Seven years after Suicide Squad was released, David Ayer shared his original vision for the Joker’s tattoos but ultimately agreed they were a terrible idea in general.
It’s been quite a few years since the release of Suicide Squad, the movie that, despite bringing the fantastic Harley Quinn version by Margot Robbie to life, also created potentially the most divisive Joker in the history of its adaptations.
While some praise Jared Leto ’s performance, most fans thought it was incredibly off.
Apart from Leto’s acting skills and vision, one of the main issues with Suicide Squad’s Joker was his appearance. David Ayer, the director of the movie, went for a fresh take on the classic villain, and for the majority of fans, the end result was below satisfactory. The new, more modern-looking Joker was generally hated by the fans.
The sudden face tattoos that came out of nowhere were the thing that pissed off a large chunk of the audience — especially the cursive “Damaged” tattoo on Joker’s forehead. Apart from the fact that the canon Joker has never had tattoos at all, this one also broke the golden rule of cinema: “Show, don’t tell.”
The “Damaged” tattoo was too blatant and non-elegant, to say the least.
Seven years later, after David Ayer recently revealed the original version of Joker on his X (formerly Twitter) account, fans started calling him out for the forehead tattoo once again, and the director decided to finally address this years-old issue.
“I own the tattoo idea 100%. It was my choice. The original idea is it would say ‘Blessed’ and not ‘Damaged.’ Now having said that — I regret that decision. It created acrimony and division. Not every idea is a good idea. And I’ll just be in the corner here while the internet slaps me around for this post,” wrote Ayer.
While we do appreciate the honesty and totally agree that some ideas tend to flop even if they seem great at the start…we can’t help but notice this tiny gap between the release of Suicide Squad in 2016 and the revelation in 2023. Perhaps, the audience would’ve taken the mistake more lightly if the director admitted it seven years earlier, don’t you think?