DC Joker Movie (Non-DCEU)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The villains in Batman almost all have some unusual deformity as a result of some event that people want to know about. Its natural to show their demise into villainy: acid vat, sewer toss, fall into cats, fall into cryo-vat, acid in face, poisoned -- lots of acid and falls.
 
8MCnZNc.png
 
Romero
Ledger
Nicholson
Leto



Leto's actually the only real Joker among them - he both fell into the acid unlike Ledger, and didn't die by the end of the film unlike Nicholson.

The Dark Knight trilogy is a great watch, but weirdly truncates the life of Batman to a career of less than 3 years, therefore also truncating the Joker's career since the two are binary.

Joker was just weird, and Phoenix as a wannabe puppet doesn't even count as the character. He's the equivalent of Gotham's Jerome.

Romero is simply the creepiest, maddest clown Joker.



7-5d9c5e0625ee5__700.jpg

2016 - trying to hard
 
Someone needs to write this over him:

1 Billion+

No China

Beat Star Wars with an R rating

Damn son. A movie about a mentally ill clown beat out the last movie in the biggest sci-fi franchise of all time. And people said the ST didn?t do damage
 
I think Letoker would’ve thrived without David Ayer. He had the makings to be a good Joker, even with the tattoos and stuff. They definitely, subtle-y took some slightly inspirations from the BTAS incarnation, especially when he went down in the helicopter but showed up alive at the end, I remember it seemed like the Joker died so many times in BTAS. :lol I liked that there was a Joker with real henchmen again, that fell into a vat of acid, etc etc. Leto was a great casting choice too. It’ll forever be one of those elements of wasted potential in the DCEU.

First-Jared-Leto-Joker.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think Letoker would?ve thrived without David Ayer. He had the makings to be a good Joker, even with the tattoos and stuff. They definitely, subtle-y took some slightly inspirations from the BTAS incarnation, especially when he went down in the helicopter but showed up alive at the end, I remember it seemed like the Joker died so many times in BTAS. :lol I liked that there was a Joker with real henchmen again, that fell into a vat of acid, etc etc. Leto was a great casting choice too. It?ll forever be one of those elements of wasted potential in the DCEU.

First-Jared-Leto-Joker.jpg

I tend to agree, although I blame the studio meddling more than ayers.

Actually, I think you could re-use him and fix some aesthetic and hed be a great villain versus harley if BOP warrants a sequel.

He is certainly the most unlikable joker, so I would play that up as much as possible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nah bop ain?t getting no sequel and this joker is dead and buried. The most cringeworthy acting i e ever seen. 90 percent of it was his fault. Acting like an ***** on set and doing his own thing.

I can?t believe they actually thought that joker design was passable. Like they had to spell it out for you that he is damaged and insane by giving him these stupid tats. Glad that didn?t catch on and is done for
 
I tend to agree, although I blame the studio meddling more than ayers.

Actually, I think you could re-use him and fix some aesthetic and hed be a great villain versus harley if BOP warrants a sequel.

He is certainly the most unlikable joker, so I would play that up as much as possible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I really think he was meant to be hated/annoying. Between the tattoos and all the deleted scenes where he abuses Harley and ultimately was going to leave her for dead after she was going to stay with the SKWAD instead of going with him, I think he could’ve been a really unique take. Sadly at the end I don’t think that’s what WB wanted, and wanted him to be more of a mainstay like Hiddleston’s Loki and not an abusive sicko.

They definitely should’ve played into how unlikeable he was. That would’ve been great.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I really think he was meant to be hated/annoying. Between the tattoos and all the deleted scenes where he abuses Harley and ultimately was going to leave her for dead after she was going to stay with the SKWAD instead of going with him, I think he could?ve been a really unique take. Sadly at the end I don?t think that?s what WB wanted, and wanted him to be more of a mainstay like Hiddleston?s Loki and not an abusive sicko.

They definitely should?ve played into how unlikeable he was. That would?ve been great.

Totally. I think most, if not all, live action jokers have had a tendency to steal the show and become more sympathetic to the audience. I think an unlikable, truly villainous joker would be an interesting take


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I wouldn't call the MCU sci-fi.

Eh, depends. GotG is Soft Sci-Fi. Iron Man the same. Doctor Strange has more in common with Soft Sci-Fi than Fantasy. It's honestly just Cape****, but it gets described as "Sci-Fi" because it's got lasers, "NANOMACHINES, SON", special serums, aliens and all that stuff. "Sci-Fi" in general has lost its meaning.
 
Don't you dare label SW as SciFi :thwak

It's Soft Sci-Fi; that's why the tag exists.

-"B-But it's Space FANTASY cause it's got TK! BRB, gotta watch my Hard Sci-Fi Stark Trek with its literal ****ing ghosts of the dead walking around".

It's Soft Sci-Fi. It always was. X-Men is classified as "Sci-Fi" when the "Mutant Gene" is more unrealistic than straight up Occult Magic.

giphy.gif
 
Back
Top