I'm sorry but this made me lol so loud. Wish I could read what was on his forehead. Whatever the case the word "Justice" should have been there instead of all the words.
Leto's a fantastic actor so I am going to judge him on that.
I dont think this looks bad, I dont think it looks bad at all.
There has always been a tenuous link between tattoo's and criminality. We are not judging this version of the joker in our society we are judging him in the context of the gotham that is presented to us in the movie. Just because your hipster friend with tattoo's isnt criminally insane doesnt mean Leto's portrayal of the joker in the movie isnt going to be absolutely on point.
I mean a guy in a bat suit looks pretty stupid to me....but lo and behold in a movie about batman its much more easily digested.
"Damaged"? "HA HA HA HA"? He's holding his head and screaming as if we didn't know the Joker is meant to be crazy, and they had to transmit it in one picture.
The word I'm looking for is blatant. This picture is blatant. Maybe he'll deliver on the performance, but as far as the design goes, it sucks.
I'm gonna go on a ledge here and actually judge the Joker portrayal by Leto based on his acting when I see the movie, Rather then slam him and the entire movie based on one picture.
Cause I'm smart like that.
Man, screw that. WB only released this picture because they WANT people judging the Joker based on this one picture. It's just that they're hoping that the reaction is more "man, this looks great" rather than "man, this looks just awful." So yeah, people should say that this looks like shit if it looks like shit. If poor little WB has a problem with people saying that what's been shown so far looks like shit, then they should have been more careful not to show something that looks like shit.
"Don't judge a book by it's cover.....Unless you dislike the cover then you can claim the whole thing is shit without having read it first."
"Don't judge a book by it's cover.....Unless you dislike the cover then you can claim the whole thing is shit without having read it first."
To be fair - you really can tell a lot of books are shit by their cover. Same with videogames, movies, etc.
It's not that the content inside is automatically condemned to the quality of the cover, rather that the cover is indicative of much that's wrong with the book.
Not saying that's necessarily the case here because Jared Leto is a very capable actor. It's just, if the movie sucked or was nothing special - nobody would be surprised given that picture.
Who knows, maybe Jack Nicholson needs to give Leto a word of warning...
"Don't judge a book by it's cover.....Unless you dislike the cover then you can claim the whole thing is shit without having read it first."
I'm saying that what's been shown looks like shit, I never said that the movie is shit. Even if you can't judge a book by its cover, you can most certainly judge the freaking cover. Which is exactly what most people are doing when they're saying that this looks like crap.
Also, I highly doubt you'd be saying this if the reaction had been positive. If people had said, "this is a good look for the Joker and Leto is a fine actor; everything looks like it's shaping up nicely so far", would you be taking the same stance? The bottom line is that stuff either makes people more interested or less interested in the movie. If WB gets the credit for showing something that looks good, then they also get to take the blame when they show something that looks bad.
The first ledger picture shown was much worse imo. It appeared as though he wouldn't have green hair. I believe the cuts were toned down as well.
Actually, when people saw this they went: "Ok, he's actually kind of scary, he might be good."
LetoJoker looks like a hipster, not someone completely fucking mental.
Nope, check old posts of superhero websites with the core community - it had major backlash.
It's probably worth noting as well, Michael Keaton who was primarily a comedian actor received major backlash even on the concept of him playing batman. People knee jerk like hell about any old shit.
Personally, I think the movie itself will be shit - but from the design, I appreciate something goofier looking.
@uninspiredcup: Guess I was being anecdotal. It may have been more local positivity than enthusiast sites. Those guys are always hard to please as any fan is ;)
At least he did'nt have "damaged" tattooed on his forehead.
@uninspiredcup: Guess I was being anecdotal. It may have been more local positivity than enthusiast sites. Those guys are always hard to please as any fan is ;)
At least he did'nt have "damaged" tattooed on his forehead.
Honestly, when I clicked that picture, didn't even notice it. Quite surprised by the negative uptake.
Saying that though, never really found the Joker to be that interesting, they are probably more invested.
@uninspiredcup: I'm not massively invested in the character, I just think all the tattoos and the MJ glove is too tryhard. A dragon tattoo on his back would be cool though; and make sense for the Joker, since that'd piss off any Yakuza he'd encounter.
"Don't judge a book by it's cover.....Unless you dislike the cover then you can claim the whole thing is shit without having read it first."
I'm saying that what's been shown looks like shit, I never said that the movie is shit. Even if you can't judge a book by its cover, you can most certainly judge the freaking cover. Which is exactly what most people are doing when they're saying that this looks like crap.
Also, I highly doubt you'd be saying this if the reaction had been positive. If people had said, "this is a good look for the Joker and Leto is a fine actor; everything looks like it's shaping up nicely so far", would you be taking the same stance? The bottom line is that stuff either makes people more interested or less interested in the movie. If WB gets the credit for showing something that looks good, then they also get to take the blame when they show something that looks bad.
If based on a single picture of a character in the movie, yes. Whole point is that one can't tell if the movie is good or bad based on a single picture, One can dislike the look of the character. There's no issue there. But the whole movie as a result?
You know what I liked about the Joker from the animated series? He was a sadist. He probably wasn't really insane or psychotic but just a sadistic evil asshole, evidenced on how he was defeated (he would get angry), his abuse on Harley Quinn, or when he was killed in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker and his final words were, "That's not funny, that's not... *Death*."
I don't know, maybe I'm just looking into it too much but that's why I liked that Joker. I never saw him as truly crazy but rather just evil.
That said, Jared Leto's Joker seems too much. I'll reserve further judgement until I see more of Suicide Squad movie.
"Don't judge a book by it's cover.....Unless you dislike the cover then you can claim the whole thing is shit without having read it first."
I'm saying that what's been shown looks like shit, I never said that the movie is shit. Even if you can't judge a book by its cover, you can most certainly judge the freaking cover. Which is exactly what most people are doing when they're saying that this looks like crap.
Also, I highly doubt you'd be saying this if the reaction had been positive. If people had said, "this is a good look for the Joker and Leto is a fine actor; everything looks like it's shaping up nicely so far", would you be taking the same stance? The bottom line is that stuff either makes people more interested or less interested in the movie. If WB gets the credit for showing something that looks good, then they also get to take the blame when they show something that looks bad.
If based on a single picture of a character in the movie, yes.
Whole point is that one can't tell if the movie is good or bad based on a single picture, One can dislike the look of the character. There's no issue there. But the whole movie as a result?
That's a pretty premature statement to make.
"this is a good look for the Joker and Leto is a fine actor; everything looks like it's shaping up nicely so far"
Where in that statement is there ANY claim that the movie will be good or bad? Again, the majority of the people complaining about the Joker reveal are making NO claims as to whether or not the movie will be good. The majority of them are saying that THE JOKER looks fucking awful, which is an entirely fair thing to say considering that WB just revealed the Joker.
Again, most people either see a movie because it looks interesting, or don't see a movie because it doesn't look interesting. This all HAS to be the result of "judging a book by its cover", because they haven't seen the damn movie yet. By your standard, there's no way to make a movie look better or worse WITHOUT SEEING THE WHOLE MOVIE. What you're forgetting is that there's no reason to even see the movie if the movie doesn't look like it's gonna be good first. So if we're throwing out all pre-release promotional materials because it isn't the damn movie, then how the hell are you supposed to get people interested in the movie in the first place?
Dude, do YOU ever watch movies? With all the movies out there, how do YOU decide which ones are worth your time and money when you haven't even seen them yet and therefore don't know if they're gonna be good or bad? Like most people, you PROBABLY rely in large part on reviews, promotional materials, and word of mouth. Unless you just plain don't watch movies at all, you're still being selectively biased based on criteria other than whether or not the movie is any good.
I have a problem with the Joker on the Suicide Squad at all. As for the movie I have a bigger problem with Will Smith as Deadshot, I just don't see him fitting that role.
"Don't judge a book by it's cover.....Unless you dislike the cover then you can claim the whole thing is shit without having read it first."
I'm saying that what's been shown looks like shit, I never said that the movie is shit. Even if you can't judge a book by its cover, you can most certainly judge the freaking cover. Which is exactly what most people are doing when they're saying that this looks like crap.
Also, I highly doubt you'd be saying this if the reaction had been positive. If people had said, "this is a good look for the Joker and Leto is a fine actor; everything looks like it's shaping up nicely so far", would you be taking the same stance? The bottom line is that stuff either makes people more interested or less interested in the movie. If WB gets the credit for showing something that looks good, then they also get to take the blame when they show something that looks bad.
If based on a single picture of a character in the movie, yes.
Whole point is that one can't tell if the movie is good or bad based on a single picture, One can dislike the look of the character. There's no issue there. But the whole movie as a result?
That's a pretty premature statement to make.
"this is a good look for the Joker and Leto is a fine actor; everything looks like it's shaping up nicely so far"
Where in that statement is there ANY claim that the movie will be good or bad? Again, the majority of the people complaining about the Joker reveal are making NO claims as to whether or not the movie will be good. The majority of them are saying that THE JOKER looks fucking awful, which is an entirely fair thing to say considering that WB just revealed the Joker.
Again, most people either see a movie because it looks interesting, or don't see a movie because it doesn't look interesting. This all HAS to be the result of "judging a book by its cover", because they haven't seen the damn movie yet. By your standard, there's no way to make a movie look better or worse WITHOUT SEEING THE WHOLE MOVIE. What you're forgetting is that there's no reason to even see the movie if the movie doesn't look like it's gonna be good first. So if we're throwing out all pre-release promotional materials because it isn't the damn movie, then how the hell are you supposed to get people interested in the movie in the first place?
Dude, do YOU ever watch movies? With all the movies out there, how do YOU decide which ones are worth your time and money when you haven't even seen them yet and therefore don't know if they're gonna be good or bad? Like most people, you PROBABLY rely in large part on reviews, promotional materials, and word of mouth. Unless you just plain don't watch movies at all, you're still being selectively biased based on criteria other than whether or not the movie is any good.
First off, you presented the statement as the polar opposite to the notion of " The Joker looks aweful so the movie must be aweful" message I was confronting. Getting worked up when I answer it that even they might not know if the movie is good or bad despite them being positive about it, Then you shouldn't have presented it as you clearly meant it as a retorichal question and my answer to it would be irrelevant. Which again isn't helping the discussion.
Secondly, No you don't need to see a whole movie to get the general idea if it suits your taste or not. This is you taking things overboard since you don't seem to see a difference between seeing a picture of a character in a movie and the entirety of a movie, And since this also wraps up the last part of your post, There is a reason you get trailers of a movie, You get to see some tidbits of the movie. Did they interest you? Did they make you decide against it? Very well then. Did a friend of yours see it and you know you have similar taste? Did he like it or dislike it? Why? These are valid ways to determine if you want to see a specific movie, Infact if you refuse to see the movie based on the picture or if people even want to see it based solely on our discussion. Very well.
But I'll explain my meaning once again since it's clearly either taken out of context or it's actually going over some heads as too strange.
I don't mind if people reject the movie based on the look of the new Joker or if they want to see it more. What I am saying is that nobody, not even I, can look at that picture and say with 100% certainty that the movie will be good or "shit" because it is simply the look of the Joker. Just like nobody can look at a single screenshot of a game and make the same verdict, or even of a ingame character for the sake of this discussion, Just like one can't look at the cover of a book and make the same verdict. And doing so is to me stupid, and if you do it.
Honestly I kind of like it. It's a totally new design, but he's still recognizable as the Joker. Comics change the look of their characters all the time and I think this one is a neat new look.
First off, you presented the statement as the polar opposite to the notion of " The Joker looks aweful so the movie must be aweful" message I was confronting. Getting worked up when I answer it that even they might not know if the movie is good or bad despite them being positive about it, Then you shouldn't have presented it as you clearly meant it as a retorichal question and my answer to it would be irrelevant. Which again isn't helping the discussion.
Secondly, No you don't need to see a whole movie to get the general idea if it suits your taste or not. This is you taking things overboard since you don't seem to see a difference between seeing a picture of a character in a movie and the entirety of a movie, And since this also wraps up the last part of your post, There is a reason you get trailers of a movie, You get to see some tidbits of the movie. Did they interest you? Did they make you decide against it? Very well then. Did a friend of yours see it and you know you have similar taste? Did he like it or dislike it? Why?
These are valid ways to determine if you want to see a specific movie, Infact if you refuse to see the movie based on the picture or if people even want to see it based solely on our discussion. Very well.
But I'll explain my meaning once again since it's clearly either taken out of context or it's actually going over some heads as too strange.
I don't mind if people reject the movie based on the look of the new Joker or if they want to see it more. What I am saying is that nobody, not even I, can look at that picture and say with 100% certainty that the movie will be good or "shit" because it is simply the look of the Joker. Just like nobody can look at a single screenshot of a game and make the same verdict, or even of a ingame character for the sake of this discussion, Just like one can't look at the cover of a book and make the same verdict.
And doing so is to me stupid, and if you do it.
Then okay.
First off, NO ONE here expressed a "the Joker looks awful so the movie must be awful" message. I read the replies again just to check and literally not one single person expressed such a message in the first place. So what the hell are you going on about?
"I don't mind if people reject the movie based on the look of the new Joker or if they want to see it more. What I am saying is that nobody, not even I, can look at that picture and say with 100% certainty that the movie will be good or "shit" because it is simply the look of the Joker."
No one here said that. Again, not one single person. Why are you "confronting" a message that no one even expressed in the first place? Since I was correct in that you actually WERE confronting other people's thoughts, and since the closest that anyone came to saying that was simply saying that the Joker looks like shit, it sure as hell looked as if you were directing your comment towards anyone who was complaining about the Joker's look. If that's not what you meant, then fine. But I still have to wonder WHO your comment was directed towards when NO ONE expressed the sentiment that you were criticizing.
First off, NO ONE here expressed a "the Joker looks awful so the movie must be awful" message. I read the replies again just to check and literally not one single person expressed such a message in the first place. So what the hell are you going on about?
"I don't mind if people reject the movie based on the look of the new Joker or if they want to see it more. What I am saying is that nobody, not even I, can look at that picture and say with 100% certainty that the movie will be good or "shit" because it is simply the look of the Joker."
No one here said that. Again, not one single person. Why are you "confronting" a message that no one even expressed in the first place? Since I was correct in that you actually WERE confronting other people's thoughts, and since the closest that anyone came to saying that was simply saying that the Joker looks like shit, it sure as hell looked as if you were directing your comment towards anyone who was complaining about the Joker's look. If that's not what you meant, then fine. But I still have to wonder WHO your comment was directed towards when NO ONE expressed the sentiment that you were criticizing.
Very well, Let us do take a stroll back memory lane.
Now my initial remark was simply
"I'm gonna go on a ledge here and actually judge the Joker portrayal by Leto based on his acting when I see the movie, Rather then slam him and the entire movie based on one picture.
Cause I'm smart like that." Pretty straight forward isn't it?, And something I don't think many disagree with. And your reply to that was?
"Man, screw that. WB only released this picture because they WANT people judging the Joker based on this one picture. It's just that they're hoping that the reaction is more "man, this looks great" rather than "man, this looks just awful." So yeah, people should say that this looks like shit if it looks like shit. If poor little WB has a problem with people saying that what's been shown so far looks like shit, then they should have been more careful not to show something that looks like shit."
Which I replied with the whole don't judge a book by it's cover and apparantly our tussle began. But let us look back to your first reply. It does seem like you are saying one should judge the movie by the picture, if not the actor, and something about WB's feeling getting hurt. Perhaps it was not what you meant, perhaps I didn't see the underlying message between the lines. And frankly the whole " Who are you confronting?" question does seem to have a simple answer. In this case, it's you.
For the simple sake that you replied to me with the comment and more or less started with " Screw that" and added later on "People should say this looks like shit if it looks like shit" My comment never started off as a confrontation, simply a " I'll wait until I see more to see if I think it looks good or not" You began the discussion, or confrontation if we'll call it that. You disagreed with me, I disagreed with you. You brought in " People should judge based on the picture", I replied that it was stupid if they did.
And so the snowball got rolling and here we are. Now what? I vote that we agree to disagree and that you think I am a massive idiot. Cause quite frankly..is there really a point to this discussion? Do you honestly want us to derail this further? Tell you what, If that is the case then I won't participate. Perhaps I misread your comment, if so then so be it.
I'm more interested to see how Margot Robbie pulls off Harley Quinn. I'm sure Jared Leto will be fine. Right now I think trying to match or out-performe Heath Ledger would probably do more harm than good. Being... well, different, that's probably a safer route.
Plus, the tats will probably be covered most of the time. The character will live and die on Leto's performance. That's what people should be concerned about.
Plus, the tats will probably be covered most of the time. The character will live and die on Leto's performance. That's what people should be concerned about.
That's not "crazy". That's the equivalent of "trying to look crazy."
It's the equivalent of a 16 year old high school kid wearing a t-shirt that says "I can't get the voices out of my head."
However, I agree that Leto's performance is what's gonna sell the character. That doesn't counter the claim that this is a horrible fucking look for The Joker, and that we should be a little bit concerned about the fact that people thought this was a good idea long enough for that look to get this far. After all, the character won't ONLY live and die on Leto's performance. The character will also live and die based on the writing and directing. As in, no matter how good of a performance an actor puts in, the character can still be neutered if that actor has nothing good to work with. I haven't seen much of Jared Leto's work, but I've had no problems with him so far. He seems to be fully capable. But let's not put this all on him. There are still writers and directors and producers who have a HUGE sway in what happens in a movie. If this Joker sucks, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that The Joker failed because of Leto. In part, sure, but there's also the fact that these characters tend to be (to a large degree) fleshed out before an actor is even signed to the role. Scripts are often written before an actor is ever attached to the character. There's only so much an actor can do, so let's not put this ALL on Leto.
In any case, this shit made it this far. And either no one thought it was a bad idea, or anyone who thought it was a bad idea either wasn't made aware of this shit or voiced their objections and were overruled. That doesn't mean the movie will suck and it doesn't mean this will be a bad interpretation of The Joker, but it's a warning sign. It's a sign that someone who has a significant amount of control over this movie very well just may not be "getting it".
Log in to comment