Joker (2019)

[napoleon_in_rag]

So the new Joker movie debuted at the Venice Film Festival and all the reviewers use phrases like "Amazing" and "Oscar worthy" and "8 minute standing ovation".

But the fandom is quiet (Perhaps because very few Batman fans were invited to the Venice Film Festival). I see less buzz about this film on amateur youtube reviewers than I do on other comic book films. I was surprised to see no existing discussion thread on this site about the trailers.

Are people less interested in this film because it is not part of the DC Cinematic Universe? Or because it is a new origin story and not based on "The Killing Joke"? Are we finally reaching Comic Book Film Fatigue? I am curious what people think because the trailer does look pretty good.

[Evil DM Mark3]

My first reaction upon hearing about this film was "Why?"

The Joker needs no origin, the Joker is only diminished when given one.

To refer to The Killing Joke, the point of that comic was to explore, not his origin, but his philosophy. The Joker holds that everyone is one bad day away from being him and that Batman is just as crazy as he is. He is also definitively proven wrong by the end of the story. His origin is a tool to that end and even then Joker would refer to his past as "multiple-choice".

My opinion remains the same. I am not interested for the same reason I am not interested in a movie showing the Batmobile get assembled or the childhood of daffy duck. It is not relevant and thus does not interest me.

[Peelee]

My first reaction upon hearing about this film was "Why?"

The Joker needs no origin, the Joker is only diminished when given one.

To refer to The Killing Joke, the point of that comic was to explore, not his origin, but his philosophy. The Joker holds that everyone is one bad day away from being him and that Batman is just as crazy as he is. He is also definitively proven wrong by the end of the story. His origin is a tool to that end and even then Joker would refer to his past as "multiple-choice".

My opinion remains the same. I am not interested for the same reason I am not interested in a movie showing the Batmobile get assembled or the childhood of daffy duck. It is not relevant and thus does not interest me.

While I agree that he's better with no definitive origin, I choose to believe that this is just an in-depth look at one of the various stories that he tells. Because why not, it looks really good from the trailers.

[Eldan]

It only seems tangentially related to the DC universe anyway (I doubt any other known characters will feature), so just forget he's the DC joker and see it as just an interesting tragedy about a disturbed man gradually coming apart?

[Murk]

… an interesting tragedy about a disturbed man gradually coming apart?

I think this is why it might not be getting the attention on The Internets that other comic book movies do. It doesn't seem to be a superhero (or supervillain) movie. It doesn't have an exciting feel, or anything awesome or the feel of a special world, or heck, a special person - it feels like a regular guy with regular mental health issues.

There is nothing wrong with movies about regular guys with mental health issues, of course. Those can be great movies - but I think they generally have a different target audience than superhero movies.

[napoleon_in_rag]

It only seems tangentially related to the DC universe anyway (I doubt any other known characters will feature), so just forget he's the DC joker and see it as just an interesting tragedy about a disturbed man gradually coming apart?

Thomas Wayne is a character in it. I wonder if, in this version, the Joker is the one who kills Bruce's parents.

[Psyren]

Color me interested; Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor (he's the only person besides Cumberbatch that I would have been happy with as Stephen Strange) and I'm badly in need of something to wash the aftertaste of Jared Leto's greasy misbegotten "Juggaloker" out of my mouth. (Maybe I should rephrase that...)

With that said, I do have cause for concern - most notably the rumblings I've been hearing both about the film's portrayal of mental illness (https://www.salon.com/2019/04/04/why-its-a-problem-if-joker-connects-mental-illness-to-villainy/) and the likelihood for its biggest fans to miss the point (much as happened with Fight Club) and fail to realize that they're not supposed to find the mass-murdering iconoclastic anarchist relatable (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/joker-movie-cast-joaquin-phoenix-dc-toxic-masculinity-a8857441.html). I'm willing to bet that the film does not actually play these elements up as strongly as a sensationalist article might have us believe, but the line there is vanishingly thin.

Bottom line: maybe not a theater watch, but I'll probably rent it - I'll wait to see what the reviewers I know and trust have to say about it.

[Magic_Hat]

Somebody made a spin-off, solo movie about Matthew Modine's character from Full Metal Jacket?:smallwink:

Back on subject: apparently the budget for this film is only like 55 million. Maybe people aren't talking about it because it didn't require at least 100 million in CGI to make. Trying to make a movie based off a comic without having half the film be CGI?! What were they thinking?!

[Callos_DeTerran]

Color me interested; Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor (he's the only person besides Cumberbatch that I would have been happy with as Stephen Strange) and I'm badly in need of something to wash the aftertaste of Jared Leto's greasy misbegotten "Juggaloker" out of my mouth. (Maybe I should rephrase that...)

With that said, I do have cause for concern - most notably the rumblings I've been hearing both about the film's portrayal of mental illness (https://www.salon.com/2019/04/04/why-its-a-problem-if-joker-connects-mental-illness-to-villainy/) and the likelihood for its biggest fans to miss the point (much as happened with Fight Club) and fail to realize that they're not supposed to find the mass-murdering iconoclastic anarchist relatable (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/joker-movie-cast-joaquin-phoenix-dc-toxic-masculinity-a8857441.html). I'm willing to bet that the film does not actually play these elements up as strongly as a sensationalist article might have us believe, but the line there is vanishingly thin.

Bottom line: maybe not a theater watch, but I'll probably rent it - I'll wait to see what the reviewers I know and trust have to say about it.

Wow...uh..irregardless of my feelings on the movie, those are generally intrigued, those articles...just..wow, talk about bad takes, especially the second one that displays a critical lack of understanding of the Joker and seemingly the movie from what they wrote.

The mental health one..that's trickier considering the majority of Batman's rogues are certifiably insane but not as often given to a clinical portrayal of mental illness because..well for the reasons the article points out. They are insane but also very obviously 'fiction-insane' not 'real-insane' and if someone can't distinguish between the two they need to be sat down and have the differences between the two explained.

[Deja Who?]

I think everyone needs to be sat down and have them explained, in a school. Because while you may think it’s a given that people can distinguish between reality and fantasy because we can the average human most certainly can not, or will not, or at least won’t give enough thought to it for the difference to matter.

[Dienekes]

Color me interested; Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor (he's the only person besides Cumberbatch that I would have been happy with as Stephen Strange) and I'm badly in need of something to wash the aftertaste of Jared Leto's greasy misbegotten "Juggaloker" out of my mouth. (Maybe I should rephrase that...)

With that said, I do have cause for concern - most notably the rumblings I've been hearing both about the film's portrayal of mental illness (https://www.salon.com/2019/04/04/why-its-a-problem-if-joker-connects-mental-illness-to-villainy/) and the likelihood for its biggest fans to miss the point (much as happened with Fight Club) and fail to realize that they're not supposed to find the mass-murdering iconoclastic anarchist relatable (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/joker-movie-cast-joaquin-phoenix-dc-toxic-masculinity-a8857441.html). I'm willing to bet that the film does not actually play these elements up as strongly as a sensationalist article might have us believe, but the line there is vanishingly thin.

Bottom line: maybe not a theater watch, but I'll probably rent it - I'll wait to see what the reviewers I know and trust have to say about it.

Interesting articles, but the first one is slightly wrong. If all mental disorder is lumped together, then yes. However, individuals with bipolar and schizophrenic disorders are more likely to commit violent crimes than the general population (though the far more significant indicator of violent crime is substance abuse regardless of mental disorder).

As to the second. Eh. They're not wrong that people have taken the strappings of a work that condemns a people and actions and ignored the moral (Rick and Morty, American History X, Fight Club, Sopranos, Godfather, honestly anything with a antihero protagonist really). But I hardly think that's a reason for or against a piece of media. Possibly because that would remove a good chunk of my favorite pieces of media.

[Psyren]

Oh I'm definitely not saying I agree with those takes - I'm pointing out that they give me a reason to wait for a review I can trust. I'm particularly interested in what a comics-focused movie reviewer like MovieBob or Cosmonaut might have to say about it.

[Lemmy]

While I think a Joker origin movie is completely unnecessary, the trailers have piqued my curiosity. The acting in particular, seems amazing. Here's hoping it doesn't turn out to be a huge disappointment... XD

{scrubbed}

[Zevox]

I think this is why it might not be getting the attention on The Internets that other comic book movies do. It doesn't seem to be a superhero (or supervillain) movie. It doesn't have an exciting feel, or anything awesome or the feel of a special world, or heck, a special person - it feels like a regular guy with regular mental health issues.

There is nothing wrong with movies about regular guys with mental health issues, of course. Those can be great movies - but I think they generally have a different target audience than superhero movies.
Very much this, I think. I mean, I'm not exactly a perfect representative sample here since I already don't much like the Joker (or Batman) and wouldn't have much interest in any hypothetical Joker movie, but the way they're going about definitely sealed my decision not to bother. Which isn't to say that it looks like a bad film to me, but that it doesn't look like the kind of film I want to go see at all, personally, and certainly not like one that has much in common with other superhero films, from either major publisher. I don't know how much the typical superhero film audience will want to see it, but it won't surprise me at all if there's a substantial chunk of it that similarly just isn't interested.

[Deja Who?]

It looks okay and an odd turn for DC but they are constantly trying to make their superhero movies more real and gritty and dark so maybe the logical conclusion to that is to make it so grim and normal that it isn’t even a superheros type film anymore.

[Eldan]

I don't think they are really trying for dark and gritty so much anymore. Their most popular, successful movies were Aquaman and Wonder Woman.

[Majin]

Well this does seem to be darker than Shazam and Wonder Woman at least (haven't seen Aquaman), but I suppose it's fitting for Joker. But I agree the general trend seems to be toward more colorful, at least movies-wise. Glad they're finally recovering from the Dark Knight trilogy.

And while this technically seems to be a well-made movie, and Phoenix seems like could be a good Joker, I still can't feel that excited. I might go if this gets good reviews, but I guess I've never really wanted to see a Joker solo movie. I'll probably rent it at least at some point.

[Eldan]

Aquaman is almost pure fantasy pulp. Very colourful, action-packed, full of colour. Lots of people in gold armour riding sea monsters. Sword and planet, except the planet is the ocean.

[Wraith]

I'll wait to see what the reviewers I know and trust have to say about it.

I think that I have reached exactly the same conclusion that you have.

As a work of art, Joker looks exquisite. The casting, the costume, the lighting, the sets, the music, the performance.... Oscar nominations are plausible, and possibly even deserved ones at that. *cough*suicide squad*cough*

Having read what I suspect are very similar articles to the ones that you cited, however, I too went straight to a comparison with Fight Club and how its themes have been misrepresented over the years. I thoroughly believe that might happen - the amount of people who apparently still view Harley Quinn/Joker as a romantic story won't convince me otherwise - and if it does then it will be a terrible stain on the film.

I want to remain optimistic. I want to go and see it for myself and to enjoy it, but I'm bracing myself for something that might be beautiful, but flawed.

[Kitten Champion]

Eh, Suicide Squad winning an Academy Award for best make-up and costuming is roughly the same thing as Voyager's Threshold winning an Emmy in a similar category. That the totality of the work is dreck doesn't mean the people working on any specific aspect of it are all equally maladroit.

I mean, the Jackass movie was nominated for make-up and costuming just for having a professional old-age make-up.

[Morgana]

I just really don't see the point of this movie, even Killing Joke wasn't really an origin story for the Joker. Point is he isn't really supposed to be relatable in any way, he has no really agenda, his grievence with society isn't really cause he supports any social cause or anything, but just cause he doesn't like order, I think it's funny cause all the times people feel sorry for the Joker is cause he's actively tricking them by spinning a sob story that's always not true. And I just feel like this story has just been told so many times already? Fight Club, Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, except in all those cases this concept is played less straight(despite people still thinking the characters in those movies are the "good guys" somehow).

[Traab]

If they had wanted to do a real joker origin movie, they should have really gone for it. As someone else said, the Joker himself says his background is multiple choice, I think one of the best ways they could have done this was to film alternate endings as we see the wrap up being the joker telling this story to his court appointed psychiatrist, letting us figure out that the movie is full of *&^% and its just the joker messing with his audience again with a story even he cant keep straight. Save the sad feel bad for this guy story as he is talking to dr quinzel to reference what he is already starting to do to her. That way when the movie ends we get an origin, but we also get that we cant really believe it.

[Peelee]

If they had wanted to do a real joker origin movie, they should have really gone for it. As someone else said, the Joker himself says his background is multiple choice, I think one of the best ways they could have done this was to film alternate endings as we see the wrap up being the joker telling this story to his court appointed psychiatrist, letting us figure out that the movie is full of *&^% and its just the joker messing with his audience again with a story even he cant keep straight. Save the sad feel bad for this guy story as he is talking to dr quinzel to reference what he is already starting to do to her. That way when the movie ends we get an origin, but we also get that we cant really believe it.

Maybe it's like Clue and different endings are shown at different theaters with no notice whatsoever.

....and also different whole rest of the movie, I guess?

[Traab]

Maybe it's like Clue and different endings are shown at different theaters with no notice whatsoever.

....and also different whole rest of the movie, I guess?

You could probably add in alternate scenes for specific important moments. Basically an extra 30 minutes of scenes swapped around to portray a different outcome. Same basic movie, but with different events taking place that change how the Joker comes across to the audience. I think it could work if written carefully. The hard part would be making it so nothing in the main body contradicts what happens in the various alternate scenes while still creating a different conclusion. You could wind up with anti hero joker, striking back at those who deserve it, sad deserving of sympathy joker, who had his one bad day and cant figure a way out of it (but maybe the kind lady doctor can give him a hand), and monster joker, who is an unrepentant killer doing what he does because he finds it funny.

[Aotrs Commander]

My first reaction upon hearing about this film was "Why?"

The Joker needs no origin, the Joker is only diminished when given one.

My opinion remains the same. I am not interested for the same reason I am not interested in a movie showing the Batmobile get assembled or the childhood of daffy duck. It is not relevant and thus does not interest me.

I entirely concur.

(Though my initial reaction was more like "no. No, they can't possibly be serious, no, they are. Ohhhhhh dear.")

[Peelee]

You could probably add in alternate scenes for specific important moments. Basically an extra 30 minutes of scenes swapped around to portray a different outcome. Same basic movie, but with different events taking place that change how the Joker comes across to the audience. I think it could work if written carefully. The hard part would be making it so nothing in the main body contradicts what happens in the various alternate scenes while still creating a different conclusion. You could wind up with anti hero joker, striking back at those who deserve it, sad deserving of sympathy joker, who had his one bad day and cant figure a way out of it (but maybe the kind lady doctor can give him a hand), and monster joker, who is an unrepentant killer doing what he does because he finds it funny.

Ya know, if they actually tried to make a Joker movie specifically with that in mind, I would absolutely want to see how it turned out.

[Bartmanhomer]

I can't wait to watch the Joker. It does look Oscar-worthy. But I'll see it and judge it for myself when it comes out.

[Peelee]

I can't wait to watch the Joker. It does look Oscar-worthy. But I'll see it and judge it for myself when it comes out.

Which Oscar?

[Magic_Hat]

Which Oscar?

Whatever category Black Panther won.

[Bartmanhomer]

Which Oscar?

All of them. :smile:

[Peelee]

All of them. :smile:

Any movie worthy of both Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay would be impressive indeed, I've gotta say.

[Bartmanhomer]

Any movie worthy of both Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay would be impressive indeed, I've gotta say.

Any don't forget Best Leading Actor, Best Director and Best Pictures. :smile:

[Peelee]

Any don't forget Best Leading Actor, Best Director and Best Pictures. :smile:

I'm saying those two awards are mutually exclusive. No movie can ever win both of those, because it's impossible.

[Magic_Hat]

Any movie worthy of both Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay would be impressive indeed, I've gotta say.

I hope you're happy. Every robot brain that read this just exploded from your paradox!

[Peelee]

I hope you're happy. Every robot brain that read this just exploded from your paradox!

Good, that's fewer spambots I need to clean up. :smallamused:

[flat_footed]

I hope you're happy. Every robot brain that read this just exploded from your paradox!


Good, that's fewer spambots I need to clean up. :smallamused:

Wheatley would disagree, and would arguably be dramatically more annoying while spamming.

[Traab]

wheatley would disagree, and would arguably be dramatically more annoying while spamming.

NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Ugh sorry, had an inexplicable flashback of some sort.

[PontificatusRex]

I think if you remove the whole fandom/superhero world out of it, then a movie exploring the idea of "What would drive a person to become a mass-murderer" is a pretty relevant one in our present world. Instead of trying to really tie it to the rest of the DC movies, it seems like they're just using the Joker as a hook to lure more people in than a similar movie about a previously unknown character would.

I've already seen an article or two that speculated on the potential danger of this film - given that we've seen a number a violent acts perpetrated by "angry, mentally unstable loner" types, there's a fear that making the Joker sympathetic could further justify the actions of such types in their own minds. (And please, no "It's just a movie!" comments. Art and media influence both culture and individuals, two of the most prominent negative examples being the film The Birth of the Nation resurrecting the KKK after it had been dormant for decades, and the man who tried to kill Ronald Reagan being directly inspired by the film Taxi Driver.) But I think it's a topic worth exploring. How does a person who doesn't start out inherently malicious and hateful get to a place where they decide they want to start killing people? I think The Killing Joke was a great story on this theme, but it seems like this new film emphasizes the cumulative smaller cruelties of the world instead of the couple of major blows that make of the One Bad Day of The Killing Joke.

[Noldo]

I think if you remove the whole fandom/superhero world out of it, then a movie exploring the idea of "What would drive a person to become a mass-murderer" is a pretty relevant one in our present world. Instead of trying to really tie it to the rest of the DC movies, it seems like they're just using the Joker as a hook to more people in than a similar movie about a previously unknown character would.

I think that this does not alleviate the problem with using Joker, namely that Joker’s madness is not supposed to make any sense. There should not be any coherent path that leads to a birth of Joker since his madness exists outside the structure. Dark Knight’s Joker with ever changing explanation to his mask achieved that by emphasizing that even his history is just another act given the form that is needed for the maximum chaos at that time.

At the same time I am a bit intrigued by the film, because they clearly have managed to create something that have impressed at least critics. However, portrayals of faulty persons have always been darlings of critics (didn’t John Wayne say that if he would have known that he has to wear an eyepatch to get an Oscar he would have done it sooner). So tormented character who turn into Joker may be very compelling story, but it can still fail to be Joner.

[Durkoala]

I'm saying those two awards are mutually exclusive. No movie can ever win both of those, because it's impossible.

If there's one that can, it's The Iron Giant, which shifts the setting of the original book from mid-twentieth century rural England to cold-war small-town America, changes the title character to an alien war machine*, changes the final great antagonist to be humanity itself embodied in a secret service agent rather than a continent-sized dragon from outer space**, and drastically changes the Giant's personality. But it does this all in such a way that's consistent with the themes of the book to produce an incredibly well-loved film that captures most*** of the good points of the original story.

/taking the joke seriously.


*It's unclear what The Iron Man (his original title) is in the book: the closest we get is vague second-hand hints that he may be some kind of nature spirit.

**yes, really.

***namely, they left out the giant space dragon and its duel with the Iron Man, and also removes the possiblity of the sequel, which was incredible, so much so I had to mention it here.

[PontificatusRex]

I think that this does not alleviate the problem with using Joker, namely that Joker’s madness is not supposed to make any sense. There should not be any coherent path that leads to a birth of Joker since his madness exists outside the structure.

I dunno, The Killing Joke was all about explaining the Joker's insanity and worldview, wasn't it?

At this point I think the Joker, like Batman, Superman, etc are just too big to be limited by what they're "supposed" to be. The Joker started off as a creepy gangster and evolved into existential terrorist, I don't think either of those is necessarily the "right" portrayal (which is why I'm one of like three people in the world who like Jared Leto's Joker).

[Traab]

I dunno, The Killing Joke was all about explaining the Joker's insanity and worldview, wasn't it?

At this point I think the Joker, like Batman, Superman, etc are just too big to be limited by what they're "supposed" to be. The Joker started off as a creepy gangster and evolved into existential terrorist, I don't think either of those is necessarily the "right" portrayal (which is why I'm one of like three people in the world who like Jared Leto's Joker).

But the thing about the killing joke is, its contradicted by a half dozen other joker stories into his past, which is the point. DC writers have taken what should be a massive continuity log jam and turned it into an intriguing bit of character development for the joker. His past is so mysterious and contradictory, we dont know which, if indeed any, stories are real. Also, I enjoyed letos joker. It wasnt a masterpiece or anything, but it wasnt that bad. Basically how I reacted to the entire movie really.

[Narkis]

I dunno, The Killing Joke was all about explaining the Joker's insanity and worldview, wasn't it?

The Killing Joke has the Joker himself say "If I'm gonna have a past, I prefer it be multiple choice." and his worldview of "everyone is One Bad Day from becoming another Joker" is very much proven wrong when Commissioner Gordon DOESN'T crack after such a Bad Day. I've seen this misconception a lot, and I can only assume it's from people getting their info third-hand from other people who haven't read the story.


I've already seen an article or two that speculated on the potential danger of this film - given that we've seen a number a violent acts perpetrated by "angry, mentally unstable loner" types, there's a fear that making the Joker sympathetic could further justify the actions of such types in their own minds. (And please, no "It's just a movie!" comments. Art and media influence both culture and individuals, two of the most prominent negative examples being the film The Birth of the Nation resurrecting the KKK after it had been dormant for decades, and the man who tried to kill Ronald Reagan being directly inspired by the film Taxi Driver.)

Oh man, it's the "games cause violence" panic all over again. I thought we were past that.

As for the movie itself, I had zero interest in it when it was first announced, the trailers weren't as bad as I expected but they didn't convince me either, and all the brouhaha surrounding it now has made me want to see it. If it's all a stealth marketing campaign, it worked in my case.

[Morgana]

Yeah, although the Killing Joke has what in my opinion is a pretty bad ending, as it kinda does an 180 in it's poin that the Joker is wrong by showing that Batman was in fact one bad day away from becoming like him, which doesn't really make sense as Batman has had far worse days than that one by that point. I mean, you could interpret that what is trying to say is that Batman was always like that, but I just really dislike this whole idea of Batman being one bad day away or even worse, being just like the Joker, cause it's one that is deeply flawed in more than one leveled.

Hell, I'm pretty sure that even the writer of the thing said it's not one of his best work, pity that this comic seemed to lay the blueprints to everything that came after, leading to every Joker story becoming basically Killing Joke redux.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, although the Killing Joke has what in my opinion is a pretty bad ending, as it kinda does an 180 in it's poin that the Joker is wrong by showing that Batman was in fact one bad day away from becoming like him

I'm assuming you are speaking about the "Batman strangles the Joker to death as they are both laughing" interpretation of the ending.

That's just an interpretation, I prefer to interpret that last panel as being a call-back to the first panel symbolising how Batman and the Joker are stuck in their situation since both refuse to let the other "help" them and both refuse to kill one another which is the meaning of the joke the Joker told and that they were laughing about.

[Rodin]

I've had something happen this week that's changed how I look at the film. I was at the movies with my father to watch It Chapter Two, and the trailer for this movie came up. I commented that this was on my list to keep an eye on, and he said "Let me know, I'll go too".

I was deeply surprised by this. My dad is not a Comics books fan. He hasn't watched any of the MCU, nor any of the DC movies including the original Batman movies from back in the day. I asked him about this after the movie...and he was surprised that it's a comic book movie. He didn't know who the Joker was outside of a very broad "he's that Batman villain", and hadn't recognized from either the trailer or the title that this movie was related to Batman/DC at all.

And yet, it still got him interested enough to want to go to the movies, and he goes to the actual cinema even less often than I do. He just saw a movie about a guy going nuts as he's broken down by society, and decided it looked interesting.

It made me feel a bit small for dismissing the movie on the basis of "#NotMyJoker". So what if it doesn't match the lore? So what if it contradicts the comics, or other interpretations of the Joker? If you show somebody who has never heard of Batman the movie and they say it's good, does that make it a bad movie? Does it make their opinion irrelevant?

I'll wait for reviews, to be sure. But I don't think I can judge the movie ahead of time based on "that's not how my preconceived notion of how the character in another universe would act".

[Dienekes]

I dunno, The Killing Joke was all about explaining the Joker's insanity and worldview, wasn't it?

At this point I think the Joker, like Batman, Superman, etc are just too big to be limited by what they're "supposed" to be. The Joker started off as a creepy gangster and evolved into existential terrorist, I don't think either of those is necessarily the "right" portrayal (which is why I'm one of like three people in the world who like Jared Leto's Joker).

No dude. The Killing Joke is a rejection of the premise that the Joker can have a logical backstory. It’s literally the story that gave us the line “If I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice.”

And more importantly the Joker fails to turn anyone. He puts Gordon and Barbara through their one bad day and they don’t break.

Now that said, I do agree with your premise. This isn’t my Joker, it’s not intended to be my Joker. And that’s ok. And unlike the last horrible attempt to make a unique take on the character, this one at least seems interesting.

[Morgana]

I'm not even talking about that particular interpetation, even if you don't think that Batman actually killed the Joker, the comic still clearly tries to push the idea that they are pretty much one and the same(I mean, the final joke is about 2 madmen after all). And the trail of light that disappears in the final panel to me is a metaphor for Batman falling into insanity, as this is just way too much of a specific visual element to be anything other than a clear callback to the joke that the Joker told on that same page.

Now honestly I would have a problem with the movie even if this wasn't about the Joker, as this honestly doesn't really does anything that hasn't done before quite frankly. Except that normally speaking in other stories where the main character is a man down on his luck that is disgruntled with society and uses this as a justification for commiting acts of violence, the idea is not played this...straight if that makes sense? Like in Fight Club for example, despite all the people that think the main character is a victim, or even worse actually justified, the movie has a clear message condeming his toxic mindset and it actually shows the character breaking away from it. Joker just seems to be trying to justify the main character's actions a bit too much for my taste?

[Narkis]

Joker just seems to be trying to justify the main character's actions a bit too much for my taste?

Joker is THE example of a murderous psychopath, and we haven't even seen the movie yet. How can you tell he is portrayed as remotely justified?

[Morgana]

Oh, cause the script leaked and I read the thing lol thhat being said, I think you can get that idea pretty clearly for what the trailer focus on and how it frames most of the character's interactions

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, the Joker is one of those characters who work better the less you know for sure what happened in their past.

like one of his lines from the Killing Joke is how embracing madness is about forgetting your past because all logic is dependent on cause and effect, which means acknowledging linear time and therefore that A leads to B, therefore things make sense because they happen in a certain order. Rejecting memory like that means rejecting logic to him.

the backstory shown to us in that comic is pretty linear and one thing to leading to another. and isn't really the Joker telling anyone this story, its just shown to reader. its ambiguous whether the Joker is reminiscing or whether its just the author showing it alongside the current day story. if its the author showing it, its objective reality and the Joker just seems kind of pathetic because of it. if its not objective, because the Joker is insane and therefore making up these memories to suit his philosophy, then he is making up something to justify his philosophy to himself, and whether he is making memories that are LESS bad because the actual bad day was much more horrible than the one shown that he doesn't WANT to remember it, or its MORE bad than what really happened so as to make sure he keeps on convincing himself to keep on doing what he is doing.

because lets be honest, how Pre-Joker fell for the Red Hood lie was very implausible. I'm pretty sure anyone with two ears and a brain would've seen right through the crooks white lie that red hood was an "important position" and that its clear he is being used as a distraction so that Batman will focus on him and take him to prison while the other crooks run away with the money and get some other person to be their sacrificial mark.

and yes, Gordon doesn't go insane from a bad day, he is just....kind of shook but will probably be needing some treatment for what happened to him regardless.

So it makes a lot of sense people aren't real excited about him getting a backstory movie. because backstories exist to make sense of and flesh out a character, and thus develop sympathy for them. The Joker while darkly humorous is not just any villain, but a big time villain, one who makes horrific stuff happen, plays for keeps and could theoretically do anything and fulfill any villainous role you could ever want in a story simply because he is flexible enough in his motivation that he could be your lovable wacky yet dangerous villain in the animated series or a completely monstrous person capable of committing some seriously screwed up things in the comics. he is the kind of character that honestly is beyond the confines of the setting he is written in: you could theoretically drop him in any story or universe with minimal modification and have him make sense as antagonist, give his dark philosophy speech to any hero while causing chaos, he simply has this archetypical quality to him that makes him work.

so putting a backstory on that is kind of limiting him really. because one of his best qualities if what he could possibly or potentially be rather than what he actually was. what he could do, is more important than what he did.

[Morgana]

And honestly if you wanted your movie to not have to deal with the baggage that comes with the character, you could just...make an original movie? It's just that even the director of the thing has gone on record that he is not really taking in consideration any previous portrayal of the character, which is just weird considering this is you know...an adaptation. It's not even a matter of "not muh Joker" considering I'm not even that big of a fan of the character, I just think that at one point you should just give up and call the movie "Clown man does a murder" or something to that effect, cause the whole point of making a work based on something is that you'll you know...base it on something

[Dragonus45]

I dunno, The Killing Joke was all about explaining the Joker's insanity and worldview, wasn't it?

At this point I think the Joker, like Batman, Superman, etc are just too big to be limited by what they're "supposed" to be. The Joker started off as a creepy gangster and evolved into existential terrorist, I don't think either of those is necessarily the "right" portrayal (which is why I'm one of like three people in the world who like Jared Leto's Joker).

The killing joke was about the absurdity of taking this super hero stuff to seriously and taking the piss a bit more then anything else. Just look at the fight scene near the end where he pulls Batmans cowl down and smacks him around with some kitchen equipment and tell me this story isn't meant to be funny. The one version of jokers backstory there was also just really interesting on its own right and lead to people losing track of what was actually going on... and his entire philosophy was wrong because neither that one bad day nor any of the other horrific thing the clown ever did to the Gordon family ever actually got the commissioner to crack.

[Lord Raziere]

And honestly if you wanted your movie to not have to deal with the baggage that comes with the character, you could just...make an original movie? It's just that even the director of the thing has gone on record that he is not really taking in consideration any previous portrayal of the character, which is just weird considering this is you know...an adaptation. It's not even a matter of "not muh Joker" considering I'm not even that big of a fan of the character, I just think that at one point you should just give up and call the movie "Clown man does a murder" or something to that effect, cause the whole point of making a work based on something is that you'll you know...base it on something

Because we're in eternal franchise piggyback remake hell. hollywood goes for things that ALREADY sell well and thus things that are ALREADY known. thus they don't make anything original now, because the entire strategy they do is let other media come up with something original and then when it gets popular enough through other means they go "hey people already like this, lets give it to them on a big screen!" thats why Harry Potter got movies because its a book that got big, so its essentially them playing a game of "so whose work out there has gotten safe enough to piggyback a profit off their work in obscurity?" because movies are always expensive, so they don't make a big budget movie unless they are reasonably sure it will do well.

other media of course, have made long-running franchises that just keep making consistent stuff to sustain a consistent fanbase across generations. for example, I doubt any of the original fans of golden age Superman are even alive anymore. so of course whats movies are going to be made? things that have consistently had a following for decades, sure the superhero movies might someday get to the point of burnout which some say has happened or will happen soon, but that just means we will transitioning to another trend of movies remaking or adapting other stuff for a while until superheroes come up with new stuff to get a following that will eventually resurface, this kind of thing is cyclical.

quite simply, hollywood is a popularity prestige badge: if you have gotten a movie made of it, that means it got popular enough for hollywood to care enough to make one. they don't need to make anything original for them to make money, originality's a job for books and internet webcomics, because those don't require a bunch of people agreeing to a big project and having to be reassured that yes they will make a profit off of this big art project they are doing.

[Morgana]

Ok, let me rephrase that, I KNOW why they did it, I just think it's a very cynical and artistically bankrupt reasoning

[Lord Raziere]

Ok, let me rephrase that, I KNOW why they did it, I just think it's a very cynical and artistically bankrupt reasoning

That it is.

but maybe, think less upon things that you can't clearly change yourself, and focus on the things that you can change, like what sources you can look to find originality. and perhaps in not caring you can at least make yourself happy by not paying attention to it. and maybe if enough people stop caring about hollywood, the people who care about money will go find something else to make a profit off of, leaving only the people who cares about making movies for the sake of it to make whatever movie they want regardless of whatever big franchises want to do! :smallamused:

[Magic_Hat]

Wheatley would disagree, and would arguably be dramatically more annoying while spamming.

Who that? I don't get it.:smallconfused:

[Fyraltari]

Who that? I don't get it.:smallconfused:

Wheatley is a robot from the video game Portal 2 who can resist having is processor fried by the paradox ‘This sentence is a lie’ because he is too dumb to realize the paradox and simply says ‘True!’

Even his misbegotten ‘creations’ the frankenturrets are smarter than he is.

[Peelee]

Wheatley is also just the best.

[Fyraltari]

Wheatley is the borst.

[Dragonus45]

Ok, let me rephrase that, I KNOW why they did it, I just think it's a very cynical and artistically bankrupt reasoning

Personally I think there is a lot of potential in doing a film like this and think it’s going to be improved by the Joker connection. Cash focused it may be there is nothing inherently artistically bankrupt about the idea.

[PontificatusRex]

I think it's a testament to the greatness of The Killing Joke that there are so many different interpretations of it. I personally think that the flashbacks are supposed to be objective depictions of the Joker's past, and the line about the past being multiple choice is about the mental fog the Joker lives in, not signalling an unreliable narrator. Especially considering that this story came right on the heels of Watchmen, where Moore also employed the technique of mixing past and present to tell the story without any ambiguity of whether the flashbacks were "real" or not. I also don't believe Batman was attacking the Joker at the end - I think they were actually touching each other in a moment of connection, the first and possibly last time doing so in a non-violent manner in their entire lives. It doesn't mean they're the same - Bruce Wayne is a truly empathic person who wants to try to help his greatest enemy, and the Joker is a sadistic psychopath with just enough rationality left to say it's too late for him, which it makes it all the more tragic because some part of him knows he needs saving.

One of the reasons I find the new film so intriguing is that the creators have said they have deliberately not looked at related material. I don't agree that the Joker needs to be essentially unknowable, I think for a character to be interesting enough to carry a story they have to be relatable in some way no matter how small. I think the new film is going to end up covering very similar territory as The Killing Joke because the idea of an otherwise decent person being pushed so hard they break and reform into a monster seems a pretty clear pathway towards explaining this character. I hope that we get to see the hint of the malevolence in him before the Big Break happens, so we can see why he goes so crazy evil. But on the other hand, the previews seem to indicate that he's put upon by society in general, which would explain why he wants to destroy capital S-Society, as opposed to Bruce Wayne's Bad Day being the result of actions from someone who breaks society's laws. So I won't be surprised if the character seems pretty blameless up until he goes over the edge. I think that would be the weaker storytelling choice, though.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Is it a comedy? Just wondering.

[Iruka]

Is it a comedy? Just wondering.

Well, one guy seems to be laughing a lot.

[Lord Raziere]

Is it a comedy? Just wondering.

Depends, do you like very dark and very dry humor, and think of deserts as "oceans" because they are "oceans of sand"?

but seriously it isn't.

[Beleriphon]

By all accounts it is a non-continuity movie in the vein of DC Black Label comics. A way for DC to explore content that doesn't otherwise fit into the move PG-13ish comic books, but might be interesting.

From the reviews, here's the jist: Arthur (pre-Joker) has a condition where he laughs uncontrollably. Yes this a real thing people can have. He's obsessed with Robert DeNiro's late night comedy king (in a callback to Kings of Comedy). In fact one review o caught said if you liked Raging Bull or The King of Comedy this is a modern iteration of the same themes, but using The Joker. Things go progressively off the rails for Arthur, he retaliates and builds a following around this retaliation and it all spirals out of control.

Joaquin Phoenix apparently has an absolutely amazing performance, and plays Arthur becoming The Joker to the hilt. He's outright admitted to trying to play The Joker in such a way that it isn't possible to actually identify or empathize with him.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well, I discover that the Joker is rated R, not PG-13.

I repeated Joker is rated R, not PG-13.

[Peelee]

Well, I discover that the Joker is rated R, not PG-13.

I repeated Joker is rated R, not PG-13.

...yes? I wasn't aware there was confusion about that.

[Bartmanhomer]

...yes? I wasn't aware there was confusion about that.

Well, it's not a confusion anymore. The real rating for Joker is officially rated R.

[Peelee]

Well, it's not a confusion anymore. The real rating for Joker is officially rated R.

What I'm saying is, the trailers always eventually say the rating, the posters always eventually say the rating, and just based off the first trailer, I'd just pegged it as likely to get rated R based. There's usually no confusion on the rating because they advertise the rating heavily.

[Bartmanhomer]

What I'm saying is, the trailers always eventually say the rating, the posters always eventually say the rating, and just based off the first trailer, I'd just pegged it as likely to get rated R based. There's usually no confusion on the rating because they advertise the rating heavily.

Yes. I understand what you saying. I knew it would be an R rating. Because this movie is too....how can I put this.....violent and extreme for a PG-13 rating.

[Eldan]

Yes. I understand what you saying. I knew it would be an R rating. Because this movie is too....how can I put this.....violent and extreme for a PG-13 rating.

But why are you telling us that it is R. Everyone knows it is R. No one thought it is PG-13.

[Bartmanhomer]

But why are you telling us that it is R. Everyone knows it is R. No one thought it is PG-13.

Really? I didn't know that all of you knew. :confused:

[Magic_Hat]

But why are you telling us that it is R. Everyone knows it is R. No one thought it is PG-13.

I didn't know that. In fact I just learned of this when I watched a trailer for the film like an hour ago. This could be the best R rated film featuring a character called Joker since... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Metal_Jacket)

[sktarq]

I've had something happen this week that's changed how I look at the film..... My dad is not a Comics books fan. He hasn't watched any of the MCU, nor any of the DC movies including the original Batman movies from back in the day. I asked him about this after the movie...and he was surprised that it's a comic book movie. He didn't know who the Joker was outside of a very broad "he's that Batman villain", and hadn't recognized from either the trailer or the title that this movie was related to Batman/DC at all.....But I don't think I can judge the movie ahead of time based on "that's not how my preconceived notion of how the character in another universe would act".

Honestly I'm in your dad's camp on this one.

I don't like "comic book movies" per se. Didn't like the MCU or DCEU. Read very few comic books myself. There are exceptions to be sure. The Dark Knight was pretty good but could give the other two a miss. And I felt very lucky I saw Dredd in 3D (it is on my list of two movies I saw that really used 3D well along with Cave of Forgotten Dreams). I generally lean to character studies, "oscar bait", some "art house" stuff, corporate thrillers when I can get them, the variously oddball (Neon Demon, Lynch, etc) etc....And I find myself rather drawn to this movie.
I want to see this.

I think the director was asked if it was a comedy an action film or whatever...He said "A tragedy"

I think this looks like a good movie..but not aimed at the MCU or Nolan Batman crowd. I think it may be part of the normalization of comic book culture as movies from these sources expand in various directions.

I just really hope they leave Batman basically out of it...

[Bartmanhomer]

Well in my defense I thought it was PG-13.

[137beth]

Ok, let me rephrase that, I KNOW why they did it, I just think it's a very cynical and artistically bankrupt reasoning

If you want to see original films, you should go to Vimeo, Youtube, Gumroad, or another website that specializes in distributing independent media. If you want to see a cynical cash grab with a lot of celebrities and a cliche story, go see movies produced by the MPAA member studios.

[Bartmanhomer]

If you want to see original films, you should go to Vimeo, Youtube, Gumroad, or another website that specializes in distributing independent media. If you want to see a cynical cash grab with a lot of celebrities and a cliche story, go see movies produced by the MPAA member studios.

Or go see it at Hulu, Netflix or Amazon Prime.

[Peelee]

Or go see it at Hulu, Netflix or Amazon Prime.

Those don't tend to have a lot of independent media, to the best of my knowledge.

[Bartmanhomer]

Those don't tend to have a lot of independent media, to the best of my knowledge.

Are you kidding me? I've seen a lot of independent in those streams.

[Peelee]

Are you kidding me? I've seen a lot of independent in those streams.


to the best of my knowledge.

Feel free to enlighten me.

[Bartmanhomer]

Feel free to enlighten me.

I can but I don't wanna. :frown:

[JoshL]

When netflix started, it was chock full of weird indie films. These days they've almost all moved to Amazon Prime. I'd highly recommend The FP2 (post-apocalyptic DDR movie, weirder than you think it's going to be)

[Beleriphon]

Yes. I understand what you saying. I knew it would be an R rating. Because this movie is too....how can I put this.....violent and extreme for a PG-13 rating.

Only reference to PG-13 was a comparison to the relatively PG-13ishness of regular DC Comics to their more "mature" Black Label comics. The Joker is by all accounts in line with DC Black Label in that explores themes and images that aren't appropriate for the core material as well as being out of continuity with the rest of the line.

[ben-zayb]

When netflix started, it was chock full of weird indie films. These days they've almost all moved to Amazon Prime. I'd highly recommend The FP2 (post-apocalyptic DDR movie, weirder than you think it's going to be)

Alright, calm down. DDR in this production has got to mean something other than Dance Dance Revolution.

Sees trailer

It's really Dance Dance Revolution.

[Jeivar]

Say, does anyone know WHY it's being set in 1981? There has to be some significant reason why they're going through the effort and extra cost of making a period film rather than a contemporary one.

[Dienekes]

Say, does anyone know WHY it's being set in 1981? There has to be some significant reason why they're going through the effort and extra cost of making a period film rather than a contemporary one.

Apparently, because it was supposed to make certain that no one confuses it for being part of the current DCEU in any way. Especially the movie executives.

Though, personally, I'm going to be watching it and trying to see how many plot points could be solved by cellphones.

[truemane]

Any movie worthy of both Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay would be impressive indeed, I've gotta say.

Not to mention both Documentary (and Animated) Feature and Documentary (and Animated) Short Subject.

Oh! And Best Foreign Language Film. That one would be EXTRA impressive, as it would specifically require the film to be released in another country and NOT the US. Whereas any of the others would require the opposite./

I'll admit it, I'd go see it if that happened.

[Rodin]

Say, does anyone know WHY it's being set in 1981? There has to be some significant reason why they're going through the effort and extra cost of making a period film rather than a contemporary one.

My immediate thought was the New York -> Gotham connection*. The 1980s were an iconic "urban hell" period for New York, and that period would give the perfect anarchy for the rise of the Joker. It allows them to pull more realistic scenes of inner city decay, rather than the more stylized Gotham we often see. There's a certain apocalyptic feel to the time period in general (ever notice how all post-apocalypse media features 1980s punks?), and setting it then avoids problems like the Internet and cell phones.

It's also an origin story, so setting it in the past is a good way to show that. The 1980s are the most visually distinct period of the last 40 years, so it makes sense to pick that if you're going to be doing a period piece anyway.


*yes, I know it's technically in New Jersey.

[Peelee]

Could also be to remove cell phones and the internet from the picture. That can drastically change the likelihood of events happening.

[Magic_Hat]

Joker? I hardly know (h)'er!:smallbiggrin: I hope that jokes in the movie. I worked real hard on it.

I also have a feeling this film has zero CGI. I mean it might just to touch up a few things here and there, but given the trailers it all looks real: no sky lasers or disposable CGI army. What even was the last Hollywood superhero movie to come out that didn't use CGI? The Batman film where he had bat shark repellent?

[Clertar]

So DC fans are angry that this deviates from canonical Joker comic-book stories? Really? They should be on their knees with gratitude for the Joker getting a good movie, with good direction and good acting, especially after the Leto ****show.

It's a different take on the Joker, and DC is even officially calling this approach Worlds of DC, it's explicitly an Elseworlds approach. Jeez get over it.

[weckar]

To refer to The Killing Joke, the point of that comic was to explore, not his origin, but his philosophy. The Joker holds that everyone is one bad day away from being him and that Batman is just as crazy as he is. He is also definitively proven wrong by the end of the story.I'd say that's highly debatable. The ending of the comic is deliberately ambiguous.

[Tvtyrant]

So DC fans are angry that this deviates from canonical Joker comic-book stories? Really? They should be on their knees with gratitude for the Joker getting a good movie, with good direction and good acting, especially after the Leto ****show.

It's a different take on the Joker, and DC is even officially calling this approach Worlds of DC, it's explicitly an Elseworlds approach. Jeez get over it.

Some fan somewhere is going to be mad at any adaptation, might as well learn to ignore it. The outrage is meaningless noise, the only thing thst really matters is ticket sales.

[Saint Jimmy]

I just got back from an early screening of the movie in my town’s theater, it was interesting, for sure. I rarely go for character-based movies, but it was pretty tense throughout, there seemed to be an attention to detail that kept me hooked on it, and I was ecstatic that they used the delusional/unreliable narrator element. I wasn’t really expecting that going into the film, but I think it really helped show Arthur’s descent.
Overall I would recommend if you are interested in dark character movies, analyzing little details, or looking for a twist on the well-known Joker stories. It’s definitely not a comic-book movie, though, and it gets really dark in spots, which might be a dealbreaker for some.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm hoping for Joker sequel, this time with Batman.
They can call it Why so Serious, Batman?

But I loved it.
That slow descent to being who he is known for.

It wasn't just one bad day though.
They went with the idea that everything is connected.
a. If they hadn't cut drug/mental illness funding.
b. If Thomas Wayne hadn't been a jerk.
c. If Arthur had explained himself better: I killed them in self defense.
d. His mom hadn't let him be abused when he was younger and lie.

Although, we don't know if Wayne didn't falsify records to keep Arthur from being a legit bastard hier to the throne.



This is a pretty interesting universe of Batman. Probably not canon universe in the comics or cartoons, but maybe main movie universe.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I'm hoping for Joker sequel, this time with Batman.
They can call it Why so Serious, Batman?

But I loved it.
That slow descent to being who he is known for.

It wasn't just one bad day though.
They went with the idea that everything is connected.
a. If they hadn't cut drug/mental illness funding.
b. If Thomas Wayne hadn't been a jerk.
c. If Arthur had explained himself better: I killed them in self defense.
d. His mom hadn't let him be abused when he was younger and lie.

Although, we don't know if Wayne didn't falsify records to keep Arthur from being a legit bastard hier to the throne.



This is a pretty interesting universe of Batman. Probably not canon universe in the comics or cartoons, but maybe main movie universe.

but if this is movie canon, then who is the real joker, this guy or leto?

[Bartmanhomer]

Today I went to see Joker and I'm going to give you my honest review about it.

So anyway today I saw the movie Joker. It's about the origin of Batman iconic villain. And his origin was very sad and depressing, to be honest. It's about how Joker work at a dead-end job, beaten up with a bunch of punk teenagers, a false friend gives him a gun. Trying to do stand up comedy. Got himself fired for bringing a gun to the children hospital, murdered three business guys, killed his ex-friend then killed the Johnny Carson parody guy, caused chaos at the street and end up in an asylum. And what I think about this movie. It was awesome. I enjoy it. This movie was very climatic to show how a psychopathic man released his insanity. I'm don't know if this canon because of there so many version of Joker origins in comic books, TV shows, cartoons and other movies. But I really enjoy it and in my opinion, it's Oscar-worthy. So I'll give this movie 5 out of 5 stars. :smile:

[BWR]

Just got back from it and it was OK-to-good. Phoenix did a very good job and carried the movie easily on his scrawny, bruised shoulders and his performance is basically everything good about the movie. Most of the technical aspects of the movie were very well done, and there was nothing to dislike about the performances of the supporting cast. The reasons I don't consider it a very good movie is personal preference.
1. I don't like depressing movies, especially the ones that are too real. This one hits a bit closer to home than I like.
2. The Joker wasn't Joker enough. A couple murders, make-up and some pained laughter doesn't a Clown Prince of Crime make. Remove the make-up and the name and there wouldn't be all that much to tell you this was supposed to be the Joker. He lacked the showmanship, the bombasticity, the overwhelming presence that the Joker has. Even a more 'down to earth' interpretation as such the Ledger Joker was definitely the Joker. Nicholson was obviously the Joker. Leto was obviously the Joker. Phoenix was not obviously the Joker. Maybe if you sort of squint and think that realism is better than fantasy, he sorta-kinda looks like a Joker, I guess.
This was an origin story, and in an origin story you really need the character to actually come into his own at the end, and this was at best half-baked. Maybe some day he could become the Joker, but as it is Arthur Fleck is just a painted killer.
If you've seen the trailer, you've basically seen the movie and the rest is just details.

[Magic_Hat]

I'm hoping for Joker sequel, this time with Batman.
They can call it Why so Serious, Batman?

Or...OR...and hear me out because this might sound a little crazy...they don't make a sequel, and we all just appreciate what we have. We appreciate the wit of this film because there's only one of it - because the experience of watching it and experiencing this story is brevity. Am I making sense? Not everything has to be this big, huge story with twenty spinoffs and future installments.

I actually heard good things about this film. I might actually see it in theaters which is saying something because I typically only see one film on average in theaters.

[Psyren]

but if this is movie canon, then who is the real joker, this guy or leto?

Pretty sure DC is as eager to forget all about Leto's Juggaloker as the rest of us. (Most of the rest of us anyway.)

[Magic_Hat]

Pretty sure DC is as eager to forget all about Leto's Juggaloker as the rest of us. (Most of the rest of us anyway.)

Talk about DC ripping of the MCU as usual. First Marvel create an awful adaptation featuring a poor representation of the Mandarin, and then DC does the same thing with the Joker.

[Peelee]

Just got back from it and it was OK-to-good. Phoenix did a very good job and carried the movie easily on his scrawny, bruised shoulders and his performance is basically everything good about the movie. Most of the technical aspects of the movie were very well done, and there was nothing to dislike about the performances of the supporting cast. The reasons I don't consider it a very good movie is personal preference.
1. I don't like depressing movies, especially the ones that are too real. This one hits a bit closer to home than I like.
2. The Joker wasn't Joker enough. A couple murders, make-up and some pained laughter doesn't a Clown Prince of Crime make. Remove the make-up and the name and there wouldn't be all that much to tell you this was supposed to be the Joker. He lacked the showmanship, the bombasticity, the overwhelming presence that the Joker has. Even a more 'down to earth' interpretation as such the Ledger Joker was definitely the Joker. Nicholson was obviously the Joker. Leto was obviously the Joker. Phoenix was not obviously the Joker. Maybe if you sort of squint and think that realism is better than fantasy, he sorta-kinda looks like a Joker, I guess.
This was an origin story, and in an origin story you really need the character to actually come into his own at the end, and this was at best half-baked. Maybe some day he could become the Joker, but as it is Arthur Fleck is just a painted killer.
If you've seen the trailer, you've basically seen the movie and the rest is just details.

I could not disagree more.

First off, unpopular opinion here, but Jack Nicholson's Joker was terrible. He was a mob boss, he had definitive plans, he just acted all kooky about them. He had a freaking catch phrase for when he killed people. He killed the Waynes for no reason other than to give Batman a connection to him. The ridiculous pistol was the most Joker-ish thing about him, and even that was pretty terrible overall because you have Batman literally shooting guns at the Joker. The movie gave us a pretty bad version of Batman, Joker, and more or less everyone else who was supposed to be important. No slight to Jack Nicholson here, he did the best with what they gave him (as did Michael Keaton), it's just what they gave him was crap.

And Jared Leto? Really? Imean, the rest of the movie aside, what about the Joker screams "will sit still for hours upon hours to get "ha ha" tattooed over his entire body?"

The current Joker movie?As soon as he gets off his meds, he's pretty much Joker to a T, and even before then you see a lot of incredibly Joker-ish mannerisms. He absolutely nailed the laugh, it was about as creepy as I've ever heard in a live-action Joker (and gave Hamill a run for his money, IMO). The run was probably the best part, he had an absolutely spectacular run.
The murder with the scissors was impulsive, fast, sloppy, and vicious. The de Niro murder was back to normal immediately afterwards, just acting as if nothing in the world was wrong. The dancing, the lack of nervousness, the confidence and certainty and mockery as he just bumbled his way away from the cops in the subway, starting the full-blown riot we see after he leaves... This guy was absolutely the Joker through and through.

More to the point, it's a character study. You don't go to see Batman Begins and expect to see almost a whole movie of inner turmoil. Of course he's going to slowly morph into becoming the Joker over the course of the film, that's the entire point of the film. If you didn't like the slow burn to fully finish the transformation, I'd at least understand, but I can't even get that you think he wasn't full-blown Joker by the time he took the stage on the Murray Franklin Show.

Hell, this movie did more to explain the Joker's henchmen than any other media I've seen. Joker is an inspiration point for the disenfranchised, they see him as a leader and one who they can rally behind. Literally every other Joker, if you think for just one second "why do low-level thugs follow him?" it doesn't hold up. There's no discernible reason. This Joker, though, you can immediately see why he's able to have an entire gang. That alone makes him a better Joker than any other live-action Joker. He's a transformative figure, despite not trying to be one. He starts an entire movement, he spearheads a new wave of crime in Gotham, and you get to actually see it happen in a logical and straightforward way.

The "depressing" part I can totally understand though. It's super dark. I just happened to love that.

[Psyren]

Talk about DC ripping of the MCU as usual. First Marvel create an awful adaptation featuring a poor representation of the Mandarin, and then DC does the same thing with the Joker.

Eh, MCU may have used the Mandarin's name, but everything else about IM3 took far more inspiration from the Extremis storyline. I consider the Mandarin to still have not been adapted at all beyond marketing purposes; at the very least, they weren't actually trying, which is more than I can say for the DCEU's continued flailing.

[Rodin]

Or...OR...and hear me out because this might sound a little crazy...they don't make a sequel, and we all just appreciate what we have. We appreciate the wit of this film because there's only one of it - because the experience of watching it and experiencing this story is brevity. Am I making sense? Not everything has to be this big, huge story with twenty spinoffs and future installments.

I actually heard good things about this film. I might actually see it in theaters which is saying something because I typically only see one film on average in theaters.

Could not agree more. Everything I've heard about this film suggests it to be an art film that just happens to use a DC character. That's not a film you make a series out of.

Planning on seeing the movie later this week. I'm getting fairly hyped for it. Super dark and depressing studies of society are something I like every now and then (one favorite being Brassed Off), and this looks to fit the bill.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Eh, MCU may have used the Mandarin's name, but everything else about IM3 took far more inspiration from the Extremis storyline. I consider the Mandarin to still have not been adapted at all beyond marketing purposes;

There is a Marvel one shot called "All Hail the King" where it's revealed that the real Mandarin exists, is the leader of the 10 rings from IM1, and has Ben Kingsley's fake Mandarin killed. I think it was released as an extra on the Thor Dark World special Edition DVD.

[Traab]

I still say DC should have gone dark mirror on copying the mcu by focusing on the villains, not the heroes and this movie shows how it could have worked. The people actually enjoy a good bad guy focused movie even when its a bad guy who really shouldnt have an origin story. To heck with the justice league, thats nothing but directly ripping off the avengers movie series, I wouldnt have minded a Suicide Squad movie that acted as the culmination of all these bad guy "origin stories" where they wind up in jail, then get recruited by waller. Its still in the end similar to the avengers, but by focusing on the bad guys with heroes being more of the antagonist of the movie, we get these well grounded bad guys with well explored personalities and abilities rather than the rushed job of suicide squad we got. And since the suicide squad has had many incarnations, it gives room to create a ton of origin films to see which ones the audience likes the most. If they dont like boomerang? Toss him, bring in killer frost, etc etc. It would have been similar enough to fit the winning formula the mcu created, but different enough to be DC, not Marvel.

[Bartmanhomer]

One question. Is Joker consider a villain or supervillain? :confused:

[Brother Oni]

One question. Is Joker consider a villain or supervillain? :confused:

Depends on the presentation. :smalltongue:

[-D-]

One question. Is Joker consider a villain or supervillain? :confused:
In storyline Emperor Joker, he became a God like being. In Batman games, he became a super mutant.

Depends on the work, really.

[Clertar]

There is a Marvel one shot called "All Hail the King" where it's revealed that the real Mandarin exists, is the leader of the 10 rings from IM1, and has Ben Kingsley's fake Mandarin killed. I think it was released as an extra on the Thor Dark World special Edition DVD.

And the Mandarin will be the villain in the Shang Chi film.


IRT the Jared Leto Joker, I'll just leave this here:
https://static3.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/jared-leto-joker-deleted-scene.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=738&h=369

[Peelee]

One question. Is Joker consider a villain or supervillain? :confused:

What, in your opinion, is the difference?

[-D-]

What, in your opinion, is the difference?
Superpowers :smallconfused:

A mob boss is a villain. Magneto which has superpowers is a supervillain. I guess, anyone that buys a super-suit and uses it to terrorize the populace is a supervillain as well.

[Rodin]

Superpowers :smallconfused:

A mob boss is a villain. Magneto which has superpowers is a supervillain. I guess, anyone that buys a super-suit and uses it to terrorize the populace is a supervillain as well.

So would this mean that Batman isn't a superhero?

[Peelee]

So would this mean that Batman isn't a superhero?

And most of the Rogues Gallery aren't supervillains.

[Bartmanhomer]

Superpowers :smallconfused:

A mob boss is a villain. Magneto which has superpowers is a supervillain. I guess, anyone that buys a super-suit and uses it to terrorize the populace is a supervillain as well.

What he said.

[Peelee]

What he said.

Then why would you ask if Joker is a supervillain? He would never be a supervillain in that context.

[Bartmanhomer]

Then why would you ask if Joker is a supervillain? He would never be a supervillain in that context.

It just got me wondering that's all.

[Kitten Champion]

It's the same as with Superheroes, it's branding.

I mean, "Superhero" is a meaningless term as it's not like the American comic industry invented the idea of giving heroic characters superpowers or anything - the Sumerians got them beat by a couple thousand years at least - but with marketing the Superhero has developed an identity of its own. Even heroes who don't possess any "super" qualities can qualify in the wider cultural sphere as Superheroes when they share the associated brand.

It's kind of like the word "apps", it's a stupid buzzword term objectively but it's been used wide and long enough within its own context - and by software & hardware developers - as to have its own meaning regardless.

[Psyren]

Joker is not normally a metahuman, no. If that's the bar for "supervillain" then he isn't, though with that said, there have been numerous storylines where he either becomes one or is able to manipulate other metahumans to achieve his ends anyway, so I don't think the distinction is all that important in the grand scheme.

Personally I don't consider metahuman to be a requirement for supervillainy. Lex Luthor is just as muggle as Joker, minus that power suit he sometimes wears, yet I would always consider him to be a supervillain even when he's outside of it.


I still say DC should have gone dark mirror on copying the mcu by focusing on the villains, not the heroes and this movie shows how it could have worked. The people actually enjoy a good bad guy focused movie even when its a bad guy who really shouldnt have an origin story. To heck with the justice league, thats nothing but directly ripping off the avengers movie series, I wouldnt have minded a Suicide Squad movie that acted as the culmination of all these bad guy "origin stories" where they wind up in jail, then get recruited by waller. Its still in the end similar to the avengers, but by focusing on the bad guys with heroes being more of the antagonist of the movie, we get these well grounded bad guys with well explored personalities and abilities rather than the rushed job of suicide squad we got. And since the suicide squad has had many incarnations, it gives room to create a ton of origin films to see which ones the audience likes the most. If they dont like boomerang? Toss him, bring in killer frost, etc etc. It would have been similar enough to fit the winning formula the mcu created, but different enough to be DC, not Marvel.

I mean, you might get your wish, if James Gunn's Suicide Squad (notably omitting Jared Leto) takes off.

[-D-]

So would this mean that Batman isn't a superhero?
He definitely isn't a super at least in any meaningful way. But as other said, people consider this superhero genre, and him hence a superhero.

[Clertar]

This definitorial view of super-heroes derived from the existence of super-powers is totally a posteriori. Let's fotget about this genre for a second and think normal: a hero is anyone who does something heroic. "Those firemen are heroes", "This alpinist was a true hero" etc. In a specific type of comics in the 20th century, a sort of professional type of heroes appeared, called super-heroes, probably influenced by or connected to names like Super-man's, influenced by the Nietzchean super-human.

A super-hero is someone beyond a regular hero, it's an hyperbolic hero. Batman is a super-hero since his inception, as are many non-powered super-heroes like the Phantom (the Ghost who Walks). Mirroring super-heroes, someone with the same showmanship and hyperbolic nature that acts for evil instead of good received by analogy the name of super-hero.

Both are orthogonal to having super-powers, which are just powers beyond those of a regular human but are not defining properties of super-heroes or -villains: you can have non-powered super-heroes (e.g. Batman, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Green Arrow), and super-powered not-super-heroes (like your average inhuman or asgardian in the Marvel universe).

[Felhammer]

He definitely isn't a super at least in any meaningful way. But as other said, people consider this superhero genre, and him hence a superhero.


I disagree. Batman is a man with genius level intellect; who is in pique physical condition; who is a master of multiple martial arts; who is a CEO of a successful multibillion dollar company; who moonlights as a billionaire-playboy-philanthropist-celebrity; who fights crime all night in his home city; who goes on globe trotting adventures to foreign countries, other planets and - even - other planes of existence with the Justice League; who finds the time to sleep every night; who eats three meals a day; who goes to the gym everyday; who reads an excessive amount of books; who researches new technologies, new crime fighting techniques and new psychological and psychiatric papers; who builds and maintains his own gadgets and vehicles; who finds the time to date several eligible baccalaureates; who raises several orphans to be well rounded adults; who serves as a surrogate father and mentor to a dozen or so crime fighters in Gotham; who equips and trains half a dozen international Batmen; who keeps tabs on all of the villains in Gotham; who devices ingenious plans to thwart said villains, as well as any rogue member of the Justice League; who also takes the time to help other, non-Gotham based heroes with their hogwash problems; who also takes the time out of his day to visit his employees and make sure they are living a good fulfilling life. If he is not a super human - in some way - then either he is a Mary Sue or we are not living the best versions of our lives! :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

[Tvtyrant]

I disagree. Batman is a man with genius level intellect; who is in pique physical condition; who is a master of multiple martial arts; who is a CEO of a successful multibillion dollar company; who moonlights as a billionaire-playboy-philanthropist-celebrity; who fights crime all night in his home city; who goes on globe trotting adventures to foreign countries, other planets and - even - other planes of existence with the Justice League; who finds the time to sleep every night; who eats three meals a day; who goes to the gym everyday; who reads an excessive amount of books; who researches new technologies, new crime fighting techniques and new psychological and psychiatric papers; who builds and maintains his own gadgets and vehicles; who finds the time to date several eligible baccalaureates; who raises several orphans to be well rounded adults; who serves as a surrogate father and mentor to a dozen or so crime fighters in Gotham; who equips and trains half a dozen international Batmen; who keeps tabs on all of the villains in Gotham; who devices ingenious plans to thwart said villains, as well as any rogue member of the Justice League; who also takes the time to help other, non-Gotham based heroes with their hogwash problems; who also takes the time out of his day to visit his employees and make sure they are living a good fulfilling life. If he is not a super human - in some way - then either he is a Mary Sue or we are not living the best versions of our lives! :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

Now I am imagining a world where no one ever slacks off and are genius level intellects. Cleaning toilets in seconds, cooking a hundred meals at a time, driving at 400 miles an hour to drop off passengers and never having an accident.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Superpowers :smallconfused:

A mob boss is a villain. Magneto which has superpowers is a supervillain. I guess, anyone that buys a super-suit and uses it to terrorize the populace is a supervillain as well.



Does that mean Lex Luthor is not a Super Villain?

[Tvtyrant]

Does that mean Lex Luthor is not a Super Villain?

It isn't super as in magic powers, it is an intensifier for villain. He isn't just some normal villain, he is a super villain.

The whole thing is even funnier when you know that villain means peasant, so Lex Luthor the billionaire is super poor.

[Felhammer]

Now I am imagining a world where no one ever slacks off and are genius level intellects. Cleaning toilets in seconds, cooking a hundred meals at a time, driving at 400 miles an hour to drop off passengers and never having an accident.

If only we could lead our best lives...

Oh well, back to Facebook and Candy Crush :smalltongue:

[Beleriphon]

There is a Marvel one shot called "All Hail the King" where it's revealed that the real Mandarin exists, is the leader of the 10 rings from IM1, and has Ben Kingsley's fake Mandarin killed. I think it was released as an extra on the Thor Dark World special Edition DVD.

He will be the main villain of Chang Shi: Master of Kung Fu.

Edit: And already mentioned.

As for Joker I'm rather looking forward to seeing it. I've always enjoyed the tense psycho-dramas from the 70s.

[Peelee]

Frankly, I'm looking forward to seeing it again. It's pretty visceral.

[Magic_Hat]

Could not agree more. Everything I've heard about this film suggests it to be an art film that just happens to use a DC character. That's not a film you make a series out of.

Wow! Someone actually believes in my extreme opinions. I feel validated.

On that note I have a question. Of the superhero/comicbook adaptations that came out already this year...

-Captain Marvel
-Endgame
-Far from Home
-Shazam
-Dark Phoenix
-Hellboy

..where do you rank Joker? I'm asking because I've heard some people say its the best film they've seen all year - a year where Endgame came out. Endgame a film with SO much CGI, is three hours long, and the 22nd installment in a series - in your opinion does this little stand alone film surpass it in terms of quality. Quality and not box office returns I do stress. I mean all Joker has going for it is a very talented actor in the lead role which in all honesty should be the defining point of a film. And if it seems like I'm attacking Endgame you could ask the same with Dark Phoenix: another film with a lot of CGI in a series with...I don't know how many previous installments. Is there even any CGI in Joker?

I'm not so much attack any one specific film, but the current state of cinema. These never ending series that over rely on special effects - I mean there was a new Rambo film that also came out and I heard that was bad. Yet another series that has gone on far too long.

[Rodin]

Wow! Someone actually believes in my extreme opinions. I feel validated.

On that note I have a question. Of the superhero/comicbook adaptations that came out already this year...

-Captain Marvel
-Endgame
-Far from Home
-Shazam
-Dark Phoenix
-Hellboy

..where do you rank Joker? I'm asking because I've heard some people say its the best film they've seen all year - a year where Endgame came out. Endgame a film with SO much CGI, is three hours long, and the 22nd installment in a series - in your opinion does this little stand alone film surpass it in terms of quality. Quality and not box office returns I do stress. I mean all Joker has going for it is a very talented actor in the lead role which in all honesty should be the defining point of a film. And if it seems like I'm attacking Endgame you could ask the same with Dark Phoenix: another film with a lot of CGI in a series with...I don't know how many previous installments. Is there even any CGI in Joker?

I'm not so much attack any one specific film, but the current state of cinema. These never ending series that over rely on special effects - I mean there was a new Rambo film that also came out and I heard that was bad. Yet another series that has gone on far too long.

I haven't seen it yet, I'm hoping to see it on Wednesday or another day later this week. But I can probably do some pre-rating for you to give some idea of my thoughts going in.

I haven't seen Dark Phoenix, Shazam, or Hellboy, so I can't rate those. Other than Shazam (which I want to see at some point), I didn't watch Dark Phoenix or Hellboy because I heard they were terrible. So...put those at the bottom and Shazam off to one side?

I will say that it almost certainly will not beat out Endgame for me. It was the culmination of 10 years worth of build-up and will probably be #2 on my "greatest all time" list for the forseeable future. #1 is Last Crusade, because nobody beats Ford and Connery in the same film. Nobody.

Captain Marvel and Far From Home were both solid films, but nothing all that special either. Captain Marvel was definitely better than Far From Home.

[Clertar]

Could not agree more. Everything I've heard about this film suggests it to be an art film that just happens to use a DC character. That's not a film you make a series out of.

I disagree quite strongly. Rather than seeing endless versions of basically the same incarnation of the Joker and Batman, I'd like to see something actually new and original explored. When DC comics do the equivalent, it usually gets fan support. When Marvel does it with films (think Spider-man as incarnated in the MCU or in Into the Spider-Verse), it usually gets fan support. Why do I get the feeling that DC fans want to see only very specific beats that they have in their head depicted in film?

This Joker film presented a very original view of the Batman world. The chaotic situation of Gotham City, the death of Bruce Wayne's parents, it was all caused directly or indirectly by the Joker. In this Gotham where the rich are such pricks and there's so much misery, what type of Batman would Bruce Wayne become? It's a very gray world, one in which it's not totally clear who is doing evil and who's not. How would that Batman play off against this Joker, who is a mass murderer but also deep down a clearly damaged person* that just needs, or needed, some help? Would this Batman be out for revenge, or would he set out to help Gotham? Would he be the champion of the Gotham aristocracy against the masses, would he fight for the people?

In the Nolan-verse, Batman was the first one to dress up, the first super, which ignited a series of similarly dressed-up super-criminals. In the Todd Phillips-verse, the Joker is the one to start that. What is this Joker like 10-15 years down the line, what has he become? How has his appearence influenced the creation of bombastic, dressed-up criminals (and heroes like Batman)?

I want to see that way more than I want to see Robert Pattinson as younger Batfleck, to be honest.


*Even if it's not tattooed on his forehead.

[Devonix]

When DC comics does what you're talking about, they're stand alone stories like this one. It's what makes them special. Stories not trapped by continuity or trying to tie it into something else. Films like this should be separate. That's what allows such creative freedom.

[Peelee]

I have no first-hand knowledge of them, but it seems like alternate universes are pretty common in Marvel and DC, so I see no reason why more movies couldn't explore this specific Joker more. I don't think they will, and I don't know if they'd be as good as this one if they did, but don't understand why they couldn't.

[Psyren]

Todd Phillips is suggesting that Arthur Fleck may have inspired Batman's Joker instead of being the real Clown Prince of Crime himself. (https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/joker-director-addresses-fan-theory-about-arthur-flecks-ties-to-batman) For me this is the best of both worlds - the obligatory DC trappings like Thomas Wayne aren't completely pointless this way, but this movie can still stand alone without having to worry about tying Arthur in with Batman and his other rogues. We also don't end up with yet another Joker who is 30 years older than Bruce and directly tied to his family before he even began his crusade (*sideeyes Tim Burton's Batman*). I certainly couldn't picture Joaquin's Joker zipping around town abusing Harley Quinn, releasing laughing gas all over the city, or bashing Jason Todd's head in.


I have no first-hand knowledge of them, but it seems like alternate universes are pretty common in Marvel and DC, so I see no reason why more movies couldn't explore this specific Joker more. I don't think they will, and I don't know if they'd be as good as this one if they did, but don't understand why they couldn't.

Individual films can certainly go alternate universe, but I think running more than one universe as a franchise can cause confusion in non-comic fans. But as stated above, they don't have to - this Joker movie CAN take place in the DCEU continuity, without needing Joaquin to reprise his role in Pattinson's upcoming Batman flick.

Walling off the realities can also cause them to miss opportunities when something actually succeeds. Fans for example have praised both Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn (even though most of the rest of Suicide Squad was awful, she seems to have gotten a fair amount of acclaim), so the prospect of one day getting them on screen together is going to be a cashola for WB. Those two films, as well as Birds of Prey and whatever the new Suicide Squad ends up being all take place in the same continuity, so that possibility is always going to be there.

[Peelee]

Todd Phillips is suggesting that Arthur Fleck may have inspired Batman's Joker instead of being the real Clown Prince of Crime himself. (https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/joker-director-addresses-fan-theory-about-arthur-flecks-ties-to-batman) For me this is the best of both worlds - the obligatory DC trappings like Thomas Wayne aren't completely pointless this way, but this movie can still stand alone without having to worry about tying Arthur in with Batman and his other rogues. We also don't end up with yet another Joker who is 30 years older than Bruce and directly tied to his family before he even began his crusade (*sideeyes Tim Burton's Batman*). I certainly couldn't picture Joaquin's Joker zipping around town abusing Harley Quinn, releasing laughing gas all over the city, or bashing Jason Todd's head in.
.
Im not a fan of this idea.The laugh is spot on, he actively goes by Joker publicly at the end, he fully embraces the chaos in the subway scene when being chased by the cops and seems more in his element there than any other time before, starts getting a flair for the dramatic and high levels of confidence when he goes all out on his way to do the Murr-RAY show, and is getting the devotion and allegiance of a vast amount of people. That's Joker. Some other guy coming along, taking the same gimmick, and running with it? I dont buy it. Plus, I can see him having a Harley Quinn - her attraction to him is already easy to see, he can be mesmerizing, and after his fantasy with the girl in the apartment across the hall, along with his mother's betrayal and her actions to begin with ("don't you have to be funny to do stand-up?"), I could easily see him having a toxic relationship afterwards.

Individual films can certainly go alternate universe, but I think running more than one universe as a franchise can cause confusion in non-comic fans. But as stated above, they don't have to - this Joker movie CAN take place in the DCEU continuity, without needing Joaquin to reprise his role in Pattinson's upcoming Batman flick.

Given the sheer amount of different Batmen in different eras in cinema alone, I doubt it would be that confusing. Or Spider-Men, for that matter, they reboot it twice a decade or so and it's never been confusing so far.

Which, to be fair, is also why I was wondering why so many people were hostile to the idea of the movie to begin with.

[Psyren]

Im not a fan of this idea.The laugh is spot on, he actively goes by Joker publicly at the end, he fully embraces the chaos in the subway scene when being chased by the cops and seems more in his element there than any other time before, starts getting a flair for the dramatic and high levels of confidence when he goes all out on his way to do the Murr-RAY show, and is getting the devotion and allegiance of a vast amount of people. That's Joker. Some other guy coming along, taking the same gimmick, and running with it? I dont buy it. Plus, I can see him having a Harley Quinn - her attraction to him is already easy to see, he can be mesmerizing, and after his fantasy with the girl in the apartment across the hall, along with his mother's betrayal and her actions to begin with ("don't you have to be funny to do stand-up?"), I could easily see him having a toxic relationship afterwards.

Our Joker (Joker Prime?) doesn't care about devotion and allegiance though. He's certainly quite good at accumulating it when he wants to, but it's all a means to an end, and he works just fine alone or manipulating people from the shadows too. As mentioned, I don't get that vibe from Arthur at all, nor do I get much in the way of organized crime (even the very loose version of "organized" the Joker typically uses). But most of all I'm just not seeing the age difference; sure, the comics have always been vague on that front, but 3 decades+ are a bit much.



Given the sheer amount of different Batmen in different eras in cinema alone, I doubt it would be that confusing. Or Spider-Men, for that matter, they reboot it twice a decade or so and it's never been confusing so far.

Which, to be fair, is also why I was wondering why so many people were hostile to the idea of the movie to begin with.

Batman as a film franchise doesn't really help your point though; none of his movies ran concurrently, or even all that close together. The Tim Burton -> Schumacher era was 4 movies long, each one 3 years apart between installments with nothing in between - no teamups, no spinoffs, no crossovers etc - from 1989-1997, and were only loosely connected to one another at best. This was followed by an almost ten-year gap to the Dark Knight Trilogy. With Batman movies spaced out that much both within and between their respective runs, of course there was no confusion about them being largely (or completely in Nolan's case) unconnected to one another.

Compare to Marvel - the MCU would have never gotten off the ground if they tried multiple versions of the same character. For example, in the same span of time as the first set of Batman movies, RDJ played Iron Man in more than twice as many films, was assumed to be off in the background somewhere doing stuff for several more, and even when he had nothing to do with the plot, setting details from his movies were sprinkled throughout several others and in multiple spinoff TV shows. Even posthumously he drove the plot of Far From Home. Could you imagine trying to keep all that straight if there were multiple Tony Starks running around with so little space between? It would be utterly impossible, and so it's perfectly reasonable that they didn't try.

[Peelee]

Our Joker (Joker Prime?) doesn't care about devotion and allegiance though. He's certainly quite good at accumulating it when he wants to, but it's all a means to an end, and he works just fine alone or manipulating people from the shadows too. As mentioned, I don't get that vibe from Arthur at all, nor do I get much in the way of organized crime (even the very loose version of "organized" the Joker typically uses). But most of all I'm just not seeing the age difference; sure, the comics have always been vague on that front, but 3 decades+ are a bit much.



Batman as a film franchise doesn't really help your point though; none of his movies ran concurrently, or even all that close together. The Tim Burton -> Schumacher era was 4 movies long, each one 3 years apart between installments with nothing in between - no teamups, no spinoffs, no crossovers etc - from 1989-1997, and were only loosely connected to one another at best. This was followed by an almost ten-year gap to the Dark Knight Trilogy. With Batman movies spaced out that much both within and between their respective runs, of course there was no confusion about them being largely (or completely in Nolan's case) unconnected to one another.

Compare to Marvel - the MCU would have never gotten off the ground if they tried multiple versions of the same character. For example, in the same span of time as the first set of Batman movies, RDJ played Iron Man in more than twice as many films, was assumed to be off in the background somewhere doing stuff for several more, and even when he had nothing to do with the plot, setting details from his movies were sprinkled throughout several others and in multiple spinoff TV shows. Even posthumously he drove the plot of Far From Home. Could you imagine trying to keep all that straight if there were multiple Tony Starks running around with so little space between? It would be utterly impossible, and so it's perfectly reasonable that they didn't try.

Is Joker Prime Nicholson Joker? Heath Ledger? Mark Hamill? Whoever did that 80s-glam-metal The Batman Joker?

Dark Knight Joker actively sought to team up with people. Nicholson Joker was a mob boss and only reached his heights because of that. TAS Joker I could see that argument for, but can we really call him Joker Prime? And then the same sentence again, but with Arkhamverse Joker.

As for concurrent movies, Sony made a movie specifically about different Spider-Man universes while Spider-Man was continuing the MCU stories. To be fair, the openly acknowledging and playing with different universes shtick helped it a whole lot, but still, its been done as a proof-of-concept.

ETA: Keeping to different eras (90s for Phoenix Joker and present day for Patterson Batman) would help differentiate as well.

[Psyren]

Is Joker Prime Nicholson Joker? Heath Ledger? Mark Hamill? Whoever did that 80s-glam-metal The Batman Joker?

Joker's defining characteristic is being Batman's archnemesis. Until Arthur gets that mantle (which I'm willing to bet a sizeable sum he never will), I consider all of the ones you listed to be more "prime" than he is.



As for concurrent movies, Sony made a movie specifically about different Spider-Man universes while Spider-Man was continuing the MCU stories. To be fair, the openly acknowledging and playing with different universes shtick helped it a whole lot, but still, its been done as a proof-of-concept.

As you noted, that movie not only hung a very open lampshade on the multiverse concept as a whole, it focused on Miles, a completely different person wearing the Spiderman mantle. There's no room for confusion there I'd say.

[Peelee]

Joker's defining characteristic is being Batman's archnemesis.

That's a bold claim. I would argue that his defining characteristic is his embodiment of chaos, since that's what makes him Batmans archnemesis. And Arthur got there. Confessing on live TV, murdering MurRAY (seriously loved how he said that), tossing his gun aside and acting like he'd just ordered a pizza afterwards, dancing on the squad car, he was Joker. Sure, there was no Batman, but you could say the same thing in other movies as well; Joker was killing, leaving his card, and infiltrating organisations (Detective J. Kerr was listed as the officer on the evidence bag) in Nolan verse before Batman even knew he existed, and likely before Batman went public, depending on how you interpret Gordon's line at the end. Tim "anyone who knows me knows I would never read a comic book" Burton's Joker killed Bruce's parents (and I hate that just as much as you do, it seems). It's not uncommon at all for the Joker to rise as a fully formed character independent of Batman, only to become his nemesis later.

I ain't takin' that bet, though. :smallwink:

[Psyren]

It's a claim I feel pretty comfortable with. It's at the beginning, often in the first few sentences, in nearly every wiki or article about the guy after all. Every one of them that isn't specifically talking about Arthur Fleck anyway.

[Peelee]

It's a claim I feel pretty comfortable with. It's at the beginning, often in the first few sentences, in nearly every wiki or article about the guy after all. Every one of them that isn't specifically talking about Arthur Fleck anyway.

By that logic, his name is even more defining, and Arthur actively went by Joker in the movie. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

By that logic, his name is even more defining, and Arthur actively went by Joker in the movie. :smalltongue:

Ha! But that would be why I said the character, not the name. After all, names (https://hero.fandom.com/wiki/Joker_(Persona_5)) can (https://masseffect.fandom.com/wiki/Jeff_%22Joker%22_Moreau) be (https://readordie.fandom.com/wiki/Joseph_Carpenter) misleading (https://hero.fandom.com/wiki/Sergeant_Joker) :smallwink:

[Peelee]

Ha! But that would be why I said the character, not the name. After all, names (https://hero.fandom.com/wiki/Joker_(Persona_5)) can (https://masseffect.fandom.com/wiki/Jeff_%22Joker%22_Moreau) be (https://readordie.fandom.com/wiki/Joseph_Carpenter) misleading (https://hero.fandom.com/wiki/Sergeant_Joker) :smallwink:

Fair point. Though when a clown starts murdering people in Gotham City, I'm going to start to think I'm a duck.

Or something like that.

[Dienekes]

Just saw it, great movie. Not the Joker, or even my Joker, but that's fine. It's essentially just a movie about the growing economic and social gap in society, mixed in a bit with mistreatment of the disabled. Then shamelessly stealing the imagery of the Joker to sell tickets and creates the movies own unique and interesting visuals. And it did that really well. Though I would say the impetus of the action felt unrealistic to me.


Man, I live in Chicago. Three people getting shot isn't going to start a revolution, that's only going to be front page news on a slow news day. And I know that statement basically plays into narrative and themes of the movie, but still. There are also some finicky details, like, even in the 80s a coding patient would elicit some response from hospital staff. And Murray and everyone else not calling for security after his guest admitted to murder right in front of him seemed so strange.

Beyond that, great movie. I actually really enjoy how much the Arthur doesn't seem to really care about the revolution he accidentally started. He's just happy people are noticing him just being himself.

[Peelee]

Three people getting shot isn't going to start a revolution, that's only going to be front page news on a slow news day. And I know that statement basically plays into narrative and themes of the movie, but still.


It wasn't just three people getting shot, though, was it? It was three rich people who were given coverage and attention and people gave a damn about, unlike all the other murders that happen. Just like Thomas Wayne going on the TV and calling out people for not being rich. Gotham at that point was shown to be a powder keg, and while the killings didn't light it (the cops gun going off in the subway did), it certainly doused the powder keg in gasoline.

[Dienekes]

It wasn't just three people getting shot, though, was it? It was three rich people who were given coverage and attention and people gave a damn about, unlike all the other murders that happen. Just like Thomas Wayne going on the TV and calling out people for not being rich. Gotham at that point was shown to be a powder keg, and while the killings didn't light it (the cops gun going off in the subway did), it certainly doused the powder keg in gasoline.


Yeah, 3 upper-middle to upper class guys got murdered. Again, that's not really all that impressive. At least here in Chicago. It takes some pretty warped viewing to see three pretty much nobodies getting killed and suddenly having that turn into a big event. Especially since the three guys wrongdoings weren't reported and do not seem grandiose enough to become widespread among the populace. So, it just looks like 3 innocents got killed and suddenly everyone starts praising how cool that is. Which, honestly, just portrays poor people as really petty kinda gross.

Like seeking vengeance because some of their own got unfairly killed. That I get. I've seen enough walks for people getting killed by the cops before to know how tense those situations get. And if the situation was framed more like that, I can see some riots happening. But rich young adults? Maybe if there was some other step. Like, the wealthy using their murder as an excuse to crack down on the poor further. That would make an adequate tipping point. But I really don't see your usual citizen hearing about a triple homicide and going "Cool, let's do more of that and start dressing up as the killer."

But again, this is nitpickery. It's a great movie.

[uncool]

What, in your opinion, is the difference?
...

...

...

PRESENTATION!

(you asked for it)

Just saw it, and:
The acting was really strong. Joaquin Phoenix plays the hell out of a man dancing on the line of sanity and eventually taking any refuge he can in justifying himself. The writing for everyone works. The plot...is kinda weak.
The movie portrays the start and end very well, but doesn't play the transition as well as it should have. The reveal of the delusion is too clear, when (I think) ambiguity would better serve the movie by tying the viewer to Arthur's not knowing - and later, not caring - about what is real. The murder (of the coworker) felt like a severe escalation not really justified by the plot so far.

On the other hand, now that I think about it, the entire scene with the coworkers feels like it is indicated as a delusion. It is clearly wish-fulfillment in that it gives him the ability to choose who deserves to live, it doesn't affect the rest of the film, and the effects it should have had - messing up his makeup just before he went out - are entirely lacking.

[Tvtyrant]

It wasn't just three people getting shot, though, was it? It was three rich people who were given coverage and attention and people gave a damn about, unlike all the other murders that happen. Just like Thomas Wayne going on the TV and calling out people for not being rich. Gotham at that point was shown to be a powder keg, and while the killings didn't light it (the cops gun going off in the subway did), it certainly doused the powder keg in gasoline.
Just saw the movie and I loved it.

The three guys were, I am pretty sure, a reference to the New York 1984 Subway Shooting. In that one a middle class man revenge shot youths who had accosted him before, here the Joker gets a gun after getting beaten and then shoots the middle class guys.

A lot of things in the movie were references to 1980s New York, like the 1981 Sanitation Strike.

[Peelee]

Yeah, 3 upper-middle to upper class guys got murdered. Again, that's not really all that impressive. At least here in Chicago. It takes some pretty warped viewing to see three pretty much nobodies getting killed and suddenly having that turn into a big event. Especially since the three guys wrongdoings weren't reported and do not seem grandiose enough to become widespread among the populace. So, it just looks like 3 innocents got killed and suddenly everyone starts praising how cool that is. Which, honestly, just portrays poor people as really petty kinda gross.

Like seeking vengeance because some of their own got unfairly killed. That I get. I've seen enough walks for people getting killed by the cops before to know how tense those situations get. And if the situation was framed more like that, I can see some riots happening. But rich young adults? Maybe if there was some other step. Like, the wealthy using their murder as an excuse to crack down on the poor further. That would make an adequate tipping point. But I really don't see your usual citizen hearing about a triple homicide and going "Cool, let's do more of that and start dressing up as the killer."

But again, this is nitpickery. It's a great movie.

A good bit of the movie beforehand is presenting Gotham as on the cusp of a class war to begin with. Arthur's murder wasn't a turning point in itself, it was just one more push when they're already just a few feet away from the edge.

PRESENTATION!
Now gonna lie, I laughed.

Just saw it, and:
The acting was really strong. Joaquin Phoenix plays the hell out of a man dancing on the line of sanity and eventually taking any refuge he can in justifying himself. The writing for everyone works. The plot...is kinda weak.
Well, it is a character study, and those always have more slow burns with less plot.

Just saw the movie and I loved it.

The three guys were, I am pretty sure, a reference to the New York 1984 Subway Shooting. In that one a middle class man revenge shot youths who had accosted him before, here the Joker gets a gun after getting beaten and then shoots the middle class guys.

A lot of things in the movie were references to 1980s New York, like the 1981 Sanitation Strike.

Oh, I'm like 99% sure it was. Or, if not, then based on the Law & Order episode with Miranda.

[Kyberwulf]

Lol, Saying that isn't believable is like saying, The ... uh.. City of Angels riots of a certain time, isn't believable because of one incident.

Sure, if it was just that ONE incident.. sure it isn't that impressive. It's the whole context of that time period in the movie. There is a lot of civil unrest going on. It doesn't take much to light a powderkeg like that.

I mean if you weren't able to pick up on all the frustration and animosity in the backround. I don't know what to tell you.


I am still on the fence on this movie. It's in between a 3 or 4. I mean it seems very played out. I mean the whole.. unreliable narrator thing. I mean if you watch a beautiful mind, Inception or other types of movie like that. You can see and guess all the "twists" coming up. So I want to give it a 3. Yet, the movie is made really well, I mean it drags on a little in the middle, cause you keep wanting "Joker" to show up...But when it happens, MAN.. It makes this movie a 4... kind of.

I think, despite giving him an origin story, this is the best joker so far.
I mean I like all the other Jokers, for what they are, yet none of them seem to encapsulate him the best.
Nicolson's Joker, was to sane.
Leto's Joker, was just to desperate to be cool.

I never did like all the fame Heath Ledger got for being the Joker. I didn't really get that till now. When someone in the thread said his defining characteristic as being a Shadow of Batman. It just hit me, that is the reason I didn't like Heath's Joker. It wasn't his Joker per se. He did a good job, almost the best. I guess it was the direction of him. Joker's defining characteristic isn't that he is Batman's shadow, it's that he is an Agent of Chaos. I think that's one of the main reasons I don't like Joker so much anymore. He revolves to much around Batman.

[Dienekes]

Lol, Saying that isn't believable is like saying, The ... uh.. City of Angels riots of a certain time, isn't believable because of one incident.

Sure, if it was just that ONE incident.. sure it isn't that impressive. It's the whole context of that time period in the movie. There is a lot of civil unrest going on. It doesn't take much to light a powderkeg like that.

I mean if you weren't able to pick up on all the frustration and animosity in the backround. I don't know what to tell you.

If the riots you are referring to are the ones I'm thinking of (Watts Riots) they followed the pattern I laid out much closer than the one in the movie. An individual of the lower oppressed class/race was considered to have been wronged, violently. The lower oppressed class then retaliated. That's about as much detail as I trust myself giving without the mods swooping in.

The impetus was not some guy randomly murdering the upper class. That puts them as the wronged martyred side, which should swing public opinion to the wealthy.

[Kyberwulf]

The error of your thinking, is that these things make sense logically.

They don't. This is more like the uprisings that took place all the time. From a monarchy saying let them eat pastries, to the precedents of the Anastasia movie. ... I mean there are a lot more things like this going on.

[Dienekes]

The error of your thinking, is that these things make sense logically.

They don't. This is more like the uprisings that took place all the time. From a monarchy saying let them eat pastries, to the precedents of the Anastasia movie. ... I mean there are a lot more things like this going on.

Let's break these down then. The monarchy stating "let them eat cake" was most certainly not the impetus for the French Revolution. The storming of the Bastille happened after Necker was dismissed and the Royal army was consolidating in Versailles which was seen as an attempt by conservative powers to block reforms. Again, the revolutionists pitched the revolt in terms of how the direct harm was done to their cause by those in power. The Russian Revolution got started when the Tsars sent the army to violently quell workers strikes. I don't know much about an Anastasia movie, except the cartoon with the talking bat and the zombie Rasputin, which I hope is not the one you're using as an example. That movie isn't really meant to be taken seriously.

[uncool]

While the protests are a bit out of nowhere, I do have an interpretation for it: there's plenty of room for inciting incidents, they're just out-of-focus, because Arthur doesn't care. Something might have happened, but Arthur doesn't know about it, because the protests are not about him, and don't affect him - until they do.

[Telonius]

This Joker film presented a very original view of the Batman world. The chaotic situation of Gotham City, the death of Bruce Wayne's parents, it was all caused directly or indirectly by the Joker. In this Gotham where the rich are such pricks and there's so much misery, what type of Batman would Bruce Wayne become? It's a very gray world, one in which it's not totally clear who is doing evil and who's not. How would that Batman play off against this Joker, who is a mass murderer but also deep down a clearly damaged person* that just needs, or needed, some help? Would this Batman be out for revenge, or would he set out to help Gotham? Would he be the champion of the Gotham aristocracy against the masses, would he fight for the people?
*Even if it's not tattooed on his forehead.

This would be an extremely interesting take on it, I think. All of the best bad guys of Batman's Rogues' gallery are aspects of himself, taken to extreme and warped to evil. Aristocrat (Penguin), Genius (Riddler), Double Life (Two-Face), Attraction to the Dark (Catwoman), Good Intentions (Poison Ivy). If they play up this current Joker's angle, it would be a struggle against his own damage; maybe even more explicitly than in something like Killing Joke. I'd be very interested in seeing that.

[Tvtyrant]

I've been working on a book called Riots to Revolutions for a good chunk of my life.

Misery doesn't cause riots, it is a decrease in living conditions compated to expected ones. If conditions improve consistently and then stop, that can spark riots and rebellions despite life not actually getting worse.

You can be very well off and lose very little and have it touch off a riot, but you need a catalyst event. In the movie's case the trash pile up and collapsing social services set the conditions, the Joker helped set off the riot by not getting caught. That showed that the government was weak, and then the cops shot a protester.

If the Joker had been arrested quickly the fear of government reprisal would have been higher, and by offering concessions they might have prevented the violence.

[Dienekes]

That is actually fascinating and I kind of want to read it should it ever get printed.

[Tvtyrant]

That is actually fascinating and I kind of want to read it should it ever get printed.

At this point the song "somewhere over the rainbow" plays in my head when I think about getting published.

[Rodin]

Went to see it today, and as promised here's my comparison to the other movies on Magic_Hat's list (that I've actually seen).

It's not as good as Endgame, as expected. I stated my reasons in the earlier post, so I won't restate them here.

It is, however, better than Captain Marvel and Far From Home. Both are middling MCU movies which makes them a good watch, while this was incredible. Joaquin Phoenix carries the movie to be sure, but I was worried that this would mean that he was the only good thing in it. That is not true at all. The setting of 1980s New York Gotham is perfect. The tone is perfect. The comedy through lack of comedy was perfect.

Most of the additional stuff I'd have to say has also already been said, so I'll just address three things.

1) "Not my Joker". I don't agree with this as a stance. When it comes to Batman or Superman or Bond or , I get it. I feel the same. For the Joker, it's different. I have now been exposed to four different Jokers - Nicholson, Ledger, Phoenix, and Hamill (circa Arkham Asylum, I still need to rectify my lack of TAS).

All of them feel totally different, and all of them feel authentic. If pushed, I'd say Nicholson is my least favorite. But they're all great. A character like the Joker is such a chaotic soul that all the portrayals work. This is just another great portrayal looking at the character from another direction.

2) My father came with me and knows almost nothing about comic books. He knows Batman from the old Adam West show, and from there he knows Bruce Wayne. That's it. He still loved the movie every bit as much as I did. This is a comic book movie that breaks the boundaries defining what such a movie can be, and it's awesome because of it. There's stories in these universes that go beyond superpowered people punching each other in the face, and I hope this movie is successful enough to show that.

3) "Giving the Joker a set origin story is bad". I agree. However...I don't think this movie gave him a set origin story. Reasons in spoilers:

The incidents with his "girlfriend" and his supposed first appearance with Murray Franklin show that he is an unreliable narrator to begin with. The movie itself also toys with the idea of multiple origin stories. He's Arthur Fleck, son of a struggling woman who used to work for Wayne Industries who has now fallen on hard times. No, he's the love child of Thomas Wayne and Penny Fleck. No, he's adopted. Who were his real parents? We don't know. The whole thing is kept vague enough for the real story to be murky.

And then there's the ending, where he's talking to his therapist in a psych ward. By all appearances, the same psych ward we see a brief shot of him in earlier in the movie. We go straight there from him standing on the car...so was this an idle fantasy? Was it just another origin story concocted by the sick mind of the Joker? Or was he reflecting upon real events? It's impossible to say.

My personal headcanon here is that it's all a lie he told himself. None of the events happened, or if they did they were [I]greatly distorted. Arthur wants to believe that he is not Arthur. He is The Joker, the illegitimate son of Thomas Wayne who caused a Revolution with his actions and resulted in Wayne getting killed and the social order overthrown. In reality, he's just another crazy person in the nuthouse.

[Kyberwulf]

So, given that he is the reason for Bruce's parents death. Do you think that, that would fundamentally change Batman's outlook? I mean originally, it was a random guy in a random crime, that set Batman off. With this though, what do you think?

[Talakeal]

There are some very insightful posts in this thread, particular those about Batmans villains being reflections of himself or wondering why anyone would ever follow the Joker. Kudos!


As for the movie itself, its ok. The first act is so awkward that it is uncomfortable to watch, and the second half mixes gore and comedy so well that there were times when I felt really self conscious for laughing in the theatre, impressive if that is what they were going for.

Zazie Beats was wasted, which was a shame.


Overall, decent movie, but it thought it had a lot more to say than it did and took itself far too seriously for what it was. If only there was some pithy quote about being serious that I could use to some it up... but I can't think of any.

[Psyren]

So, given that he is the reason for Bruce's parents death. Do you think that, that would fundamentally change Batman's outlook? I mean originally, it was a random guy in a random crime, that set Batman off. With this though, what do you think?

I mean, in the comics, Joe Chill was only "random" in the sense that he had no way of knowing exactly which rich rube would be leaving the opera that day. Though I believe in a later version it wasn't random at all, and he was a hitman? Anyway, either way Batman's motivation would still be geared at fighting Gotham's crime in a more general sense, and opposing the root causes/societal conditions that led to it. (Though not enough to, you know, employ his vast wealth in a way that actually meaningfully betters Gotham beyond breaking henchman limbs in alleys, but that's a rant for another day.)

[Gastronomie]

I'm not that familiar with the superhero franchise, having only watched Dark Knight and several other movies, but I've got to say I enjoyed this movie a lot. The reason being... this isn't really a superhero movie in the first place, and I loved that approach.

If it were a superhero movie, even if it were a spin-off featuring no superheroes, there would be a "Villain". I don't think the Joker in this movie is a "Villain". If he were a "Villain", his ultimate destiny would be to be defeated by the hero - but no, it's impossible for a superhero to defeat the Joker, because no amount of punching or kicking will ever put out the fire, only make it worse. Even if Arthur Fleck is arrested, even if he someday dies, the Joker will live on. Everyone in that climax scene is part of the Joker. The whole city is Joker in itself.

This film states it depicts how the Joker is born, but I don't interpret that as "Arthur Fleck becoming a new someone called Joker". I interpreted that as the day the society realized that there is already an uncontrollable, hideous tumor within itself, and Joker is the name of that entire symptom. Arthur is only a vector, someone who just happened to be there in that particular corner, and was infected - which led him to spread the word, and the virus.

Or alternatively, on an even worse thought, maybe the society still has not realized its fatal disease. The Joker is already born; it’s just that people haven’t noticed.

Much like many others, I also enjoyed speculating where in the movie is the truth and where is but a hallucination, and there is always the possibility that everything that happened in the later half of the scene is a delusion. De Niro is still alive. The city still isn’t on fire, and Bruce Wayne’s parents died from another cause. Maybe even Arthur’s former colleague is living a normal life. That would be much for the better… or would it really be?

The thought that there may be – and probably is - a great number of people daydreaming about the destruction of the current society, yet being forever unnoticed and waiting for the day of eruption, is both absolutely terrifying and extremely believable. Nobody knows what might be the trigger. Even if everything Arthur saw was a delusion, it’s a future that Gotham City is bound to end up in, because there’s no way all the dark emotions and the grudges in the city will someday come to an abrupt halt. There will someday come a day when the hallucinations of a madman and the reality of the world end up in the same exact picture, and in that sense, it doesn’t really matter whether the ending is fact or fiction. It someday will end up to be a fact.

If there is only one thing that can defeat the Joker in this movie, it is NOT a guy wearing badass black gear and riding a cutting-edge customized automobile that costs millions of dollars. It’s some good counseling, several laws that ought to lend the weak people some help, and learning to actually care about the people around you.

That is definitely not a superhero movie. And I loved it.

[Brother Oni]

1) "Not my Joker". I don't agree with this as a stance. When it comes to Batman or Superman or Bond or [insert other character here], I get it. I feel the same. For the Joker, it's different. I have now been exposed to four different Jokers - Nicholson, Ledger, Phoenix, and Hamill (circa Arkham Asylum, I still need to rectify my lack of TAS).

No Romero Joker? That's a cultural void almost on par with missing out on TAS Joker.

[Peelee]

No Romero Joker? That's a cultural void almost on par with missing out on TAS Joker.

Watching that series again, it's more than a little annoying how many of the villains dip into Riddler territory and openly give Batman hints as to their crimes for no discernible reason.

[Tvtyrant]

Watching that series again, it's more than a little annoying how many of the villains dip into Riddler territory and openly give Batman hints as to their crimes for no discernible reason.

It was for kids. The villains and hero keep repeating what is going on so the kids can keep up.

[Peelee]

It was for kids. The villains and hero keep repeating what is going on so the kids can keep up.

No, that I totally understand. I mean when the Joker gets on TV and says, "Here is a hint to my crime!" (https://youtu.be/1gSkdAw-49E?t=21) That's Riddler's schtick. May as well have the Penguin dress up like a clown.

[Dienekes]

No, that I totally understand. I mean when the Joker gets on TV and says, "Here is a hint to my crime!" (https://youtu.be/1gSkdAw-49E?t=21) That's Riddler's schtick. May as well have the Penguin dress up like a clown.

Admittedly, the Riddler in that show got turned into a joke spouting, mad laughing trickster fool. If he can steal Joker's shtick why can't Joker steal his?

[Tvtyrant]

No, that I totally understand. I mean when the Joker gets on TV and says, "Here is a hint to my crime!" (https://youtu.be/1gSkdAw-49E?t=21) That's Riddler's schtick. May as well have the Penguin dress up like a clown.

Yeah, I can see that being irritating. They also left out the scarier villains entirely.

Fun fact: My Mom is scared of clowns, and would leave the room when we watched Batman to avoid Hamil or Romero.

[Peelee]

Admittedly, the Riddler in that show got turned into a joke spouting, mad laughing trickster fool. If he can steal Joker's shtick why can't Joker steal his?

Yeah, that's a fair point. I think the writers just didn't realize they were supposed to be different characters maybe?

[Dienekes]

Yeah, that's a fair point. I think the writers just didn't realize they were supposed to be different characters maybe?

My understanding is that it's more what time in the Bat mythos they were trying to put on film. During the era of the CCA the Riddler did basically take on a more generic funtime villainy, at the same time the Joker's real lunacy was toned down to the point they were pretty similar. It isn't until Joker's Five Way Revenge that the Joker went back to being the completely psychopath again. While Riddler sort of languished in the kiddie version of the character for a bit longer. A few attempts to make him more adult tried to make the need to drop riddles caused by some psychosis, which in its own way made him still too similar to the Joker's brand of crazy. It isn't until BTAS which decided to really enforce the differences between Ridller and Joker that we got the cold calculating genius Riddler, which thankfully we kept today. As a general rule, we should all try to keep a hold of the interpretations of these characters made during BTAS.

Right Mr Freeze? What did you learn about turning your backstory to being a carbon copy of Mad Hatters? No one liked it did they? No. Don't do that again.

[Peelee]

TAS really was a turning point, in just how much of the best parts of Batman came from that show.

[Tvtyrant]

TAS really was a turning point, in just how much of the best parts of Batman came from that show.

It is IMO the best animated kids show ever made. My nephew watches a show about bipedal goldfish and I keep wondering why he prefers that to Batman or Justice League.

[Peelee]

It is IMO the best animated kids show ever made. My nephew watches a show about bipedal goldfish and I keep wondering why he prefers that to Batman or Justice League.

Plus it gave rise to the animated Batman Beyond, which also phenomenal for the most part.

The bipedal goldfish is going right over my head. I'm assuming that's a good thing.

[Tvtyrant]

Plus it gave rise to the animated Batman Beyond, which also phenomenal for the most part.

The bipedal goldfish is going right over my head. I'm assuming that's a good thing.
Batman Beyond needs a movie. Keaton as Bruce, all the other Batmen as the old robins.

I don't know the name, but all the people have animal heads and the main characters are a cat and a goldfish. They jump between real world backgrounds and drawn, it is very surreal.

[Peelee]

Batman Beyond needs a movie. Keaton as Bruce, all the other Batmen as the old robins.

I don't know the name, but all the people have animal heads and the main characters are a cat and a goldfish. They jump between real world backgrounds and drawn, it is very surreal.

Honestly, of all the Batmens, I can't really see one doing BB Bruce. If Clint Eastwood had current-Arnold's body, that would be BB Bruce to a T.

[Brother Oni]

TAS really was a turning point, in just how much of the best parts of Batman came from that show.

Wasn't Harley Quinn especially created for TAS and now she's pretty much become an integral part of the Joker's entourage when he has one?


Batman Beyond needs a movie. Keaton as Bruce, all the other Batmen as the old robins.

Do you mean a live action movie? There's a couple animated ones - Return of the Joker is the one I've seen.


I don't know the name, but all the people have animal heads and the main characters are a cat and a goldfish. They jump between real world backgrounds and drawn, it is very surreal.

You mean The Amazing World of Gumball (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_World_of_Gumball)? It's actually a very good show, with plenty of pop culture references to keep the older viewers entertained - the episode 'The Remote' is essentially a kid friendly version of The Usual Suspects.

[Razade]

The whole thing is even funnier when you know that villain means peasant, so Lex Luthor the billionaire is super poor.

That's certainly the root of the word, someone who is tied to a villa, but it hasn't meant that in...hundreds if not more...years. It shifted in term however to mean someone who was less than knightly, which meant thieving and rape and all that nasty stuff. It's easy to see how the term evolved with that.

[Tvtyrant]

Wasn't Harley Quinn especially created for TAS and now she's pretty much become an integral part of the Joker's entourage when he has one?



Do you mean a live action movie? There's a couple animated ones - Return of the Joker is the one I've seen.



You mean The Amazing World of Gumball (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_World_of_Gumball)? It's actually a very good show, with plenty of pop culture references to keep the older viewers entertained - the episode 'The Remote' is essentially a kid friendly version of The Usual Suspects.
Yes. She was invented for the show, and both Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze were so altered by it they are functionally new characters.

Yeah, a live action one. We have lots of old batmen to fill in the old people rolls. At this point we have stuck Batman in a kind of timeless past though, so the whole "shouldn't Batman be 100?" isn't as pressing as in the 80s and 90s.

That is the show. I don't doubt it is good, an improvement over Total Drama Island and its spinoffs that he watched before. Given the choice between cartoons that have punching and those that don't, I would have chosen punching pretty much all through my childhood so it seems odd to me.


That's certainly the root of the word, someone who is tied to a villa, but it hasn't meant that in...hundreds if not more...years. It shifted in term however to mean someone who was less than knightly, which meant thieving and rape and all that nasty stuff. It's easy to see how the term evolved with that.

I would argue that villains in superhero stories still fulfill a lot of the same rolls though. They are fighting the status quo and attempting to seize power, superheroes defend it (often protecting really awful blue bloods.) The Long Halloween is about the collapse of the blue blood mafia against villains, and the delineation between them is the mafia has all the trappings of aristocracy and the villains are crazed, poor and grasping.

[Razade]

I would argue that villains in superhero stories still fulfill a lot of the same rolls though. They are fighting the status quo and attempting to seize power, superheroes defend it (often protecting really awful blue bloods.) The Long Halloween is about the collapse of the blue blood mafia against villains, and the delineation between them is the mafia has all the trappings of aristocracy and the villains are crazed, poor and grasping.

But that's not all villains. As you mentioned, Lex Luthor is a billionaire. He's nothing like a peasant, up to and including trying to take over the world with his money. It's just a point of general pedantry and while you can find poor villains looking to overthrow the establishment...that's not really a peasant thing either. They're, mostly, not farmers nor are the vast majority in a feudal system or even a psuedo-feudal system. It's a reach from start to finish.

[Reddish Mage]

But that's not all villains. As you mentioned, Lex Luthor is a billionaire. He's nothing like a peasant, up to and including trying to take over the world with his money. It's just a point of general pedantry and while you can find poor villains looking to overthrow the establishment...that's not really a peasant thing either. They're, mostly, not farmers nor are the vast majority in a feudal system or even a psuedo-feudal system. It's a reach from start to finish.

Actually many villains fulfill the Etymology of their name by being "of lower status" than the hero.

Lex Luthor is a human. Supposedly having no superpowers (he would win the Olympics, the Chess championships, but still). Superman is like a noble in a fairy tale: better than ordinary people in every way and obviously more deserving of the princess.

Most villains are misfits, have something wrong with them, and don't fit our values for what make people superior. The hero is superior even if today that doesn't necessarily mean being of noble birth.

In fact heroes are more likely to be born for their special, chosen role. Superman fits well.

[Jeivar]

This is an excellent film. I wouldn't say I enjoyed it, because it's not that kind of film. But I was certainly fascinated watching it.

However...


I just don't see how Arthur Fleck is going to function as The Joker, as we think of him. He's not charismatic, he is never indicated to be above average intelligence, his only skillset is to literally be a clown, his murders are quite simple, and his big climax is to murder someone on live air. Overall he's just a fairly realistic spree killer. I can see him functioning as a sort of mascot/idol for Gotham's underclass rage, but that's it.

This story works are a horrifying, realistic psychothriller, but I don't feel it fits well within the Batman mythos.

[super dark33]

I miss fun and/or hilarious Jokers.

[Peelee]

This is an excellent film. I wouldn't say I enjoyed it, because it's not that kind of film.

Uhhhh...? I enjoyed it, because it's totally that kind of film. Hell, I loved it. I like character studies.

[Jeivar]

Uhhhh...? I enjoyed it, because it's totally that kind of film. Hell, I loved it. I like character studies.

I mean it isn't FUN. It's a depressing, cringy film about terrible things happening.

[Peelee]

I mean it isn't FUN. It's a depressing, cringy film about terrible things happening.

I don't know if I'd call it cringy. Then again, I have no problem watching Scotts Tots, Dinner Party, or any other Office episode people say they skip, so I may just enjoy stuff like that for what it is.

Also wouldn't call it depressing, but that's just me.

[Devonix]

This is an excellent film. I wouldn't say I enjoyed it, because it's not that kind of film. But I was certainly fascinated watching it.

However...


I just don't see how Arthur Fleck is going to function as The Joker, as we think of him. He's not charismatic, he is never indicated to be above average intelligence, his only skillset is to literally be a clown, his murders are quite simple, and his big climax is to murder someone on live air. Overall he's just a fairly realistic spree killer. I can see him functioning as a sort of mascot/idol for Gotham's underclass rage, but that's it.

This story works are a horrifying, realistic psychothriller, but I don't feel it fits well within the Batman mythos.

He's not going to function as the Joker. This was a standalone film.

[Jeivar]

He's not going to function as the Joker. This was a standalone film.

I know they aren't going to do a sequel, but we are supposed to imagine one. Since clearly little Bruce is going to become Batman.

[Rodin]

I don't know if I'd call it cringy. Then again, I have no problem watching Scotts Tots, Dinner Party, or any other Office episode people say they skip, so I may just enjoy stuff like that for what it is.

Also wouldn't call it depressing, but that's just me.

I've never been able to watch The Office (UK version, I've never tried the US version since I didn't like the UK version), because I simply don't find cringe comedy funny.

There's definitely some cringe inducing moments in Joker.

His mother asking "Don't you have to be funny to be a comedian?" is downright painful. There's also the scene on the bus with him and the little girl, and him bombing at the comedy club.
The casual prejudice towards little people that we see from the clown company. Those are the big ones that immediately spring to mind.

The difference is that those moments aren't meant to be funny. I can deal with cringey stuff when it's treated seriously.

As to whether it's a fun watch? That's a tough one.

It's a dark tale, and it's definitely depressing. It's a couple hours of people being really crappy to one another.

At the same time though, I didn't find it actively painful to watch. I don't know that I could ever watch A Silent Voice again, even though I would recommend it as an excellent movie. That's a film that I wouldn't describe as a fun watch, and I think the Joker still is. There's a twisted vein of humor at the heart of the film, a sort of laughing at the cruelty of the world. That keeps it from being too dark, in my opinion.

[Peelee]

I've never been able to watch The Office (UK version, I've never tried the US version since I didn't like the UK version), because I simply don't find cringe comedy funny.

There's definitely some cringe inducing moments in Joker.

His mother asking "Don't you have to be funny to be a comedian?" is downright painful. There's also the scene on the bus with him and the little girl, and him bombing at the comedy club.
The casual prejudice towards little people that we see from the clown company. Those are the big ones that immediately spring to mind.

The difference is that those moments aren't meant to be funny. I can deal with cringey stuff when it's treated seriously.

As to whether it's a fun watch? That's a tough one.

It's a dark tale, and it's definitely depressing. It's a couple hours of people being really crappy to one another.

At the same time though, I didn't find it actively painful to watch. I don't know that I could ever watch A Silent Voice again, even though I would recommend it as an excellent movie. That's a film that I wouldn't describe as a fun watch, and I think the Joker still is. There's a twisted vein of humor at the heart of the film, a sort of laughing at the cruelty of the world. That keeps it from being too dark, in my opinion.

UK Office was great, but I think you'd like the US Office; it's radically different and has a lot less cringe humor. If you skip the first season I think you'd enjoy the vast majority of it.

Anyway...
His mother asking "aren't comedians supposed to be funny" was absolutely hilarious. So was him dying on stage. it's dark humor, but it's humor.

[Jeivar]

I've had a thought:


The thought occurs that this character is more significant than his screen time would indicate. He is very nearly the only decent person in the cast, which is exactly why he survives the movie. It's made very clear throughout the film that Arthur doesn't snap due to his mental illness, but due to mistreatment by society. But Gary treated him well, and so Arthur spares him.

I would say the message is that Gary is the person we should all try to be; showing basic decency to our fellows. Because if Arthur had received that basic decency from more of the people around him he wouldn't have turned into the Joker.

What do you think?

[uncool]

I've had a thought:


The thought occurs that this character is more significant than his screen time would indicate. He is very nearly the only decent person in the cast, which is exactly why he survives the movie. It's made very clear throughout the film that Arthur doesn't snap due to his mental illness, but due to mistreatment by society. But Gary treated him well, and so Arthur spares him.

I would say the message is that Gary is the person we should all try to be; showing basic decency to our fellows. Because if Arthur had received that basic decency from more of the people around him he wouldn't have turned into the Joker.

What do you think?


In my opinion, he's not developed enough for that to be a message from the movie itself. He appeared what, 3 times, barely affected the scenes he was in, and wasn't particularly kind in those moments. I also don't see the film as being that...on the nose.

My view was that that scene is entirely Arthur's delusion. The delusion of social acceptance, transmuted to the delusion of being in a place of judgement. Arthur wants to see himself as the kind of person sending the message you're discussing.

[Clertar]

My view was that that scene is entirely Arthur's delusion. The delusion of social acceptance, transmuted to the delusion of being in a place of judgement. Arthur wants to see himself as the kind of person sending the message you're discussing.

I think it totally played out like we see. When his meds start to wear off and he wakes himself up from his girlfriend delusion, when he stops feeling like he doesn't exist and starts to accept that he's the way he is and enjoying it, I think the delusions are over. He doesn't need the escapism of inventing a life in his head, for the first time he feels he is who he wants to be.

[Starbuck_II]

What if

Gary and the other guy who loaned him that gun don't exist either?
He wasn't loaned a gun, it was Arthur's gun after all.
I mean, Arthur is crazy...
So, he just imagine he murdered that jerk and let Gary go unharmed.

[uncool]

What if

Gary and the other guy who loaned him that gun don't exist either?
He wasn't loaned a gun, it was Arthur's gun after all.
I mean, Arthur is crazy...
So, he just imagine he murdered that jerk and let Gary go unharmed.


That...doesn't really fit, in either a Watsonian or Doylist sense. Among other things:
Watsonian: Arthur's coworkers pretty clearly interact with Randall and Gary. Arthur tells the boss that Gary called him in, so either the boss is a delusion (which leads to a bigger set of problems) or the boss just accepts Arthur talking about a nonexistent Gary. The coworkers commiserate with Arthur at Randall's prompting. And so on.

Doylist: Arthur's delusions come from the things he wants. He wants a father and to be important - so he has a delusion of a situation where he gains a famous father figure. He wants both a girlfriend and someone who (unlike his mother) supports his creative hobby - so he has a delusion of a girlfriend that thinks his standup is funny. Also, his delusions aren't of dreamt-up people - it's of real people, just doing things in the way he wants.

Additionally, that way lies the idea that the entire movie is Arthur's delusion. Which...kinda ruins the movie, unless played off in the "multiple choice origin story" way.

[Rodin]

That...doesn't really fit, in either a Watsonian or Doylist sense. Among other things:
Watsonian: Arthur's coworkers pretty clearly interact with Randall and Gary. Arthur tells the boss that Gary called him in, so either the boss is a delusion (which leads to a bigger set of problems) or the boss just accepts Arthur talking about a nonexistent Gary. The coworkers commiserate with Arthur at Randall's prompting. And so on.

Doylist: Arthur's delusions come from the things he wants. He wants a father and to be important - so he has a delusion of a situation where he gains a famous father figure. He wants both a girlfriend and someone who (unlike his mother) supports his creative hobby - so he has a delusion of a girlfriend that thinks his standup is funny. Also, his delusions aren't of dreamt-up people - it's of real people, just doing things in the way he wants.

Additionally, that way lies the idea that the entire movie is Arthur's delusion. Which...kinda ruins the movie, unless played off in the "multiple choice origin story" way.

I actually like the idea that the whole movie is a delusion. It fits what we see. The whole city coming to revere him (before he does anything public) is a lot easier to swallow if it's his delusion. The way he casually slips past the police barricade at the movie theatre, and then Thomas Wayne doesn't have him arrested. Getting to go on the MurrAY Show with no pre-screening, nobody checks him for a gun, being allowed to go on in full clown make-up...plus the whole thing was being aired live, which I don't think would have been still happening in the 1980s. My research failed me on this particular point however.

The movie has a very dreamlike quality throughout. He walks away from the detectives mid-conversation and they don't follow him inside. He kills Randall and Gary doesn't appear to call the police on him. His "girlfriend" doesn't call the police, and we never see her again after that scene. The cops don't come after him for stealing his mother's paperwork from the insane asylum either.

It's all told as a series of "scenes" that fit the way you would come up with something in a fantasy without the inconveniences of the real world to intrude.

[Peelee]

I actually like the idea that the whole movie is a delusion. It fits what we see. The whole city coming to revere him (before he does anything public) is a lot easier to swallow if it's his delusion. The way he casually slips past the police barricade at the movie theatre, and then Thomas Wayne doesn't have him arrested. Getting to go on the MurrAY Show with no pre-screening, nobody checks him for a gun, being allowed to go on in full clown make-up...plus the whole thing was being aired live, which I don't think would have been still happening in the 1980s. My research failed me on this particular point however.

The movie has a very dreamlike quality throughout. He walks away from the detectives mid-conversation and they don't follow him inside. He kills Randall and Gary doesn't appear to call the police on him. His "girlfriend" doesn't call the police, and we never see her again after that scene. The cops don't come after him for stealing his mother's paperwork from the insane asylum either.

It's all told as a series of "scenes" that fit the way you would come up with something in a fantasy without the inconveniences of the real world to intrude.
He doesnt have the whole city revere him, though, he has a very vocal plurality.

As for the security being lacking... I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but are you old enough to remember 20th century protocols? Things were very, very different.

[uncool]

I actually like the idea that the whole movie is a delusion. It fits what we see. The whole city coming to revere him (before he does anything public) is a lot easier to swallow if it's his delusion. The way he casually slips past the police barricade at the movie theatre, and then Thomas Wayne doesn't have him arrested. Getting to go on the MurrAY Show with no pre-screening, nobody checks him for a gun, being allowed to go on in full clown make-up...plus the whole thing was being aired live, which I don't think would have been still happening in the 1980s. My research failed me on this particular point however.

The movie has a very dreamlike quality throughout. He walks away from the detectives mid-conversation and they don't follow him inside. He kills Randall and Gary doesn't appear to call the police on him. His "girlfriend" doesn't call the police, and we never see her again after that scene. The cops don't come after him for stealing his mother's paperwork from the insane asylum either.

It's all told as a series of "scenes" that fit the way you would come up with something in a fantasy without the inconveniences of the real world to intrude.
It makes sense, I agree - the cut after "don't you have to be funny?" fits similarly - but it runs into the same problem any "And it was all a dream" explanations do: why should we care?

Certain scenes being delusions give meaning to non-delusion scenes, and can have meaning given to them by what is happening in the real world. When "it's all a delusion", we have no reference to the real world, and no reason to care. Which is why it can work with the multiple-choice origin story - we do have a "real world" reference in the Joker himself, and care because we want to know about him and especially what he's trying to say to everyone else. But a simple "This character dreamed this delusion" just...doesn't matter.

[Starbuck_II]

That...doesn't really fit, in either a Watsonian or Doylist sense. Among other things:
Watsonian: Arthur's coworkers pretty clearly interact with Randall and Gary. Arthur tells the boss that Gary called him in, so either the boss is a delusion (which leads to a bigger set of problems) or the boss just accepts Arthur talking about a nonexistent Gary. The coworkers commiserate with Arthur at Randall's prompting. And so on.

Doylist: Arthur's delusions come from the things he wants. He wants a father and to be important - so he has a delusion of a situation where he gains a famous father figure. He wants both a girlfriend and someone who (unlike his mother) supports his creative hobby - so he has a delusion of a girlfriend that thinks his standup is funny. Also, his delusions aren't of dreamt-up people - it's of real people, just doing things in the way he wants.

Additionally, that way lies the idea that the entire movie is Arthur's delusion. Which...kinda ruins the movie, unless played off in the "multiple choice origin story" way.


Hmm: If Gary doesn't exist...
Boss talkin' to someone about Arthur taking to a non existent Gary:
Yeah, dude may be mental, but he works hard so we overlook him being a looney plus Govt pays us to employ crazy people.

Or
Boss isn't real:
Arthur doesn't actually have a job...
He just picked up a block of wood pretending to advertise? Puts on clown make up just because.
Was he really beaten up... or was that delusion too?

[Rodin]

He doesnt have the whole city revere him, though, he has a very vocal plurality.

As for the security being lacking... I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but are you old enough to remember 20th century protocols? Things were very, very different.

I grew up in the 80s, so yeah. It is easy to forget just how much lower the security used to be. I'm still a bit shocked that somewhere as prestigious as the Johnny Carson equivalent wouldn't have serious security, especially in a place as crappy as 1980s Gotham/New York. I'm more bugged by the movie theatre, because that wasn't a normal situation - there was a protest that was one thrown rock away from being a full-blown riot, and the security on a building full of millionaires and billionaires would surely have been much tighter.

[Sapphire Guard]

Security in normal circumstances is one thing, but in a climate where there's large scale protests triggered by murders, and the protesters dress as clowns...

[Kornaki]

The only thing I have to contribute is Gary obviously called the police, how do you think they showed up right as he was leaving?

[uncool]

The only thing I have to contribute is Gary obviously called the police, how do you think they showed up right as he was leaving?

I thought about that too, and I disagree. If they found him in response to Gary calling them, telling them Arthur just impulsively and very violently murdering a coworker, you'd expect them to approach him cautiously and not give him a chance to run. You'd expect more than just the same two cops showing up again. It looks like them just showing up again, like they did at the hospital.

It's a natural assumption to connect Gary with the cops showing up, but I don't think the connection is that sound.

[Saintheart]

So, given that he is the reason for Bruce's parents death. Do you think that, that would fundamentally change Batman's outlook? I mean originally, it was a random guy in a random crime, that set Batman off. With this though, what do you think?

Did it change the Keaton Batman's outlook? Admittedly in Tim Burton's film Joe Chill and the Joker being one and the same man isn't revealed until around the end of Act 2, and it certainly prompts Batman to go with beating the absolute snot out of the Joker, but the character certainly doesn't seem to change.

[Tvtyrant]

I was thinking about the scene on the train, and I wonder if Joker didn't deliberately get them to attack him. Later he says he doesn't have a condition at all, that he laughs at things he finds funny.

He starts laughing when they are accosting the woman, and keeps doing it until he shoots them. Then he goes silent and does the dance.

[Peelee]

Did it change the Keaton Batman's outlook? Admittedly in Tim Burton's film Joe Chill and the Joker being one and the same man isn't revealed until around the end of Act 2, and it certainly prompts Batman to go with beating the absolute snot out of the Joker, but the character certainly doesn't seem to change.

I'd argue it did:


I'm going to kill you.

*kills him*
That's... a pretty big departure for Batman.

[Magic_Hat]

I feel like I don't need to see the movie because I just watched this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpak5lFxvs).

[Kyberwulf]

Why does it seem like everyone says that about characters in their origin movies.

He isn't this.. he isn't that.. lol

Kind of like Man of Steel.

Of course Joker isn't Charismatic yet. At the end of the movie is when he starts to be more of who is to become. You can see that in a lot of the people around him. I think goes a long way into showing you who he is going to be.

[Raimun]

I have no interest in seeing this movie. Batman, Joker and all of Gotham has been done to death.

I'm also not a fan of the character at all. I've always thought that Joker is a pretty lame villain when you think about it. He's a psycho who kills people for no reason. Usually, those are called one-dimensional villains. Sure, I've heard that in this movie they changed that and gave him reasons but all of that still doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

Right now, when it comes to DC and their movies, I'm more interested in seeing Aquaman for the second time.

In Aquaman, he beats up the bad guys. Like it should be in a comic book movie.

[Peelee]

Right now, when it comes to DC and their movies, I'm more interested in seeing Aquaman for the second time.

In Aquaman, he beats up the bad guys. Like it should be in a comic book movie.

You're making the mistake of thinking this is a comic book movie. It's not. It's a character study. Frankly, I don't want to watch a guy punch another guy, because that's boring (unless it's Jackie Chan, and he works hard to make it not boring). This is a story about who this person is and how he changes. If you like watching people punch other people, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't expect this movie to be that and then dismiss it because it doesn't do that.

[Dienekes]

I'm also not a fan of the character at all. I've always thought that Joker is a pretty lame villain when you think about it. He's a psycho who kills people for no reason. Usually, those are called one-dimensional villains.

Those are reasons why he is the best villain. When you have to stop and think about it to rationalize why you shouldn't like something you're just getting in your own way. Really the only thing a character actually needs is to be interesting for the audience. A pretty easy way to make a character interesting is to flesh out their backstory and make it all sad and twistedly justified. But, honestly, some of the best most memorable villains have none of that and make it through by pure charisma or terror alone. Joker, Anton Chigurh, Sauron, Moriarty, Big Brother, Joffrey, Bill Cipher. These characters are very simple in their motivations. But they wrap the audience up in their exploits in wonderful ways, or feel so oppressive the audience becomes terrified by the name. And in a lot of cases developing them further actually weakens the character. Chancellor Susan from V for Vendetta is just a developed Big Brother and he is way less interesting because of it (though V is still a great book). Which is part of why this movie isn't the Joker for me, even if it is a good movie.

Mind you of course, when the character has no other dimensions and isn't interesting to watch then they're just a failure of a character. Onslaught comes to mind.

Though trying to give complex motivations and rationalizations without giving them an interesting personality can be just as bad. Malekith from Thor 2 comes to mind. He has legitimate reasons for what he does. He's just so dull.


Mind you, of course, if you aren't interested from watching the crazy clown do crazy clown things, I am by no means saying you have to like it. But Joker is in no way a lame villain.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm mixed on this movie. I think it was very well done, but I thought some of the plot points could have used more development or were a little weak.

Joaquin Phoenix was excellent as usual. He was able to bring out the cringey or tense scenes more for me. In particular, the performance on stage at the comedy club, when he's trying to stop laughing as the guys on the train are stalking toward him, and when he is trying to mimic the actor's introduction on the late night show... these scenes were particularly tense or unsettling for me and the actor nailed them.

I like the introduction of this chronic laughing condition. Added something new and interesting to play around with for the character.

I loved the Joker's look. I'm not sure how to describe it other than he looks very "cool" to me.

The movie itself also looked good with regards to direction and setting.

I know this is my own personal bias but, I don't like passive characters that are bullied and downtrodden. I just have a hard time getting into them. Arthur, for a good portion of the movie, is a very sympathetic character that gets ignored or abused by many people. That makes me feel bad for him, but it also makes me feel like he is someone to take care of, in one way or another, rather than a protagonist that has agency and is moving the story forward. Things just happen to Arthur mostly, until he is given a gun and forced to defend himself. I'm not a fan of the "one bad day" notion, so this movie was already working uphill to sell me on it. But I think tacking "one bad day" onto a character like Arthur Fleck makes it even harder to swallow. He is practically harmless to anyone but those that can't defend themselves (his mother) or those that simply don't see an attack coming (everyone else he harms). Even at the end, when he's got the gun and the plan to use it, he does so while crying and ranting about how bad everyone has been to him.

Arthur, even as "the Joker" in this scene, still seems like someone anyone can defeat. Hell, someone that approaches him nicely can probably get him to drop the gun and turn himself in. That's probably exactly what happened since police didn't kill him when they apprehended him.

But when we see him at the end, somehow he is able to kill the doctor while cuffed and escape the room. How? One bad day suddenly erases years and years of experience, mental illness, and social influence/conditioning? It's a nice idea I suppose.

One could argue that the meds were keeping him unable to function, but that seems counter to one of the supposed messages of this movie which is people need medicine for their mental illnesses.

I get that it's an origin story but Arthur Fleck is a social outcast with mental illness that doesn't understand people. That he gets fed up with everyone being mean to him doesn't change much of this. He'd be a violent man that gets put in prison, end of story. If this was Michael Douglas in Falling Down, okay, maybe he becomes the Joker. But Arthur Fleck is shown to be so pathetic that it makes it that much harder to believe he is going to be anything approximating a villain, let alone a super villain, let alone Batman's greatest nemesis.

It's just a weird sort of trope (and fantasy really I guess) that someone could be so wretched and victimized, and then become so self-actualized and powerful just because they "snapped out of it". It's like having your cake and eating it too, but I don't think it works. I don't think it helps that they made Arthur actually mentally ill as well (though this was good for this movie and maybe my overall impression is that it should have been a movie and not a "Joker" movie).

Back to the actual movie... the girlfriend delusion was strange and didn't work for me. Several of my friends said they knew right away that she was a delusion. I didn't. I thought "this was a poor choice for the writers/director to make, there is no reason for this woman to be interested in Arthur". So I mostly ignored that aspect, which wasn't hard because she barely did anything. But then the reveal happens and I thought "what was the point of that?" So now we don't know what's real? I think they should have either committed to that bit the whole movie or scrapped it. You can have mental illness without delusions. The fantasy about the late night host being a father figure is fine, because Arthur is pathetic and outcast and longs for acknowledgement and love/warmth. But that's different from a delusion. The girlfriend part seemed tacked on for no reason.

Similarly, I know the backdrop in Gotham worked for some people, but I thought the protests and clown theme seemed a little forced. Thomas Wayne calling everyone clowns was somewhat eye-rolling. But it's fine. Gotham has always existed with incredible wealth (the Waynes) and lots of crime (everyone Batman beats up). So it makes sense for this sort of unrest to exist. But people being inspired to riot by this fed-up murdering clown is also eye-rolling for me as well. I guess maybe I don't like frustrated people doing stuff out of frustration lol.

[Peelee]

I'm mixed on this movie. I think it was very well done, but I thought some of the plot points could have used more development or were a little weak.

Joaquin Phoenix was excellent as usual. He was able to bring out the cringey or tense scenes more for me. In particular, the performance on stage at the comedy club, when he's trying to stop laughing as the guys on the train are stalking toward him, and when he is trying to mimic the actor's introduction on the late night show... these scenes were particularly tense or unsettling for me and the actor nailed them.

I like the introduction of this chronic laughing condition. Added something new and interesting to play around with for the character.

I loved the Joker's look. I'm not sure how to describe it other than he looks very "cool" to me.

The movie itself also looked good with regards to direction and setting.

I know this is my own personal bias but, I don't like passive characters that are bullied and downtrodden. I just have a hard time getting into them. Arthur, for a good portion of the movie, is a very sympathetic character that gets ignored or abused by many people. That makes me feel bad for him, but it also makes me feel like he is someone to take care of, in one way or another, rather than a protagonist that has agency and is moving the story forward. Things just happen to Arthur mostly, until he is given a gun and forced to defend himself. I'm not a fan of the "one bad day" notion, so this movie was already working uphill to sell me on it. But I think tacking "one bad day" onto a character like Arthur Fleck makes it even harder to swallow. He is practically harmless to anyone but those that can't defend themselves (his mother) or those that simply don't see an attack coming (everyone else he harms). Even at the end, when he's got the gun and the plan to use it, he does so while crying and ranting about how bad everyone has been to him.

Arthur, even as "the Joker" in this scene, still seems like someone anyone can defeat. Hell, someone that approaches him nicely can probably get him to drop the gun and turn himself in. That's probably exactly what happened since police didn't kill him when they apprehended him.

But when we see him at the end, somehow he is able to kill the doctor while cuffed and escape the room. How? One bad day suddenly erases years and years of experience, mental illness, and social influence/conditioning? It's a nice idea I suppose.

One could argue that the meds were keeping him unable to function, but that seems counter to one of the supposed messages of this movie which is people need medicine for their mental illnesses.

I get that it's an origin story but Arthur Fleck is a social outcast with mental illness that doesn't understand people. That he gets fed up with everyone being mean to him doesn't change much of this. He'd be a violent man that gets put in prison, end of story. If this was Michael Douglas in Falling Down, okay, maybe he becomes the Joker. But Arthur Fleck is shown to be so pathetic that it makes it that much harder to believe he is going to be anything approximating a villain, let alone a super villain, let alone Batman's greatest nemesis.

It's just a weird sort of trope (and fantasy really I guess) that someone could be so wretched and victimized, and then become so self-actualized and powerful just because they "snapped out of it". It's like having your cake and eating it too, but I don't think it works. I don't think it helps that they made Arthur actually mentally ill as well (though this was good for this movie and maybe my overall impression is that it should have been a movie and not a "Joker" movie).

Back to the actual movie... the girlfriend delusion was strange and didn't work for me. Several of my friends said they knew right away that she was a delusion. I didn't. I thought "this was a poor choice for the writers/director to make, there is no reason for this woman to be interested in Arthur". So I mostly ignored that aspect, which wasn't hard because she barely did anything. But then the reveal happens and I thought "what was the point of that?" So now we don't know what's real? I think they should have either committed to that bit the whole movie or scrapped it. You can have mental illness without delusions. The fantasy about the late night host being a father figure is fine, because Arthur is pathetic and outcast and longs for acknowledgement and love/warmth. But that's different from a delusion. The girlfriend part seemed tacked on for no reason.

Similarly, I know the backdrop in Gotham worked for some people, but I thought the protests and clown theme seemed a little forced. Thomas Wayne calling everyone clowns was somewhat eye-rolling. But it's fine. Gotham has always existed with incredible wealth (the Waynes) and lots of crime (everyone Batman beats up). So it makes sense for this sort of unrest to exist. But people being inspired to riot by this fed-up murdering clown is also eye-rolling for me as well. I guess maybe I don't like frustrated people doing stuff out of frustration lol.

It's not just one bad day, though, is it? It's a culmination of bad days, coupled with severe mental issues. He's variously beaten, mocked, degraded, disrespected, and cast aside throughout the entire span of the movie, and we have no reason to think that it started there.

Similarly, the protests and unrest weren't started by his actions, they were already going on; he just gave them a focal point to center on, a clear, simple, and stark "them vs us" imagery to rally around. Even the full-scale riot didn't start until the gun went off in the subway car. Arthur is not responsible for the protests and riot in general, he's responsible for channeling and focusing them around a cult of personality.

A large part of this movie is based around the idea that the Joker wouldn't exist if people did just help him out, so him being a figure that needs help seems like a pretty big point they're trying to make.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's not just one bad day, though, is it? It's a culmination of bad days, coupled with severe mental issues. He's variously beaten, mocked, degraded, disrespected, and cast aside throughout the entire span of the movie, and we have no reason to think that it started there.

Similarly, the protests and unrest weren't started by his actions, they were already going on; he just gave them a focal point to center on, a clear, simple, and stark "them vs us" imagery to rally around. Even the full-scale riot didn't start until the gun went off in the subway car. Arthur is not responsible for the protests and riot in general, he's responsible for channeling and focusing them around a cult of personality.

A large part of this movie is based around the idea that the Joker wouldn't exist if people did just help him out, so him being a figure that needs help seems like a pretty big point they're trying to make.
I don't mind that he is someone that needs help. I mind the kind of help he needs. As I said, I think this movie would be better as a standalone *not-Joker* film. As is, Arthur has severe mental issues, as you put it, no known skill set of any kind except how to be a clown, no confidence as he's been beaten severely since he was a child, and seems to read at a child's level given what we saw of his notes and hand-writing. He also doesn't know what makes people tick, so to speak, as seen in his attempts to laugh at jokes or the fact that everyone is weirded out by him.

So when Arthur has one bad week, let's say, and decides to not care anymore, that only really fixes one of his great host of issues. Arthur was kind, even to people that were abusive towards him. When his coworker calls the boys that beat him up savages, Arthur says "they're just kids". He kisses the midget on the head and lets him go. But now, as the Joker, he won't take **** from anyone anymore and will mete out justice.

Great.

Except he is still mentally ill, not very bright, has no skills, and is off his meds and therapy. The chances that this type of person doesn't devolve into a lump of human misery, and instead becomes some genius criminal mastermind are basically non-zero.

So the movie seems to suggest that all we ever had to do was push Arthur Fleck hard enough and he would come out of his malaise and achieve his desires. But that wouldn't really be the case with the character we're presented. But the movie simply makes it happen.

[Cap'n Gravelock]

Just throwing it out there but, suppose something different happened. Suppose Thomas Wayne somehow became kind to Arthur. Would he have been a different person altogether?

[Khedrac]

I don't think so.
The film makes it clear that he is on heavy doses of multiple drugs connected with his regualr visits to a therapist. The removal of these means that he becomes a car-crash waiting to happen, the only question is how much damage he does when it happens.
I did think the films looked like a reasonable chronicle of the devolution of a psychopath, but then I have no professional knowledge of such things.
Take the scenes that show him establishing a relationship with his neighbour that turn out to be completely imaginary - no matter how well intentioned, someone whis delusional is not going to have a happy ending other than a "normal" life under constant medical evaluation and care.

[HandofShadows]

I did think the films looked like a reasonable chronicle of the devolution of a psychopath, but then I have no professional knowledge of such things.

Have not seen the movie but I don't think that there is such a thing as "devolution of a psychopath". Everything I have seen on psychopathy points to it's development early in life and at least some sort of biological factor being involved. People don't turn into a psychopath late in life. People however CAN turn into monsters at nearly any time in their lives or suffer from sever mental illness.

[Starbuck_II]

I don't think so.
The film makes it clear that he is on heavy doses of multiple drugs connected with his regualr visits to a therapist. The removal of these means that he becomes a car-crash waiting to happen, the only question is how much damage he does when it happens.
I did think the films looked like a reasonable chronicle of the devolution of a psychopath, but then I have no professional knowledge of such things.
Take the scenes that show him establishing a relationship with his neighbour that turn out to be completely imaginary - no matter how well intentioned, someone whis delusional is not going to have a happy ending other than a "normal" life under constant medical evaluation and care.

1st Spoiler

That depends if Thomas is kind and financially aids Arthur, he can afford the drugs and become a better man.
Remember, with the drugs, he is just a sick kind man.
Without, he murders people as an easy way to avoid punishment.

[Khedrac]

1st Spoiler

That depends if Thomas is kind and financially aids Arthur, he can afford the drugs and become a better man.
Remember, with the drugs, he is just a sick kind man.
Without, he murders people as an easy way to avoid punishment.

Yes - but that's not going to make him a 'hero', just a nice man - someone very unsuited to surviving in the dystopia that Gotham is portrayed as.

[uncool]

Yes - but that's not going to make him a 'hero', just a nice man - someone very unsuited to surviving in the dystopia that Gotham is portrayed as.

Agreed.

The entire arc of the movie is centered around Arthur Fleck embracing a lesson that he knows from the beginning: that when no one gives a damn about him, why should anyone else?

Murray calls this out as a bunch of self-pity at the end. And he's entirely correct. He's just by far the wrong person to do so. Because he's another guy who didn't give a damn.

If you want to make Arthur a hero, you need the person that's nice to him to not be someone whom Arthur could blame. You need someone who gives a damn for no reason that Arthur can understand. A Bishop Myriel. Not someone Arthur reaches out to, but someone who reaches out to Arthur. In the characterization of the movie, this can't be Thomas Wayne. And then turn it around and give him a chance to care for someone he isn't expected to - maybe first because it will benefit him, but later because it's right.

You still probably get an antihero, not a hero. Someone who thinks society is utterly broken, and who will be more than willing to sidestep it rather than work through it. But antiheroes can be heroes, too.

[Mr Stereo1]

A lot of people are saying Arthur is just too weak to become a supervillian and I have to agree, but in a lot of ways that makes him a better villian-protagonist and nemesis to Bruce Wayne the Reformer, if not to Batman the Superhero. Arthur had to be dysfunctional and struggling like he was to make his insanity seem like a genuine disability we'd sympathize with rather than just something tacked on to edgy sadism. That decision does leave him very badly equipped to credibly fight anyone, but that vulnerability and the public persona he has makes him an idealogical weapon.

There's a victim culture behind a lot of criminality, which I'm not trying to convince you is right or wrong whatever your beliefs are, and broken abused Arthur makes for a great champion for that mentality. When people start digging into his horror story of a life from being abandoned as a baby, horribly abused as a toddler, cut off from his meds and social worker by budget cuts, beaten up regularly, fired from his job etc it all builds to the sense he never had any hope at all so he may as well have lashed out to get noticed. (They did miss a trick not having camera footage of the Wayne-corp goons harassing the woman and attacking Arthur leak after Thomas made his statement though, that'd have been great class warfare fuel.)

I know they're saying it wasn't planned but I do think there's ammo for a sequel there. You'd have to be careful with building a plot that gives Arthur some agency without making him a super capable super villain but all the information is out there for Bruce to piece together this guy's life story and the cult of personality could make a breakout attempt or third party's attempt to use Joker as a figurehead credible. There's a good setup for another character study story where Bruce tries to get through to Joker, who may or may not be his half brother and indirectly got his parents killed. At least that's my two cents.

[Traab]

Heh, I just had a thought. The Joker is known as an agent of chaos and here we learn its not because he is lol random, but because he sucks at supervillany so his plots and activities make no logical sense. He has no idea what he is doing so he is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

[Tvtyrant]

The Joker's real superpower is being immortal. He gets two beatings over the course of the movie and is in a car accident that knocks out or kills the drivers. His injuries are always superficial, and he recovers at an impossible rate.

I dropped a 1/4 lb iron bar on my arm in july and it took until the end of august to heal. He took kicks to the kidney that could kill someone twice in a week and is better within a few days each time.

[Talakeal]

The Joker's real superpower is being immortal. He gets two beatings over the course of the movie and is in a car accident that knocks out or kills the drivers. His injuries are always superficial, and he recovers at an impossible rate.

I dropped a 1/4 lb iron bar on my arm in july and it took until the end of august to heal. He took kicks to the kidney that could kill someone twice in a week and is better within a few days each time.

In the words of Calvin: Nah, they all can do that.

[weckar]

I just saw it, and I am a little mixed on this one as well.

I suppose this is where I start spoilertagging.

I think the most unsettling thing about this movie is how close it hits to home. I found the Arthur character VERY identifiable, and realized that with a couple of setbacks that could well be me. I even have a similar condition to him, which made it even eerier (Once I start laughing out loud, it is difficult to stop. I sometimes have laughing fits that last half an hour or more).

The main thing I disliked about this movie is the lack of variety in the violence. It seems the director knows of only one way to non-lethally hurt someone: throw them to the floor and start gabbering. Some were doing it so rhythmically that it genuinely did look like the dance.

The subjective perspective of the film, I did like. Understanding that what may be real and what may not be is entirely up to the audience.


The Joker's real superpower is being immortal. He gets two beatings over the course of the movie and is in a car accident that knocks out or kills the drivers. His injuries are always superficial, and he recovers at an impossible rate.

I dropped a 1/4 lb iron bar on my arm in july and it took until the end of august to heal. He took kicks to the kidney that could kill someone twice in a week and is better within a few days each time. I do believe a LOT more time passes in this film than you think...

[Tyndmyr]

Alright, so...watchd it. Excellent movie. No real desire to ever see it again.

It's not that there's plot holes or anything of that nature, really. The plot is quite consistent, well executed, etc. Sure, I can buy that some people would say this joker is a departure from other jokers, but that's...usually the case. Within the context of this one film, the progression largely makes sense.

It's more that there is really nobody in the entire film to like or root for. The fact that it works at all despite that is impressive, but it really hurts wanting to see it again.

A family saw it at the same time I did. They brought all of their wee kids, I have to presume because they believed it was a comic book movie. The kids cried a lot. I don't think they enjoyed it much. Probably not a great choice for a family film.

[Tvtyrant]

Alright, so...watchd it. Excellent movie. No real desire to ever see it again.

It's not that there's plot holes or anything of that nature, really. The plot is quite consistent, well executed, etc. Sure, I can buy that some people would say this joker is a departure from other jokers, but that's...usually the case. Within the context of this one film, the progression largely makes sense.

It's more that there is really nobody in the entire film to like or root for. The fact that it works at all despite that is impressive, but it really hurts wanting to see it again.

A family saw it at the same time I did. They brought all of their wee kids, I have to presume because they believed it was a comic book movie. The kids cried a lot. I don't think they enjoyed it much. Probably not a great choice for a family film.
I had the same feeling when I watched it, my brother and I compared it with There Will be Blood. I saw it once, I really don't need to watch a movie about the awful bleakness of the human condition twice.

[Peelee]

And here I am trying to find out when my friends plan to see it so I can go with them as an excuse to see it again. I also love the Scott's Tots episode.

[sktarq]

So I'll be honest and say it was good but not great.

I really liked the unreliable narrator aspect.

Wonderfully shot, visually the story is better than the script.

I liked how they dealt with Thomas Wayne...including how he really set off the riots more than the Joker did (I would say his calling the masses "Clowns" in a very us-vs-them manner is what really set things off)

Music /Score...esp if you feel like using the strong variance in score as a delusion/reality clue

The mum...really good...and her diagnosis was called almost perfectly by the psych PhD i went to the movie with, well before it appeared in the film

his overall decent was handled well IMO

The attack on the gun supplier in his apartment was a great scene.


It felt rather blunt. Especially early on the emotional beats feel more like emotional club hits

Showing the GF delusion as one felt a bit leading around by the nose...I thought it took away from the emotional impact of the moment

I felt the ending explaining himself speech was too Aesop-Fable-here-is-the-moral and thus didn't hit very hard for me.

it felt like it was try to say something more than show a window into a very extreme but very human case and letting you put the pieces together yourself.

The abuse and hit to head (which is actually a major driver of the RW laughing issue Arthur seem to have-but usually have a crying aspect as well) felt a bit like the moral dignity pants that Hannibal Lecter complained about in Silence of the Lambs.

I kind of wanted ... a bit more randomness I guess? Even if it was a side trait.

Many of the side/small characters felt almost harshly one dimensional...which may well be an active directorial choice...a side effect of seeing the world through Arthur's eyes..but it didn't really work for me. The cardboard cutout aspect of how many, but not all, of the side characters does bring out a very Joker talking to them as a tableau in his lair which kind of pulls on the idea this could have worked but didn't quite land for me.

Also Arthur was a very passive protagonist IMO. Most of the movie happened TOO him. If it was trying to make the darkness seem inevitable, it failed. But there was never that idea that Arthur turned into the darkness. It never felt like Arthur made key choices....to grab his mother's file maybe? But after a week that is the only one I can remember.

so overall just didn't land its emotional punches well for me.

[Starbuck_II]

It's more that there is really nobody in the entire film to like or root for. The fact that it works at all despite that is impressive, but it really hurts wanting to see it again.

A family saw it at the same time I did. They brought all of their wee kids, I have to presume because they believed it was a comic book movie. The kids cried a lot. I don't think they enjoyed it much. Probably not a great choice for a family film.

Nah, I rooted for Arthur when he was attacked by the three dudes.
I rooted for the dwarf when he was scared in that apartment.

Those kids might be scarred for life. Great parenting.

[Peelee]

Nah, I rooted for Arthur when he was attacked by the three dudes.
I rooted for the dwarf when he was scared in that apartment.
I was about as scared for the dwarf as he was.

Those kids might be scarred for life. Great parenting.
Imean, I agree completely, but you'd be amazed at what some people take their kids to see.

[Tyndmyr]

The dwarf scene was darkly hilarious and I greatly enjoyed it, yeah. I don't think the kids did, though.

[Peelee]

The dwarf scene was darkly hilarious and I greatly enjoyed it, yeah. I don't think the kids did, though.

Definitely the hardest I ever laughed while being scared ****less.

[Psyren]

A family saw it at the same time I did. They brought all of their wee kids, I have to presume because they believed it was a comic book movie. The kids cried a lot. I don't think they enjoyed it much. Probably not a great choice for a family film.

I watched families walk out of Deadpool in my theater. You'd think enforcing film ratings wouldn't be that complicated.

[Peelee]

I watched families walk out of Deadpool in my theater. You'd think enforcing film ratings wouldn't be that complicated.

Nothing to enforce; if someone under 17 has someone over 21 buy their tickets, they are free to watch the movie*. And trying to tell them it's a bad idea usually ends poorly for the worker.

*At least, in the US.

[Rodin]

I watched families walk out of Deadpool in my theater. You'd think enforcing film ratings wouldn't be that complicated.

The key word there is "family". An R-rated film like Deadpool is perfectly legal for an adult to bring a minor to.

Either the movie theater staff told the family it's R-rated and were ignored, or the staff were tired of being yelled at for telling families it's R-rated and decided to let the problem sort itself out.

[JadedDM]

Yeah, Rated R doesn't mean kids can't see it, it just means they can't see it without a parent or guardian. If the parent/guardian brings their kids in, there's nothing the theater staff can do but politely suggest it's not a good idea.

[Bartmanhomer]

I watched families walk out of Deadpool in my theater. You'd think enforcing film ratings wouldn't be that complicated.

Well Deadpool is Rated R. They would realized that Deadpool is not even a family movie.

[Peelee]

Well Deadpool is Rated R. They would realized that Deadpool is not even a family movie.

I once had someone ask to buy a ticket for the sound system, because that was one of the posters in the front outdoor wall (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Huntsville_Rave.jpg).
In his defense, he just thought the poster looked cool and he laughed it off.
No, they would not realize that Deadpool is not a family movie.

[Bartmanhomer]

I once had someone ask to buy a ticket for the sound system because that was one of the posters in the front outdoor wall (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Huntsville_Rave.jpg).
In his defence, he just thought the poster looked cool and he laughed it off.
No, they would not realize that Deadpool is not a family movie.

This reminds me of the time that I went to see the cat movie Keanu with a female friend, her boyfriend, her younger sister and her teenage niece. I was surprised she bring her niece to see that movie. I did say something about that. I asked you do realize that Keanu is Rated R right? Her sister and her niece didn't know about that but they love cats.

[Traab]

"But its a COMIC BOOK MOVIE!" "Lady, they dont assign ratings at random. Maybe take a freaking HINT." And yeah, r is accompanied by an adult, nc17 is nobody under 17 but then, nobody has to worry about that much as they pretty much never get theatrical releases. Understandably so as movie theaters dont like restricting audiences with an R rating, let alone anything higher. Cuts the audience pool potential on a huge scale. Its why deadpool took so long to make, because ryan reynolds refused to do deadpool as a pg13 film and studios didnt like the idea of losing out on ticket sales by having an R film.

[JadedDM]

I worked at a movie theater back when the Nolan Batman films were coming out, and I remember we ran into this problem a lot. I forget which of the films it was, the one with the 'pencil scene?' But we had a lot of parents coming out of the theater with crying kids, asking for refunds, despite the fact it was a PG-13 film. But it was Batman, so I guess they thought it would be two hours of Adam West dancing or something? Who knows.

[Bartmanhomer]

I worked at a movie theater back when the Nolan Batman films were coming out, and I remember we ran into this problem a lot. I forget which of the films it was, the one with the 'pencil scene?' But we had a lot of parents coming out of the theater with crying kids, asking for refunds, despite the fact it was a PG-13 film. But it was Batman, so I guess they thought it would be two hours of Adam West dancing or something? Who knows.
Oh wow. Seriously? :eek:

[Peelee]

I worked at a movie theater back when the Nolan Batman films were coming out, and I remember we ran into this problem a lot. I forget which of the films it was, the one with the 'pencil scene?' But we had a lot of parents coming out of the theater with crying kids, asking for refunds, despite the fact it was a PG-13 film. But it was Batman, so I guess they thought it would be two hours of Adam West dancing or something? Who knows.

That was the second one. So presumably they saw the first one, which to be fair, didn't have anyone jamming a pencil in someone's eye.

More realistically, though, they misgauged how their kids would react to it.

[Traab]

I worked at a movie theater back when the Nolan Batman films were coming out, and I remember we ran into this problem a lot. I forget which of the films it was, the one with the 'pencil scene?' But we had a lot of parents coming out of the theater with crying kids, asking for refunds, despite the fact it was a PG-13 film. But it was Batman, so I guess they thought it would be two hours of Adam West dancing or something? Who knows.

Oh come on, what kid doesnt enjoy magic tricks? TA DAAAH!!!

[sktarq]

Then again there were probably as many if not more kids under 17 who were brought by a family member to Joker, Deadpool, the Dark Knight etc. and who really enjoyed it and find the rating system an overprotective joke.

and some of those kids may have even been under 13 (but probably fewer of them proportionally)

They just don't make much noise about it and thus don't get much attention.

so its about understanding YOUR kid.

[Noldo]

Late to the party but I finally saw Joker.

Adding the killing of Bruce’s parents to the end felt almost unnecessary. It kinda made sense considering the role the older Wayne played in the story, but especially the scene in the end showing Bruce looking over his dead parents felt unnecessary.

Overall I liked that the story was made sufficiently ambiguous. The only clearly marked delusion was the girl, but one could interpreted the whole movie as a delusion from inside the ward, and it does not diminish the story, because it is equally possible that everything happened and he was institutionalized only after the events.

Really liked how they manage to make the character interesting without making him sympathetic. And how they managed to take Joker, an extremely cartoonish character, and make him really believable.

Phoenix was great in the role. In the end when he is dancing and moving around as proto-Joker, I felt that his movements gave very much Michael Jacksonish vibe, for good or ill.

Definitely a movie that does not need a sequel but Batman born out of this story could be interesting take.

[ADDITION]
Also the pacing of the movie was nice surprise. Giving the characters enough time to shine

[Eldan]

I'll go further: not only does this movie not really need a sequel, I need a sequel would detract from it, unless they went in a really unexpected direction.
I mean, where does this joker even go. He doesn't seem to have much of a plan, or an ideology and he's not really a leader, either. The crowd just sort of moves in the same direction as him, they wouldn't form his gang.

Edit: okay, actually, that's not the worst idea to explore: people trying to make this Joker into some kind of symbol for their movement and being disappointed.

[Millstone85]

He doesn't seem to have much of a plan, or an ideology and he's not really a leader, either.Obligatory quote: "Do I really look like a guy with a plan?"

What if they did it like Telltale Games? Harley Quinn is the one with experience running a gang, and realizing Mister J's artistic visions. Though the game inverted their relationship, at least at first: "Do us a favor Pud', skip over to that bodega and get me a slushy."