We didn't see the look of the Joker in the regular comics change.
I'll give you the other ones, but...
This is the kinda stuff I don't like. I don't have any problems with introducing characters from other media like Blake. I don't like when they mess with existing characters to make them more like the movie version.
And while it's not a direct copy, the new look of the Joker we get next month feels inspired by the "creepiness" of the Heath Ledger Joker IMO (link could be considered spoilers)
@KyleMoyer I will grant that Jock cover (and maybe the interiors, too, I forget if I read that one) definitely feel of a kind with the Ledger Joker face. But, in general, outside of the Joker OGN the movie hasn't seemed to change the way the Joker is, or usually how he looks. Even those images at Bleeding Cool still have the rail thin Joker we've seen in the comics forever. And, just as Batman's ears often get interpreted different ways by different artists (and, sure, I know that is a difference in a costume rather than a face) I feel like the size of Joker's grin has varied over the years, too. Even Bolland's Killing Joke Joker, long before the movies, had a grin as big as the one in that upcoming New 52 image.
But I agree with the main point that if things get shoved in only to get shoved in, it is not good. Steal the good ideas, but don't be forced to change the comics brand to stay in line with the movies. Which is why I was glad DC did not do anything like that with Constantine, Jonah Hex, or even things like changing Batman's origin to be in line with the 1989 Batman movie (regarding who killed his parents). Generally they have let the comics be the comics. Albeit with some supporting characters and minor villains picked up along the way. As well as some useful ideas (thinking back to the Superman radio show).
Actually, that image was just the best picture I could find on the internet with a quick search, but in general, the look of the Joker's grin changed post-movie. The smile looked more like lipstick smudges with the red going past the point of the end of the lips and I believe it even included scars at the end of the lips like in the movie. It's not really the size of the grin as much as the look of it. And that's kinda the way they do it - with subtle changes that don't really change the character too much for the comic fans but make it a bit more recognizable to the movie fans. They did that way back in 1989 as well when Vicki Vale went from being a redhead to more of a strawberry blonde. It's more subtle than the way Marvel does it (see Nick Fury, Jr. and/or New X-Men costumes), which is why it doesn't bother me nearly as much, but that still doesn't mean I like it, it's just not a dealbreaker (well, not that the X-Men costumes were a dealbreaker either, but I liked them a lot less).
Actually, that image was just the best picture I could find on the internet with a quick search, but in general, the look of the Joker's grin changed post-movie. The smile looked more like lipstick smudges with the red going past the point of the end of the lips and I believe it even included scars at the end of the lips like in the movie. It's not really the size of the grin as much as the look of it. And that's kinda the way they do it - with subtle changes that don't really change the character too much for the comic fans but make it a bit more recognizable to the movie fans. They did that way back in 1989 as well when Vicki Vale went from being a redhead to more of a strawberry blonde. It's more subtle than the way Marvel does it (see Nick Fury, Jr. and/or New X-Men costumes), which is why it doesn't bother me nearly as much, but that still doesn't mean I like it, it's just not a dealbreaker (well, not that the X-Men costumes were a dealbreaker either, but I liked them a lot less).
I see what you are saying. And I think, perhaps themselves inspired by the design and performance in The Dark Knight, that more artists have been going for that look since 2008. But I also think there still flexibility in how Joker looks as he hasn't always had the smudged lipstick since then. It doesn't seem that DC is enforcing that on a style sheet or anything, as even in the current Legends of the Dark Knight comics I am getting digitally there have been radically different looking Jokers-- the Trevor Hairsine did not have the smudged makeup at all, and was more classic. The Templesmith one had not only smudged lipstick but teeth one of his 30 Days of Night vampires would admire. So I agree we've seen a lot of artists (whether they were encouraged to do this or not, I don't know) go for more of the Ledger look. But we have also seen enough other kinds of Joker, including the classic skinny build, that it doesn't seem like DC is saying that he HAS to look like the movies, if you know what I mean. They seem to leave the artists some leeway to interpret.
Well, even if Bermejo independently came up with that Joker look- and that is possible- I still think that the sales success of this book, which was considered surprising and impressive at the time, is owed in part to the effect that movie, and that movie's Joker, had. So perhaps DC lucked out that Bermejo already had something like this ready to go.
Movies may not sell comics as consistently as the publishers would like. But they can sell comics. And I think the success of that Joker OGN, especially in the book market, is one of those cases where the movie definitely helped, and there was a clear, visual link there: You thought that Joker was cool? Well HERE is more of him.
Is anyone else tired of the comics adapting to the movies? I understand movies & TV shows cannot be exactly the same as the comics, but do the comics really have to mirror them?
M
Depends how it's done. In this instance, Blake is a cop so introducing a new cop to the GCPD roster who shares a name with a movie character isn't anything I have a problem with. Finding Nick Fury's long lost black son who is now known as Nick Fury Jr. and conveniently receives an eye injury so he has to wear a patch. That's a bit too much.
Comments
This is the kinda stuff I don't like. I don't have any problems with introducing characters from other media like Blake. I don't like when they mess with existing characters to make them more like the movie version.
And while it's not a direct copy, the new look of the Joker we get next month feels inspired by the "creepiness" of the Heath Ledger Joker IMO (link could be considered spoilers)
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/08/16/a-new-look-at-the-joker-spoilers/
But I agree with the main point that if things get shoved in only to get shoved in, it is not good. Steal the good ideas, but don't be forced to change the comics brand to stay in line with the movies. Which is why I was glad DC did not do anything like that with Constantine, Jonah Hex, or even things like changing Batman's origin to be in line with the 1989 Batman movie (regarding who killed his parents). Generally they have let the comics be the comics. Albeit with some supporting characters and minor villains picked up along the way. As well as some useful ideas (thinking back to the Superman radio show).
Movies may not sell comics as consistently as the publishers would like. But they can sell comics. And I think the success of that Joker OGN, especially in the book market, is one of those cases where the movie definitely helped, and there was a clear, visual link there: You thought that Joker was cool? Well HERE is more of him.
i am in full agreement. :)