To be fair, he isn't the main character and I like what they did with he and his newfound family. It was very entertaining. He changes towards the end as well, but again it is all about Harley's world of which he is only a tangent.
When I started watching Harley Quinn I was like "They didn't get Mark Hamill for the Joker?? This is a travesty!" But he does do a very good job with the role, and Clayface is just fun.
2019 was the start and I've happily watched all four seasons. A fifth season is on the way.
I don't know, but when I first caught it I loved it and have spread the word amongst my peers. I am older, so maybe I am out of touch with what the young folks are watching (my nephews have seen it). Alan Tudyk plays both Joker and Clayface. Joker is in it quite a bit, but they fade him out for a few reasons. Then he comes back.
They also use so many other celebrity voices. You'll think, "Hey, I know that voice!" Indeed you do. Ron Funches and Tony Hale are wonderful in their roles.
So keep watching and you'll see a lot more of him. That is, if you like the show. I think it's excellent and well worth the time.
I'm not against a "gangster" version of the Joker, because a lot of the Batman lore is about the different gangs of henchmen so the Joker is as much a gang leader as anyone else. AND I'll go out and say he was not the worst thing in that movie... but yeah they could have done a lot better with the casting. But hey, still better than Eisen-Luthor!
Honestly, Leto was fine. The “gangster” joker was just too childish an interpretation, and his dialogue was just goofy. It wasn’t a cohesive character. The design was so over the top terrible that it looped back around. The tattoos always get me giggling.
That's what I liked about Heath's, remove the make up, it's just some crazy guy like Trevor from GTAV. Or Jack on the contrary who went theatrical as a show man, like a clown is, but take the make up off and he'd probably totally chill and blend in.
Jared Leto seems to have a knack for doubling-down on bad execution instead of reviewing and refining.
If it was just a little bit different in a lot of ways it could have been epic. I think the biggest thing that hamstrung it was the sheer lack of any origin grounding to explain the why of it.
The coolest image of the Joker in my ranking is the drawn Joker from this poster. In the old cartoon series, he most closely resembles the embodiment of evil and inadequacy.
While it might not be the most popular opinion, I personally appreciated Leto's interpretation of the Joker. He's no Heath Ledger, of course, but considering how often the character has been brought to life, I thought Leto's performance was at least unique.
For me, it was too brief to even count as an interpretation. I don’t get how people can compare Leto’s performance to Ledger’s or Phoenix's, simply because of how much more there is to the latter two’s, not even taking into account artistic quality or interpretation.
It was supposed to be a franchise. Honestly, it's not like Leto was bad as the Joker, it's his off screen antics and the rest of the movie being absolute trash that killed the reception.
But I also don't really mind Joker being a bit of a fuckboi. There are two perfect Jokers, Ledger and Hamill, and no one will be able to top them, so you might as well try something new.
He's not wrong. Leto joker turned a nuanced and intelligent villain into an edgy Facebook teen going through a phase. All the interesting subtlety washed out in place of "damaged" tattoos