To be fair, I think we can expect more from the people behind BvS than Uwe Boll.

 

My point is that Oscar winner doesn't equal Auto-win. There are tons of actors with Oscars that have screwed up roles, or wind up with really bad scripts, or crappy directors, or incompetent editors, all of which make the actor look bad, even though they're capable of putting forth a great performance.

Ben Kingsley is just most known for doing a lot of these. I look over his career and cringe a lot, knowing he's a really good actor.

 

Halle Berry and Catwoman might be a more relevant comparison.

 

I actually think the look would work if the tattoos weren't so flipping literal. People have been cosplaying punk versions of Batverse chars for years, so I've acclimatized.

That said, if he doesn't dawn some form of purple business suit, I will be severely disappointed. In my mind, The Joker without a suit isn't really the Joker.

 

David Ayer's track record is impressive. He's just finished Fury (written and directed by him). He's writing and directing suicide squad which means at least the two are in alignment with each other. Plus Jared Leto has a good track record as well.

Also Bloodrayne was late without any redrafts and then the director changed some of it.

I have faith.

 

Ayer, does have some really good movies under his belt. I agree.

I'm just saying, everyone also has movies that weren't so great and sometimes embarrassing. Ayer's is writing S.W.A.T and directing Sabotage. My point, once again, Oscar =/= Auto-win.

The trailer is not much to go on (mostly action stuff, which I guess is what sells) Seeing Will Smith shooting off two pistols while diving to the side promotes flashbacks to Bad Boys, which is never a good sign.

I'll wait till something more comes out. I do hope it does well, don't misunderstand. I love a good comic to movie... movie. I'm just glad it's not another Batman/Superman reboot from DC.

 

That's ridiculous. Halle Berry didn't even deserve to win that Oscar, it was just because she was a minority and the Academy decided to give it to two black people that year. Denzel Washington, of course, did deserve it. Halle Berry has never been that great, but Catwoman was especially wretched. I think Jared Leto could pull it off, but it'll all come down to the script.

Also also, it's unfair to bring up Heath Ledger. The guy was a genius and had one of the best acting performances of all time. He made the movie great just by being in it. Batman Begins was pretty good, but... not the same.

 

QFT.

After all, we don't want DC ripping off Masterpieces.

What up Mike Lowrey.

 

Okay, some more recent examples:

Julianne Moore
Terrence Howard
Kate Winslet

all for Movie 43

Almost all the other actors in the thing have all been nominated for Oscars as well.

Naomi Watts
Greg Kinnear
Halle Berry (again)
Uma Thurman

For Superbabies 2 we have Jon Voight

For Gigli we had an appearence from Al Pacino

Battlefield Earth with Forrest Whitaker

Nobody seems to be immune. This was just a cursory look at the worst films since 2000.

Even Heath Ledger did that ridiculous A Knight's Tale.

 

I was going to be angry about bad mouthing A Knight's Tale, but then I realized I was thinking of the other (but significantly better) movie about knights that came out in 2001, "Black Knight".

I'm remaining cautiously optimistic about the new Joker. I recognize that it's probably not going to be good (especially after the shitshow that was Young Justice's reimagined Joker), but I want to see it anyways.

I just hope they get rid of the tattoo that says "damaged". Fuck that thing in particular. And the grill fuck that too.

 

Could Leto make a great Joker?
Sure.

Does that picture look goofy as shit?
Absolutely.

The grill does make him come off a bit too 'gangsta' for the Joker, in my opinion. Maybe they think today's youth can't understand that someone is a dangerous outlaw unless you somehow connect it to gangster-rapper fashion?

One hopes that the "Damaged" tattoo is either nixed before it ever gets to the set, or it's hidden by his hair 99% of the time. There's a reason hardly anyone, even people with tons of tats, gets facial tattoos: It is soooo easy for them to come off as looking stupid... especially when it's a word written across your face.

Maybe the bottom line for me is that the Joker may try hard to cause mayhem, but he doesn't have to try hard to look like he's crazy, because he is crazy - it's effortless. To me, the whole tats everywhere look just screams, "I'm barely out of high school and I'm trying reeeeally hard to look crazy." Plus, tats are so ubiquitous these days that I thought society had moved ever-so-slightly beyond the 'tattoos automatically = dangerous outsider' line of thought. Maybe it has and that's why they felt the need to just spell out "dangerous" right across his face.

And that's part of the point, really: Tats are the way everyone is trying to look different, now. Your mother is getting inked. The Joker, if he wanted to try and look different, would probably find a better, more frightening avenue than what every other girl on campus is doing.

The Joker is already on this third twisted plot of the day while Try-Hard Joker is still shopping for plaid bondage pants at Hot Topic, because he wants to look edgy and antisocial, and isn't too fussed about quality.

"Mom, will this get me noticed by 'The Bat?' All the cool criminals know that you're nobody until 'The Bat' comes after you."

Anyway... On the acting front, it has the potential to be good. As far as appearance goes, let's hope he spends most of his time wearing a shirt: Something with long sleeves.

 

i would have preferred if instead of tattoes they were words carved into his flesh by him.

One, makes you think of a teenager being rebellious, the other of someone who is nuts.

 

Not mutually exclusive.

 

I'm not a comic fan. I haven't read any of the batman comics except The Killing Joke. The only thing I've watched were the animated series when I was younger. As far as the new joker is concerned, I'm pretty glad we're seeing something different. My tune might have been similar to most of yours if I had any previous experience with the universe, god knows I would have had a fit if for some reason they had given Harry Potter tattoos in the movies.

I think it's a good idea to make Leto's Joker vastly different from the previous two to make a clean break from Ledger's. It hasn't been a long time and if they had aimed to keep it too similar, I believe a lot of people would have hold Leto's performance to Ledger's one, which could lead to a lot of disappointment. By making it so drastically different, they're opening more possibilities for Leto to present a new joker. Nicholson was a sophisticated gangster, Heath was an anarchist and Leto, if I had to hazard a guess, is a murdering psychopath.

As for the look itself, except for the damaged one (which I think is a bit over the top), I don't see what's so wrong with the tattoos. Like, really. For all we know it's a result of his journey through madness, trying to find himself. Or it's simply the result of a rough childhood and a rebellious streak. We could argue all day about whether or not it fits him, but we wouldn't know because we have no idea what this Joker's backstory is all about. I, for one, will be glad to learn of it through that movie.

 

Less tats, more lip plates.

 

A Knight's Tale was fucking awesome though.

iirc In Movie 43 most of the actors acted in the movie because of their friendship with the director or the producer.

 

Don't you be dissing A Knight's Tale. That shit was awesome.

 

This explains so much about you.

 

It's a good movie. No need to go all hipster movie snob.

I really liked that soundtrack in a movie set in that period. So unique. Worked too, imo.

 

Because I don't like a movie I'm a hipster movie snob. Yeah, that makes all sorts of sense. :facepalm