The Joker Thread - Part 1

[Kane52630]

 

[Marvel united]

Fam, he was in the final movie for two minutes. Was the scene unnecessary? Perhaps. Was it one of the weaker parts of the film? Sure. But the whole "saturation" complaint simply does not hold up here. Especially when you have people out there who didn't even know it was supposed to be The Joker.

My point is that he shouldn't have been in the movie at all. Instead of immediately throwing yet ANOTHER version of the Joker at audiences, Reeves should've given the think tank more time to bake in the oven to come up with something more imaginative, and perhaps more unconventional, like Ledger was in 2007.

There's an old saying-- "Absence makes the heart grow fonder", and this couldn't be more true for media, especially when a consumer base is being bombarded with several different versions of the same flavor of ice cream at once. People forget that there was a near 20 year gap between Nicholson and Ledger, an entire generation difference, that helped fueled the hype for the Dark Knight.

The simple fact of the matter is, audiences are not excited to see the Joker anymore, especially one that feels as derivative as this one.

Not even gonna touch the last part of your post, for reasons that should be obvious.

Obvious that this is the takeaway a lot of people have after watching the scene? It's not just me. A slow talking, philosophical serial killer with scars and grungy clown makeup. Honestly, the only difference I can say is that this one sounds like he's recently hit puberty not a fan

 

[AndyTrevino]

You say it's a "fact" yet the character is still a gigantic money maker lol.

And he doesn't seem to have any makeup on his face except for the hair dye.

Movie monster Joker is something we've never truly gotten before. And, let's face it, this kind of uber-grotesque Joker design was inevitable at some point or another, among all the chalk white-skinned and face paint Jokers they usually alternate between. The fact that it's a deformity rather than some Glasgow smile is already a nice change of pace.

 

[Boom]

My point is that he shouldn't have been in the movie at all. Instead of immediately throwing yet ANOTHER version of the Joker at audiences, Reeves should've given the think tank more time to bake in the oven to come up with something more imaginative, and perhaps more unconventional, like Ledger was in 2007.

There's an old saying-- "Absence makes the heart grow fonder", and this couldn't be more true for media, especially when a consumer base is being bombarded with several different versions of the same flavor of ice cream at once. People forget that there was a near 20 year gap between Nicholson and Ledger, an entire generation difference, that helped fueled the hype for the Dark Knight.

The simple fact of the matter is, audiences are not excited to see the Joker anymore, especially one that feels as derivative as this one.

The views and trend activity this scene has gotten would suggest otherwise. Brah, by the time we see this character again in a significant capacity, it will have been at least five years since the last major appearance of the character (2019). And for an audience that is "not excited" about this character anymore, he sure does make bank literally every single time he features in a movie. And, to once again stress, we have no idea what capacity Reeves intends to use him in. Maybe he's the main antagonist of a sequel, maybe he's just one of many villains in a sequel, maybe he only ever shows up in a spinoff. Complaining about fatigue when we are completely oblivious to how he will be used in the future sounds like complaining for the sake of it to me.

Obvious that this is the takeaway a lot of people have after watching the scene? It's not just me. A slow talking, philosophical serial killer with scars and grungy clown makeup. Honestly, the only difference I can say is that this one sounds like he's recently hit puberty not a fan

Now you're just being willfully disingenuous. Come on. The only difference is the tenor of his voice? The only difference?

Ledger didn't have patchy short hair (practically bald), Ledger didn't have significant scarring and blistering all over his head and face, Keoghan isn't wearing grungy clown makeup, Keoghan's mouth is naturally shaped by a genetic condition and not a physical mutilation.

I don't know if the obscurity of the glass is playing tricks on your eyes (dark eye sockets + big red smile = Ledger), but objectively there are significant design differences between these two.

 

[Marvel united]

You say it's a "fact" yet the character is still a gigantic money maker lol.

And he doesn't seem to have any makeup on his face except for the hair dye.

Movie monster Joker is something we've never truly gotten before. And, let's face it, this kind of uber-grotesque Joker design was inevitable at some point or another, among all the chalk white-skinned and face paint Jokers they usually alternate between. The fact that it's a deformity rather than some Glasgow smile is already a nice change of pace.

The thing about it is, this doesn't feel like a "monster". This doesn't feel like the Bogeyman, Michael Myers-esque take on the Joker that we've been talking about for the longest time. This feels like an edgy kid who watched 'The Dark Knight' one too many times, did something crazy, and ended up in a mental asylum. The whole thing just feels "off".

There's nothing scary about it.

The views and trend activity this scene has gotten would suggest otherwise. Brah, by the time we see this character again in a significant capacity, it will have been at least five years since the last major appearance of the character (2019).

You say this like 5 years is some long stretch of time, when it's barely enough for people to get over the honeymoon phase of Phoenix's portrayel being cemented into pop culture (like Ledger was).

You're also not taking into account the very real possibility of a Philips JOKER sequel, which is just gonna dillute the character even more if Reeves also pursues the character in the sequel (not saying he will).

And for an audience that is "not excited" about this character anymore, he sure does make bank literally every single time he features in a movie.

But the success for each one of these examples can be broken down to a specific catch, that, at the time, was wholly new to audiences.

- The Dark Knight reinvented the Joker after a 20 year hiatus, grounding him, and his dichotomy with Batman in deep philosophy, all of which was spearheaded by an academy award winning performance. Ledger defines the character even to this to day

- Suicide Squad was another (controversial) reinvention that introduced audiences to the Mad Love aspect of Joker with Harley Quinn, which had previously never been explored, and which the market was hungry for, given Harley's popularity

- JOKER, once again, reinvented the character, this time taking inspiration from the 'Killing Joke' and classics like 'King Of Comedy'), grounding the character in humanity and contemporary conversations about mental health & class inequity. 'JOKER' was a deconstruction of the character's icongraphy.

All 3 of these Jokers are radically different from each other, in mannerisms, aesthetic, and even the THEMES they explore. They all brought something new to the table to grab audiences.

The Elephant Man angle that Reeves is going for, feels like a desperate, lip service-y attempt by Reeves to justify telling the story again -- because it doesn't feel like that at all in execution. To me, it feels like a byproduct of Reeves rushing to establish a Joker in his Gotham, and not having enough time come up with something truly imaginative and fresh.

This is what happens when you rush things. The Joker did not need to be seen for at least another 5 years.

And, to once again stress, we have no idea what capacity Reeves intends to use him in. Maybe he's the main antagonist of a sequel, maybe he's just one of many villains in a sequel, maybe he only ever shows up in a spinoff. Complaining about fatigue when we are completely oblivious to how he will be used in the future sounds like complaining for the sake of it to me.

But my complaint isn't about usage, it's the character's existence in itself.

Why did another version of the Joker NEED to be established so early, when Reeves has a plethora of Rogues at his fingertips. I understand that every filmaker is gonna be chomping at the bit to get their hands on the most iconic elements of a pre existing story, but when your adaptation of said property is like the 4th/5th reboot in a long line of franchise films, the burden is on you to seperate your take from all the others, and if you can't do that in a satisfactory manner, then you have no business telling the story at all. No reason to tell it again..

Now you're just being willfully obtuse. Come on. The only difference is the tenor of his voice? The only difference?

Ledger didn't have patchy short hair (practically bald), Ledger didn't have significant scarring and blistering all over his head and face, Keoghan isn't wearing grungy clown makeup, Keoghan's mouth is naturally shaped by a genetic condition and not a physical mutilation.

The context of these design choices don't mean anything when the design itself looks like if somebody set Heath Ledger's Joker on fire.

It's nothing more than an even more grotesque, more extreme ideation of the same aesthetic choices that Nolan made with his version of the character. Reeves needed more time to think

I don't know if the obscurity of the glass is playing tricks on your eyes (dark eye sockets + big red smile = Ledger), but objectively there are significant design differences between these two.

Ofc there are some differences. The problem is, both designs are cut from the same cloth, the same design philosophy, just one is a more extreme version of the other

 

[Boom]

You do you, man. I suspect Reeves gave his version plenty of thought, got the actor he wanted, and has a plan up his sleeve for what he's going to do with the character. Sorry you don't like it, but I think you are being extremely dismissive and reductive without a whole lot of data to go off of. I'm simply not aligned with you on this so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[emielaen]

Not a soul agrees Mr. Marvel sir

 

[Jekecy]

Why did another version of the Joker NEED to be established so early, when Reeves has a plethora of Rogues at his fingertips. I understand that every filmaker is gonna be chomping at the bit to get their hands on the most iconic elements of a pre existing story, but when your adaptation of said property is like the 4th/5th reboot in a long line of franchise films, the burden is on you to seperate your take from all the others, and if you can't do that in a satisfactory manner, then you have no business telling the story at all. No reason to tell it again..

You don't think you're jumping the gun here?

This universe's Joker is merely in an introductory scene(s), there is absolutely zero content to explain his role in this series. You can form that opinion when he's made at least one complete appearance, but certainly not now.

In any case Reeves deserves the benefit of the doubt here. He's an articulate and intensive filmmaker, so regardless of your opinions on the character's early appearance, I would leave a high probability he's been hard at work on nailing the fine details of this Joker's trajectory. You don't work as hard as you do on the world building without also accounting for its inhabitants.

Why Joker so early? When is he isn't? In nearly every major iteration I can think of, Joker's there at the very beginning of Batman's career.

What he haven't seen before are both Batman and Joker running on parallel tracks slowly building up to their iconic selves we're all familiar with. Considering they are the two de faco "leads" of this whole franchise, that's absolutely a worthy story to tell. It doesn't have to take the spotlight away from other villains as his screen time would be provided piecemeal across films (and possibly TV). We'd be getting a Joker with a full long-term arc, extensive screen time, and still leaves room to play with the rogues gallery. That's much more of a fresh approach to tackling this character than simply delaying his appearance for yet another Batman/Joker-centric solo film several years down the line.

 

[Boom]

You don't think you're jumping the gun here?

This universe's Joker is merely in an introductory scene(s), there is absolutely zero content to explain his role in this series. You can form that opinion when he's made at least one complete appearance, but certainly not now.

In any case Reeves deserves the benefit of the doubt here. He's an articulate and intensive filmmaker, so regardless of your opinions on the character's early appearance, I would leave a high probability he's been hard at work on nailing the fine details of this Joker's trajectory. You don't work as hard as you do on the world building without also accounting for its inhabitants.

Why Joker so early? When is he isn't? In nearly every major iteration I can think of, Joker's there at the very beginning of Batman's career.

What he haven't seen before are both Batman and Joker running on parallel tracks slowly building up to their iconic selves we're all familiar with. Considering they are the two de faco "leads" of this whole franchise, that's absolutely a worthy story to tell. It doesn't have to take the spotlight away from other villains as his screen time would be provided piecemeal across films (and possibly TV). We'd be getting a Joker with a full long-term arc, extensive screen time, and still leaves room to play with the rogues gallery. That's much more of a fresh approach to tackling this character than simply delaying his appearance for yet another Batman/Joker-centric solo film several years down the line.

That's exactly right. A long-term arc. Keoghan has the opportunity to be the first cinematic Joker with multiple appearances across films and perhaps even TV shows.

Multi-film arc. An established relationship with Batman. Interaction with other rogues in an ensemble. Lot of potential here, and fresh.

 

[Art Vandelay]

So in regards to Joker's appearance, Reeves said

"He can never stop smiling. And it made Mike [Marino] and I think about — I was talking about The Elephant Man because I love David Lynch. And I was like, 'Well, maybe there's something here where it's not something where he fell in a vat of chemicals or it's not the [Christopher] Nolan thing where he has these scars and we don't know where they came from," Reeves explained. "What if this is something that he's been touched by from birth and that he has a congenital disease that refuses to let him stop smiling? And he's had this very dark reaction to it, and he's had to spend a life of people looking at him in a certain way and he knows how to get into your head.'"

What's a bit unclear to me is that he's outright saying Joker didn't fall into a vat of chemicals, and he focuses mostly on Joker's smile. So does this mean the green hair is also part of his condition? Or why it's so patchy? What about all of the lumpy scarring leading right into his scalp? Or the fact his skin is also almost white? What about his bloody hands?

I think his smile being due to a congenital disease is a reasonable answer, but it seems like his entire appearance is due to this disease. So is he saying his smile is not due to chemicals, or is he saying everything about his physical appearance is not due to chemicals?

 

[AndyTrevino]

So in regards to Joker's appearance, Reeves said



What's a bit unclear to me is that he's outright saying Joker didn't fall into a vat of chemicals, and he focuses mostly on Joker's smile. So does this mean the green hair is also part of his condition? Or why it's so patchy? What about all of the lumpy scarring leading right into his scalp? Or the fact his skin is also almost white? What about his bloody hands?

I think his smile being due to a congenital disease is a reasonable answer, but it seems like his entire appearance is due to this disease. So is he saying his smile is not due to chemicals, or is he saying everything about his physical appearance is not due to chemicals?

The lumps are most likely part of the disease too, since Reeves also name-dropped the Elephant Man.
The pale skin is probably natural, like albinism or something similar.
Ditto for the patchy, mangy hair. As for why it's green, I'm gonna guess he had hair dye smuggled in.

The bloody fingers.......I have no idea what's going on there. I'm gonna guess that's self-inflicted even though that seems just a tad out of character? Maybe to emphasize his masochism?

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

The bloody fingers.......I have no idea what's going on there. I'm gonna guess that's self-inflicted even though that seems just a tad out of character? Maybe to emphasize his masochism?

"Finguhpriiintssss."

 

[LaRataAlada]

Loving this new Joker iteration and performance thus far.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

So in regards to Joker's appearance, Reeves said



What's a bit unclear to me is that he's outright saying Joker didn't fall into a vat of chemicals, and he focuses mostly on Joker's smile. So does this mean the green hair is also part of his condition? Or why it's so patchy? What about all of the lumpy scarring leading right into his scalp? Or the fact his skin is also almost white? What about his bloody hands?

I think his smile being due to a congenital disease is a reasonable answer, but it seems like his entire appearance is due to this disease. So is he saying his smile is not due to chemicals, or is he saying everything about his physical appearance is not due to chemicals?

He could just be referring to the context of the movies, what's given him his "smile". In 89 Jack had a permanent smile from the chemicals/botched surgery. So the smile this time is something he was born with but everything else.... I feel wouldn't make sense WITHOUT the chemicals but we'll see. They could end up leaving it out entirely (which would annoy me) or it could play some other part in it

 

[Art Vandelay]

The lumps are most likely part of the disease too, since Reeves also name-dropped the Elephant Man.
The pale skin is probably natural, like albinism or something similar.
Ditto for the patchy, mangy hair. As for why it's green, I'm gonna guess he had hair dye smuggled in.

The bloody fingers.......I have no idea what's going on there. I'm gonna guess that's self-inflicted even though that seems just a tad out of character? Maybe to emphasize his masochism?

Hmmm......poor guy can't catch a break if he has to put up with all of that.

Regarding his hair, I guess I'm looking at Arkham as if it's a regular prison with regular prison rules, which is why I just assume his hair is not dyed. Because prisoners aren't allowed to change their hair like that, and especially, in a place like Arkham, where they would want to discourage the inmates from maintaining there criminal aliases. And because it's already part of comic book canon to begin with.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

I'm assuming Reeves means the fall into the chemical bath didn't cause the smile. Maybe he could've still fallen into vat, causing his skin condition.

 

[C Prometheus]

So in regards to Joker's appearance, Reeves said

What's a bit unclear to me is that he's outright saying Joker didn't fall into a vat of chemicals, and he focuses mostly on Joker's smile. So does this mean the green hair is also part of his condition? Or why it's so patchy? What about all of the lumpy scarring leading right into his scalp? Or the fact his skin is also almost white? What about his bloody hands?

I think his smile being due to a congenital disease is a reasonable answer, but it seems like his entire appearance is due to this disease. So is he saying his smile is not due to chemicals, or is he saying everything about his physical appearance is not due to chemicals?

Hmmm......poor guy can't catch a break if he has to put up with all of that.

Regarding his hair, I guess I'm looking at Arkham as if it's a regular prison with regular prison rules, which is why I just assume his hair is not dyed. Because prisoners aren't allowed to change their hair like that, and especially, in a place like Arkham, where they would want to discourage the inmates from maintaining there criminal aliases. And because it's already part of comic book canon to begin with.

I'm assuming Reeves means the fall into the chemical bath didn't cause the smile. Maybe he could've still fallen into vat, causing his skin condition.

He didn't fall into a vat of chemicals, guys.

You can tell this Joker dyed his hair (somehow), because the roots of his hair and what faint traces we can see of his eyebrows seem to be some shade of dirty blonde or light brown hair. Just look at this spiffy new gif that @Kane52630 made for us!

Everything else can easily be chalked to being a part of whatever the heck Joker's congenital disease is. Reeves is focusing on the smile in his quotes, but between him repeatedly ruling out the "He fell in a vat of acid" origin and referring back to The Elephant Man multiple times, it's clear that deformity extended to the rest of his appearance (save for his green hair).

The overt visual inspiration of John Hurt's prosthetic work in The Elephant Man (and of course the real life Joseph Merrick and other individuals suffering from similar congenital diseases) is very apparent if you actually stop and look up what Reeves is namedropping.



On an unrelated note, go watch David Lynch's The Elephant Man if you've never seen it before. It's a beautiful film and I love that Reeves is a fan of Lynch's work.

P.S. If I had to guess, the reason his fingers are all mangled and bloodied is that he probably has some sort of chronic itching as part of the disease. Might even be why a huge chunk of the top of his head is balding.

 

[craigaat]

You don't think you're jumping the gun here?

This universe's Joker is merely in an introductory scene(s), there is absolutely zero content to explain his role in this series. You can form that opinion when he's made at least one complete appearance, but certainly not now.

In any case Reeves deserves the benefit of the doubt here. He's an articulate and intensive filmmaker, so regardless of your opinions on the character's early appearance, I would leave a high probability he's been hard at work on nailing the fine details of this Joker's trajectory. You don't work as hard as you do on the world building without also accounting for its inhabitants.

Why Joker so early? When is he isn't? In nearly every major iteration I can think of, Joker's there at the very beginning of Batman's career.

What he haven't seen before are both Batman and Joker running on parallel tracks slowly building up to their iconic selves we're all familiar with. Considering they are the two de faco "leads" of this whole franchise, that's absolutely a worthy story to tell. It doesn't have to take the spotlight away from other villains as his screen time would be provided piecemeal across films (and possibly TV). We'd be getting a Joker with a full long-term arc, extensive screen time, and still leaves room to play with the rogues gallery. That's much more of a fresh approach to tackling this character than simply delaying his appearance for yet another Batman/Joker-centric solo film several years down the line.

This last paragraph is what has me excited, and I haven't even seen the film yet.

 

[The Lazarus Pit]

Guys I love this Joker so much. My favorite character finally looks the way I have wanted him to. I’m so happy with this.

 

[TheGDBatman]

I think his grotesque appearance really plays into the horror qualities of this world. It makes me excited to see what Reeves can cook up for other potential villains, whether it's Clayface, Mr. Freeze, etc.

 

[AndyTrevino]

I usually don't really care for gory, overtly monster-y Joker designs but something about it just....fits this world so well.

 

[Kane52630]

You know it didn't occur to me until now and I'm sure someone already pointed it out, but that design and how they shot him reminded me of A Serious House on Serious Earth

 

[craigaat]

I'd love it if we didn't get a full, clear shot of his face well into the next film, or even the film after that.

 

[Boom]

You know it didn't occur to me until now and I'm sure someone already pointed it out, but that design and how they shot him reminded me of A Serious House on Serious Earth

 

[Boom]