[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I could not disagree more with that statement. it's more than just asthetiocs. I understand that. But the asthetics are an important part of a character. It's the old expression, "The clothes make the man." [/quote]
I didn't say it was unimportant.
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Finally, they can have the other two, but if it doesn't look like the character, if the character isn't presented as people expected, as the source material has described him for generations, then they'll also find the character wanting.[/quote]
Simply put, in film, the character's role is more important than he looks. If they nail the character's role, which is truly what's important to the -story-, they can take creative liberties with the character's appearance.
Now, it's important that the character resembles the source material, in my opinion (and this isn't always the case). And, again, in my opinion, this teaser image resembles the comic book Joker -- and for anyone to be angered or upset by what they've seen, which is very little, is short-sighted. Wait until you see the entire character, as opposed to a clearly photoshopped concept piece of the actor's face.
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I'm not saying there can't be differences. There definately can be. But we've reached the point in films with makeup and special effects that compromises are no longer necessary. Instead, they are done as part of artistic license of the director, producer, writers, whatever.[/quote]
Well, this "final" look isn't a compromise. You may know the story of the comic book character (probably the cartoon character, like most others), but you don't yet know the story of the film character. The Joker isn't wearing grease paint, or anything like that. His appearance is a result of a chemical explosion -- and that's what this teaser image reflects. Which segways into this tirade:
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Now there are a lot of reasons for it. One being that everything now needs an explanation. I'm quoting you on the Jokers Origin, "the comic world and the original film (which was, essentially, slightly corny), was absurd." Why is it absurd? It's F-I-C-T-I-O-N! I find there is a whole generation of readers that want every piece of fantasy, sci-fi to have some plausible explanation. It doesn't matter that the more realistic explanation is as much bullshit as anything else, but they want it to sound plausible. [/quote]
You take my use of the word "absurd" in negative connotations. The Joker to look so manufactured and perfect, as the result of a chemical explosion, in the comic and previous films, is absurd. That was the point of the previous film, as it was paralleling that type of storytelling from the source material.
In the world of comic books, and especially during the time of Batman, creators DREW the characters first, then connected the origin dots. Why does he look like this? Because he's a mutant! Why does he have these powers? He was in a nuclear fallout.
The Joker looking the way his does? Chemicals! That's absurd. Not bad, but it's an absurd and poor link FOR REALITY, which is what the current films are going for: Batman in the real world.
The current film is trying something else: Placing Batman, and his foes, in the real world. Origins will need to be rewritten for prosperity.
I'm not going to comment on your Star Wars rant, as I have no idea what you were trying to say.
s
