Jared Leto edgy joker gotten edgier

What I've heard of ICP is infinitely better than that cringe right there. Fuck, that's like the picture definition of try-hard.

Batman beyond return of the Joker and Frank Miller dark knight return. Zack synder new 52 joker is a rip off of Frank Miller. But far more edgy. But with far less homoeroticism. Frank Miller made it no secret his joker gets off sexually from violences.

Not even tumblr likes him.

I think Reddit likes him. But mostly because Jared Leto a nillhist.

Sarah Essen was pregnant at the time.

Wasn't that retcon to be Jim Gordon son dressed as the Joker?

Nah. Jim Gordon's son tried to kill his own mom, Barbara Gordon senior.

Most media adaptations are rather faithful to the character. Batman '66, Batman '89, BTAS, and BATB are in character for the most part. Since he has about 75 years of characterization, you would have to try really hard to fuck up The Joker.

Of course, you really can't expect any of these fucks to actually read comics outside of the most surface of casual bait.

The No-Man's Land ending was bullshit. Lazy, melodramatic bullshit.

spriiiiiing breeaaaaaaakkk
FOREVAHHHHHH

Doesn't the Joker like to uses explosives in pretty much every incarnation?

Once you bomb a bunch of buildings, you're going to have killed a few babies and pregnant women.

Comics Joker has already killed babies and pregnant women, yes.

What's weird, though, is that i've never seen him having sex. The only time i can remember happening is JOKER, that Brian Azzarello's graphic novel, but that's outside normal continuity.

Isn't anyone who acknowledges that there's no objective morality in the universe? It's not that big a deal.

I know this is going to be a controversial statement, but the truest Joker is probably Cesar Romero's from the 1966 Batman series. The series adapted several Golden Age Joker stories, his performance is straight from the Golden Age, and as it was the first live-action appearance of The Joker, it had the benefit of being a literal interpretation before the late eighties muddled what was considered "true" Joker. Nearly every single actor who played the Joker since, from Jack Nicholson to Mark Hamill, took notes from Romero's Joker.

Part of what makes talking about The Joker so divisive is that we're living in an age where the last 30 years have been non-stop revisionism about everything that is Batman. Fans have been repainting the past to justify the present, with DC's encouragement.

Gordon, you spineless buffoon.

Wasn't almost ALL of No Man's Land retarded? It was the biggest "how can this exist in the larger DC Universe?" things ever, because Superman and the rest of the Justice League wouldn't actually just say "oh, Batman would rather handle things on his own, all these DYING PEOPLE don't need us!", even if the government had somehow abandoned a major city due to a disaster.

And then you get the Joker kidnapping babies to destroy the last of Gotham's hope. It was a terrible event before terrible events were EVERY EVENT.

The government didn't abandon Gotham City. They fucking QUARANTINED Gotham City. They literally made into Escape From New York, so the Justice League helping Gotham would've been seen a criminal act against the US Government. Superman did try to help improve the living conditions in secret, but the people just couldn't accept free help after being so long under gangland feudalism.

To be fair though, most of it's citizens did abandon city after Nicholas Scratch's massive PR/Super-villain blitz to convince the nation that Gotham was a hotbed of criminals and lunatics not worth saving, which of course lead it being declared a No-Man's Land in the first place.

Now I'm not disagreeing that the premise of No-Man's Land was ridiculous, but calling it a terrible event is disingenuous. It was contrived, but there was some good stuff out of it. It wasn't a complete shit fest like BRUCE WAYNE: FUGITIVE. It's main problems are the same problems DC still has: lack of proper planning. DC can't start or finish an event worth shit.

the ideal joker is a criminal-themed clown
what we frequently get is a clown-themed criminal

while I feel that Mark Hamill perfected the character, Cesar Romero just had so much FUN

and I doubt he ever went into a depression over the impact of his performance

bonus points for 60s Batman in general: all the actors in the were able to deliver their lines with a straight face. Think about that

Fun Fact: Heath Ledger died of an overdose of sleeping pills due to insomnia. Cesar Romero could will himself to sleep at any time, using this ability to take quick cat-naps between takes and earning him the envy of his cast-mates.

Also, Cesar Romero was 59 when he was cast as The Joker. He said numerous times before his death that playing The Joker was a blast even though he had no idea why they chose him to play the character. I have to agree that the casting was bizarre. Watch him in the original Ocean's Eleven sometime and the difference will fucking blow your mind.

Tom Baker was scouted for Doctor Who after he delivered an amazing performance as the villain Prince Koura in The Golden Voyage of Sinbad
Before that he played Rasputin

Actors get new directions in typecasts for the weirdest things

I was watching the old batman show recently and I realized something. The tone really fits the characters so much better. The Joker is a nut that dresses up as a clown in a purple flamboyant suit, doing small time silly crimes like this fits the character so much more. Batman dresses like a bat and has a sidekick in red tights. Enough said there. At some point writers made all these colorful heroes super serious, which they never should have been. There is a humor to their designs and concepts, so taking them and making them these dramatic and serious characters conflicts with their initial conception horribly, we've just gotten used to it.

...

...

That's pretty accurate. DC and probably even Marvel should never have tried to edge up their characters to make them look like real characters. They should've just been things. Instead they evolved into overly serious tryhard fests which eventually turned them all into overused commercial properties rather than characters.

you'd think it was a relatively simple thing, but how many of us born in the 80's-90's were introduced to the more"dramatic" costumed hero? Hell, I was introduced to comics via Spider-man who has always had a bit of real world drama in there… but then you realize how silly the whole thing is. The only time serious costumed heroes sort of worked was in Watchmen, but only because the Alan Moore made it a point to show that the heroes started taking themselves to seriously for what they were, it also played off how costumed heroes would have worked in a semi-real world setting. At some point the silly aspect of having a guy in a bat costume take on a clown was completely forgotten. Heck, most comics don't even do the secret identity thing any more.

I guess they had to find a way to shake up the formula at some point, though they made the mistake people often do and instead of building on the foundation, they threw it out for what they thought was selling at the time. Frank Zappa explains that natural fall pretty well.

According to Adam West, Cesar Romero never flubbed a line. Consider that when you see stuff like
and

I've been of the opinion that superheroes are inherently ridiculous. It's something that naturally occurs when you're dealing with a concept that bizarre. Eventually you'll have to find it humorous. I think the sign of good talent is when they accept that underlying fact and run with it anyway. BTAS, BATB, and JLU are great shows partly because they didn't fight that fact.

Truth be told, I honestly wouldn't have had a problem with Jared Leto's wigger Joker if he acted like Romero or Hamill. Then all of this shitty tattoos and teeth would've been HILARIOUS.

Nice repeating numerals, I'll honor it with a WebM version.

If he was good enough for Kirby, he's good enough for Holla Forums.

You're right user, the following 'serious' stories shouldn't exist!

Because comics are for kids, right? It's not as if any of the above are at all respected. Their superhero subject matter drives away anyone who isn't a drooling neckbeard!

Respected by whom, capeshit enthusiasts? Capeshit enthusiasts are the sole reason of capeshit being shit in the first place.

wait the authority is respected? I thought people disliked it because it was edgy crap or something?

fuck off

The Authority is shit

What, someone actually likes that poz?

...

You should go back to the casual board you came from.

Also,

I advise you to kill yourself as soon as you can.

Where was this written?

Friendly reminder Frank Miller's ASBAR Joker isn't the least bit funny.

Isn't Madam Barbara Gordan a known sociopath when she was younger?

:D

Maybe he doesn't realize the Watchmen is a massive deconstruction of superheroes?

Saying it's a great cape comic is basically admitting you don't like superheroes.

Try hard nigger is try hard

SPRAAAAANG BREAK!
FOREVA!!!

How's this?

This one too, with extra-edgy font choice.

New 52 Joker basically gets off from Batman though. I started to like that guy (not Leto, I mean the comics). But yeah, Endgame-Joker was basically Dark Knight Returns Joker.

Also, I really like Killing Joke Joker (in the comic). He's a bit too pathetic there, but I like his mood swings and freaky faces.

Damn, please deliver the part where Gordon shoots him down and he laughs.

I bet he even killed… a pregnant toddler.

That would be sort of pointless, with something like that you would have to just wait 9 months and it'll explode on its own, no intervention needed

Also,
I shiggy diggy.

To my understanding it is, I haven't read it myself but I see it recommended all the time.

I'd say it's less about accepting the inherent ridiculous of capes but more about accepting its fantastical nature. Comics of the Golden Age weren't quite as campy those in the Silver Age and focused more on the mystery, intrigue, and even drama of the tales, much like other pulp comics at the time did. Yet unlike the darker and edgier comics of the last quarter century, their success wasn't made by focusing on mimicking a gritty realism or trying too hard to take itself seriously, but rather accepting the fantastical nature of their settings and writing their stories to fit the settings. Stories and epics as early as the Odyssey had settings just as fantastical as those in capes - evil witches that turned men into beasts, giant one-eyed monsters that were somehow the offspring of the god of the seas, etc - yet they persisted as great epics because in their creation they respected and created the tales to fit the fantastical settings.

Part of the reason for BTAS's success in its writing and why it resonated with many people was that it embraced just how strange and imaginative the history of Batman is, which allowed it to be more varied and encompassing in the tones it portrayed. It could be dark and serious while also being comical and light-hearted at times, giving us some dramatic and depressing moments while also providing us uplifting and heartwarming moments too. Tone itself is something that recent comics fail at. It's fine to be dark and gritty in your depiction, but if that's all you have to offer tonally that your work is going to be incredibly flat and uninteresting. BTAS had gain really nailed itself tonally as mentioned above because its acceptance of its roots rather than focusing on eschewing them in order to create much more gritty and serious tales. Indeed, it's that focus on completely throwing out the imagination in your works and replacing it with a more static tone that makes the more recent comics fail. I'd say it's also the reason why something on a polar opposite end like the Schumacher Batman films fail - it focused solely on being purely silly and farcical in spite of how it may not have fit the setting. You need a good balance of highs and lows in your work's overall tone to make those peaks more effective and engaging.

For a comparison within the DCAU, the major reason I enjoyed Mask of the Phantasm more than Return of the Joker was just because of how much more varied in tone it was. RotJ was a lot more intense and dark all throughout, so much that even with the occasional breaks in action or drama I still eventually felt a little more numb to the drama as it went on - after the flashback scene nothing really had much of an impact on me besides the very end. MotP on the other hand had a much more varied and ultimately more effective tone - the uplifting tone of the flashbacks and some later scenes helped contrast with the surrounding drama and darkness so well that even though the story ends on a rather bittersweet note, it left me feeling more satisfied than RotJ did despite its more triumphant end. Despite this example, RotJ still has better use of its tone than many other recent cape works and adaptations.

Poor form.

I haven't read emerald twilight either, I just mentioned gotham central because it's well-respected.

Nice job disproving my argument, by the way, you haven't made a coherent point so far.

^mentioned the authority

I'm not even the person you're talking to, I'm just here to point out how it's dumb to talk about - let alone argue about - stuff you know nothing about beyond hearsay.

Why would my having read it change how respected it is? I'm not talking about its content at all, just its popularity.

Your knowledge of those stories would have better informed your arguments involving them, and why you some of them made better examples for point than others. Instead you just assumed that a works popularity was a direct indicator of its quality, which is a definite no-no when discussing media.

You're missing the point, user. I'm not going to just list all of my favorites, I was looking for things other people probably liked. And considering the authority is kind of the poster child for "serious capes", it seemed like a good option.

A lot of those are silly as fuck. What's the definition of "serious" people are arguing over here?

Authority was silly as fuck. Do you know how many orgies those guys had? It's goof ass retarded nearly the entire time. Planetary was more "serious" but even that wasn't afraid to be weird or silly. Are people trying to say that something can't be silly to be respected? That's idiotic.

Not Adam West Batman.

What is saying is that capes should just be over the top and retarded because how could you ever take something like that seriously.

I see.

MOMS GOING TO FLIP, JARED! KNOCK IT OFF

Jared Leto Joker was better than Ledger. Prove me wrong.

Ledger's wheezy cackle was a lot more genuine than whatever the hell that vocalization was that was used instead of laughter by Leto.

Ledger aside, I thought Jared nailed the joker act… Shame his look screamed "edgy".

What's the odds the fan theories about Jared Leto joker being a failed Rapper are true?

In all honesty?
He tried too hard, at the end of the day thats all that can be said.
When your average normalfag fellates Heath's rotting cock and insists that Nolan had "Teh best Jokur evar!!!111!11!" naturally, your first impulse as an actor is to try and top it, unfortunately Leto just thought acting cringy as fuck and Lolsorandumb was the way to go.
And honestly, it was not his movie, he will have his day but SS was all about Harley's ass the actual members of the squad. I look forward to seeing him in the next DC cape flic, which I will be pirateing.

God the amount of nigger kids in there.

Funny thing about Adam West was that he and everyone else involved took the show deadly serious. Comedy is much, much harder than drama.

The Joker being the DC equivalent of ICP would be a real laugh.

So like, what? 1 or 2 kids more than the national average?

Well yeah. Good comedy requires good comedic timing, whereas you can basically half-ass drama and still be passable. Hence all the shit actors out there these days.

And crap drama is comedy. Crap comedy is just crap.

Joker is supposed to be asexual.