Wow! The NEW (Hype!) TiVo Can Do So Much! - Part 2

[SuperFerret]

You keep saying "every way", but he didn't. He did in most ways, and the important ways, but Ledger's Joker wasn't 100% the iconic Joker.

The issue that I have with Leto's Joker is that the tattoos are a bit too on the nose (particularly the "damaged" ones) and there are too many of them. I can also relate to the notion that the idea of the Joker sitting for extensive tattoos being silly and out of character. Otherwise, I'm fine with it, within the context that the entire movie seems like a mistake.

 

[Marvolo]

Honestly I think it's an automatic reflex for some people at this point. And fandoms have incredibly terrible short term memories. Some of us were comparing this meltdown to the Permawhite Chelsea smile meltdown of 2007, but some people swear up and down this meltdown is nothing like that one, but it's exactly like that meltdown. They are both meltdowns that that resulted from a single picture that may or may not give a good representation of how the Joker will look when properly showcased in the finished film. They should have learned from the Ledger situation, but nope they are repeating old mistakes once again.

 

[Parker Wayne]

Exactly. I don't know why some fanboys are saying that the reaction to the first picture of Ledger as Joker wasn't as controversial as the first picture of Leto as Joker. People were b******g about the first pictures of Ledger's Jokers too.

 

[JP]

Revisionist history.

 

[Schlosser85]

The issue that I have with Leto's Joker is that the tattoos are a bit too on the nose (particularly the "damaged" ones) and there are too many of them. I can also relate to the notion that the idea of the Joker sitting for extensive tattoos being silly and out of character.

Exactly. A "damaged" tat on his forehead just makes him look like an emo 12-year-old girl who thinks she's so dark and edgy.

 

[Sawyer]

People b****ing about Leto Joker saying it wasn't the same with Ledger would be like people b****ing about Affleck's casting saying it wasn't the same with Michael Keaton.

A complete lie.

 

[Parker Wayne]

Uh, I don't think Keaton and Affleck were on the same wavelength. I mean, it's not like they had people were petitioning WB to remove Affleck as Batman that made National Headlines.

Oh, they did? Well f**k.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Honestly, my only problem with Leto's Joker is the "damaged" tattoo, and I think that's a fair critique. But it looks like that won't be in the film anyway from the leaked clips.

Character wise, I think Leto will make a good Joker.

And people who start petitions over comic characters or swear boycotts are losers.

 

[Parker Wayne]

Anyone remember when JJJ challenged me to make the dumbest, most pointless thread?

 

[JP]

Triple J is the new Gaga.

 

[Sawyer]

I know. We should totally do a Glee tribute episode for him.

 

[The Shape]

You keep saying "every way", but he didn't. He did in most ways, and the important ways, but Ledger's Joker wasn't 100% the iconic Joker.

No film version of a comic book character with a 75 year history will ever be "100% the iconic character" from the comic books. At this point, there is really no such thing as a definitive Joker. Same goes for Batman.

My point was that, despite the aesthetic differences from the Joker we knew from the comics and other media, Ledger's Joker was still The Joker in every way that mattered. The essence of the character was completely intact. Therefore, it should be understood that Leto's Joker will have the same chances are delivering a great interpretation of The Joker that is true to the character's history, despite the aesthetic differences.

 

[The Shape]

Exactly. I don't know why some fanboys are saying that the reaction to the first picture of Ledger as Joker wasn't as controversial as the first picture of Leto as Joker. People were b******g about the first pictures of Ledger's Jokers too.

It was way worse when Ledger's first pictures dropped and people learned his skin wasn't perma-white. Wayyyy worse than this Leto thing.

 

[Parker Wayne]

I know, I know. I'm the ****.

This is supposed to be about my mission accomplished!

 

[ThePhantasm]

Someone should TiVo that time that the Leto Joker debate took over the TiVo thread. Sawyer, get on that.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

From the 'isn't that the whole point?!' department….

My biggest critique is that the costumes were comic booky, the scenarios were comic booky and it felt like I was watching a comic book. 8.5/10 to TA's 8/10.

 

[JP]

Valid critique as far as I'm concerned. If the film actually does feel like that, then what even is the point?

 

[The Shape]

^ That last quote about The Avenger's must be that guy trolling. Has to be....right?

 

[Sawyer]

Re: Charles Manson is marrying a 26 year old...

Someone should send this news to Nell.

What you want him to start orchestrating killing sprees so he can get laid in 40 years?

...maybe

 

[Erzengel]

AOU Spoilers.

I am the smartest man on SHH!!!

Spoiler

That Loki's staff could possibly be the mind gem/infinity stone.

I'm in the camp that's skeptical of that, only because it would seem impractical for Thanos to let Loki borrow the stone after already possessing it and risk losing it.

It would make it easier. How many more infinity stones could they honestly write about it being on Earth unless one of the villains brings it there, otherwise it'd have to be introduced in another Thor or Guardians sequel.

Who said the remaining stones needed to be on Earth? The way I see it, if all the stones will be introduced by Avengers 3, there's still time to introduce them in not only GOTG 2 or Thor 3, but also Dr. Strange.

Loki's staff was powered by the Tesseract, they both give off the exact same energy signature. They aren't going to have two different Infinity stones emitting the same color & type of energy.

Also there's no reason why they all have to be accounted for by Avengers 3. The last one could be introduced during that movie.

Sure. The way I see it, the problem isn't introducing them all, it's how Thanos will get them. He's already going to need to go to Asgard for the Tesseract, Knowhere for the Aether, Xandar for the Orb...I wonder how much time they'll spend focusing on how he obtains them.

I'm not sure if they're going with the designations from the comics at all. The effects of each of them have been so varied that almost any of them could qualify as the Power gem.

Also, I vaguely remember someone saying in Avengers that the scepter was powered by the cube (they didn't explain it very well) and Cap mentioning that "it works an awful lot like a Hydra weapon." So I also don't think the scepter counts as one of the stones.

That's all. Tangent over.

 

[Sawyer]

I kind of want to TiVo the initial reactions to the Fantastic 4 casting a year or so ago. It was all so fire and brimstone and "It's wrong and I want this movie to fail regardless of what the end product looks like!!!!!!"

And then JP was just like

 

[ThePhantasm]

Some of the casting reactions were ridiculous, especially the Michael B. Jordan related ones. But I don't think there's any denying at this point that the production of the film sounds like its been a colossal trainwreck.

I typically despise fanboy negativity, but this movie doesn't smell right.

 

[Sawyer]

The production does sound like a mess, but the problem with the F4 boards is they'd be acting like the movie is going to be a disaster regardless of what behind the scenes stuff we've been hearing. Even if things were going beautifully... nope. Movie would still be **** to them. Before they've even seen it.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Well, there are definitely some who were wishing it would be a disaster from the get go just so Marvel could get the rights back. I don't agree with that mentality at all...

 

[Sawyer]

Remember when we used to allow Moose to make threads?