For a better look, go to ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com. I kinda like it - incredibly twisted, which is a nice departure from the other filmic interpretation of the character.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
I'm intrigued by it. I think it's safe to say no one was expecting The Joker to look like this. Fanboys will probably be up in arms about this new Joker's apperance. Fuck 'em. I like it.
This one image shatters the old notion of Jack Nicholson and Cesar Romero's interpretations of the Clown Prince of Crime. This Joker doesn't look like a clown. He doesn't look like he'll be funny. That ain't a bad thing. This Joker looks like what he is, what The Joker was conceptually when he was created in 1940 -- a deformed serial killer. Most importantly, he looks terrifying. There has never been a scary Joker in the Batman television show or in a Batman movie. So far, I like this direction quite a bit.
Originally posted by John OrquiolaI'm intrigued by it. I think it's safe to say no one was expecting The Joker to look like this. Fanboys will probably be up in arms about this new Joker's apperance.
In the comics he was recently shot in the face and disfigured in a manner similar to Ledger's appearance here, which is either an amazing coincidence or beautiful synergy. I'm not sure if they're going to keep the look, though.
You can't match Jack for over the top craziness, so I am glad they are going in another direction. If the Joker is supposed to be the world's most deranged serial killer, this guy looks the part. It's not what I expected, but I like it. It fits the more realistic, gritty feel that Nolan has given the franchise.
Dean! Have you been shooting dope into your scrotum? You can tell me! I'm hip!
Actually, I prefer the Joker's appearance to be excessively neat. I think it's a nice contrast to his personality. Still, I'm more concerned about how Ledger plays the Joker than how he looks as the Joker, so this isn't really a big deal to me.
Was really worried that the francise was trying too hard after the end of Begins (Joker Returns) and was about to go comical, but this image has sure piqued my interest...
It's been reported on IMDB that Dent will be played by Aaron Eckhart. I think it's yet another casting coup for the franchise. So pencil him in as Two-Face for the third one, unless the role is snatched up by Billy Dee Williams.
That sure looks like who you mention in the above spoiler. Given that that's the photo they are using for the viral marketing (pre-Joker vandalism), I'd suspect that the casting is official.
You believe me, don't you? Please believe what I just said...
Why is that a spoiler? It's been common knowledge for months now.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow