There is a definitive Joker? Individual response to that question is largely responsible for the opinion of each about the Jared Leto's Clown Prince of Crime, for very clear reasons. The question, however, is relative, lack context to this. We saw in 2008, a Joker that did not have the really white skin, just wearing makeup on her face, leaving the rest of the body in normal skin tone. Had messy hair, scars in the cheeks (which served to form a bigger smile), the aforementioned makeup was constantly blurred, and his personality differed from the Joker in comic books. The question here is why I never bothered with the character Heath Ledger and Christopher Nolan (quite the contrary, I am since 2007-2008 in love with this version of the character), while I bother with the appearance of the villain of Jared Leto and David Ayer.
The answer can be given in two words, that Marvel fans know well: cinematic universe. It was always made very clear that The Dark Knight trilogy was the trilogy of Christopher Nolan, it's something more authorial, using classic characters. We can see the Nolan trilogy as if they were three graphic novels that tell a parallel story of Batman, aside monthly comics. Once that is established a cinematic universe, however, the films become equivalent to its own monthly comic books, and therein lies all the difference.
The way a work is seen, as well as the author's purpose, should be fully taken into account during an evaluation. For example, if an author makes a cartoonish and caricatured version of something considered serious and realistic, the fact that the viewer does not like what was presented to him does not mean that the work is bad, since the caricatured form was produced, not accidental. The same applies to the Christopher Nolan trilogy, as there are fans of the Dark Knight really did not like Ra's not immortal, a Bane with breathing of Darth Vader or a Batman not so detective. The case, however, is that that is not the definitive version of Batman, is the version of a director. The same does not apply to a cinematic universe, at least not in the same proportions. The cinematic universe is, in principle, equivalent to the main universe of characters. This does not mean in itself that is equal to the main universe of comics, but that is the main universe in the film media, the final version of those characters. Of course, there will probably be other cinematic universes of Marvel and DC, but it is not expected to happen anytime soon. Marvel, for example, wants to continue with its universe even after the end of Chris Evans and company contracts.
Therefore, no matter how, even in a shared universe in that each film must have the identity of its director, the characters as a whole should not arise in such individual choices, in my view. And to illustrate this I do not have to go far, Batman v Superman is a movie with Zack Snyder's brand, but the look of Batman is not the visual of the director, it is the look of Batman, pure and simple. This, however, is due more to the fact the director has chosen to reproduce the look created by Frank Miller (and put in the whole movie quotes of The Dark Knight Returns, without any context) than to reproduce the Batman itself. But as a result we have the best Batman costume in CBMs. It is easily observable that the DC / Warner does not have a figure like Kevin Feige, for Marvel / Disney. Zack Snyder is, in the short term, creating the DCEU, but that would be the same as Joss Whedon creating the MCU without Kevin Feige to create the map of this universe. People want it or not, there is a difference between a director of great influence in the studio, and the president of production of it.
My personal issue with the look created by Leto and Ayer for the Joker comes down to the fact that this is their version; and in the context of the cinematic universe, I believe that would be the time to forget the authorial level of Christopher Nolan and give time to the definitive versions of the characters. The point is that I loved the basic design of the Joker as makeup (eyes, mouth) and hairstyle, and also enjoyed other proper details, like shaved eyebrows (and I don't mind to metal teeth). What disturbs me, however, is its fully tattooed body. The worst, however, are specific facts, like the fact that even his face is tattooed, and tattoos are completely self referential. The character is crazy, but the level of self references is too much for me. Nothing that a suit does not solve, but only a hat to hide the "damaged" his forehead. All this, of course, not to mention the enormous quality of tattoos. How many sessions were made? It was with the best tattoo artist of Gotham? I could end here, but the earrings, bracelets, gold chains? We have a tattooed Joker, who wears earrings, which uses open dress shirt to the end of the chest, and a silver jacket. And if we consider shirtless, looking more like a psychopath, we have another Victor Zsasz than a Joker, itself. Remember also (and this is an observation, not a criticism), the skin tone of this version is not as white as well.
In the comics we have seen the Joker in several ways: with beard, with tattoo on the back (but it was not self referential), without the face, with the same scars of Heath Ledger, and so on, but the final remains one . The fact that it is not the only version does not prevent it from being the definitive. As they are doing the Batman of Frank Miller (but killer), it is very welcome the white suit, but the rest does not encourage me. What really excites me is the actor's performance capacity.