I love on one of the behind the scenes pieces with Lindy Hemming, they have all these swatches of different shades of purple. And how they were experimenting with the darker shades, but she was like "No...we gotta do it....gotta bring it back to the purple..."

That said, I'll still never forget the meltdown over this::

But then you actually see him in the movie and it's this:

Amazing how much of a difference the green hair and some wardrobe makes. And the brighter red lips too.

Point being...while our look at Barry isn't a makeup test, it IS a pre-Joker who's locked up in Arkham and I think they can push the iconography more later on.

You my friend, have put this in perfect perspective.

I remember all this so vividly.

I was shocked at the initial reveal.

When we saw Dark Knight Joker proper, it was something else. What a time!

The paparazzi shot of Heath in front of his trailer, while ridiculously out of focus, that got this forum really pumping.

Hahaha. What a time that was, and what a time this is.

 

[SuperestHero]

The music in the scene is reminiscent of some of the music from The Elephant Man
But as mentioned earlier, I love this discussion. It’s only going to fuel a continuous universe. I think you’ll have to put to bed the “Mr Freeze” stuff, he’s not gonna get to a larger audience. But Reeves obviously has a rough plan for the rogues. Let’s sit back and enjoy, he’s delivering deleted scenes with “proto joker” we are in for a serious ride. Batfans, stay tuned. Same bat time same bat channel!

 

[WayneMB]

I'm not gonna lie, i've been reading the past few pages and i'm kinda lost. When i look at this joker, to me, all the iconography except clothing (which is obvious, he's locked up) is there.