Joker Review Thread

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

This film surprised me. Really, really good.

I think it's more Batman than I originally wanted to give it credit for. You'd have to change a lot of it to make it NOT a Joker movie. Yes it could be done, but that's a thought exercise; the right amount of work you could turn this into anything.

It definitely felt in the same vein as The Killing Joke; there had to have been somebody or somebodies in the film process who increased the Batman levels in this film that started (as I believe everyone involved admitted) as a standalone character piece.

I think the biggest problem with this movie isn't that they made a Joker movie, as I originally criticized when it was first announced. It's that they made a Joker period piece, set in the 80's, with Bruce Wayne around 10 years old. Because Joaquin Phoenix was a damned good Joker, and I'm really disappointed he won't face off against Batman, or kill Jason Todd with a crowbar, or cripple Barbara Gordon, or taunt Commissioner Gordon.

My favorite aspect of Phoenix wasn't his laugh or his facial expressions; it was his ungainly stork run, arms and legs akimbo as he legs it down a street or an alleyway. That run DESERVES to be chased by a terrifying caped shadow.

Overall, 4/5. Higher rating because by gosh, they made a pretty great Joker film out of a "Taxi Driver" idea. But only a 4/5 because this is standalone and Elseworlds. It makes WB/DC money, and reminds them that "hey, sometimes they DO make good movies!", but it doesn't benefit an overall plan at all.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Turo602

I don't know why people are talking about source material in here when it's an origin film about a character who doesn't traditionally have an origin. I thought the film was excellently executed

There is a reason, but you must have missed it. We are discussing whether the film adheres and represents the source material, and his origin stories, reliable or not, are a part of that discussion.

I agree though. Excellent film!

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

This film surprised me. Really, really good.

I think it's more Batman than I originally wanted to give it credit for. You'd have to change a lot of it to make it NOT a Joker movie. Yes it could be done, but that's a thought exercise; the right amount of work you could turn this into anything.

It definitely felt in the same vein as The Killing Joke; there had to have been somebody or somebodies in the film process who increased the Batman levels in this film that started (as I believe everyone involved admitted) as a standalone character piece.

I think the biggest problem with this movie isn't that they made a Joker movie, as I originally criticized when it was first announced. It's that they made a Joker period piece, set in the 80's, with Bruce Wayne around 10 years old. Because Joaquin Phoenix was a damned good Joker, and I'm really disappointed he won't face off against Batman, or kill Jason Todd with a crowbar, or cripple Barbara Gordon, or taunt Commissioner Gordon.

My favorite aspect of Phoenix wasn't his laugh or his facial expressions; it was his ungainly stork run, arms and legs akimbo as he legs it down a street or an alleyway. That run DESERVES to be chased by a terrifying caped shadow.

Overall, 4/5. Higher rating because by gosh, they made a pretty great Joker film out of a "Taxi Driver" idea. But only a 4/5 because this is standalone and Elseworlds. It makes WB/DC money, and reminds them that "hey, sometimes they DO make good movies!", but it doesn't benefit an overall plan at all.

Glad you enjoyed it. I don’t think you’ll be the only one who comes out of the theater thinking “wel maybe i preemptively assumed wrong about this film.” A lot of people seem to know what it is without having seen it.

I’d also love to see more from this Joker, but I would find it disappointing to see Joaquin just recreating iconic Batman and Joker comic book scenes. I much rather see them continue to carve their own path, as they have successfully done here. If they feel compelled, then I’m there for a sequel on the first night, whether Batman is there or not. I’d love to see it, but I’d just as well follow this Joker on another solo adventure. I’d also be open to seeing a radically different version of Batman to fit this universe. Whatever might inspire the creative team, if they’re willing to come back.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Cure

Come on, man. That joke doesn't really work for movies in movie theaters. They play at any time. You're cleverer than this.

Sorry, had a brain fart, plus I'd been feeling very down that day and was making mistakes with everything

Oh, wait, forgot what thread this is, must mask my mental humdrum with a fit...

[AquaParade]

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/j...ws-1203358492/

Breaking records. DC is definitely not in a rut with this film.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

There is a reason, but you must have missed it. We are discussing whether the film adheres and represents the source material, and his origin stories, reliable or not, are a part of that discussion.

I agree though. Excellent film!

I know why, but I was getting more at the notion that some people are bothered by the fact that they've been distancing themselves from the comics, which to me seems like a pointless thing to gripe about considering the nature of the story which has no real precedent in the comics aside from what, The Killing Joke? Which even then, the influence of that story is very evident from the trailers alone, and the talk show scene itself has some basis in The Dark Knight Returns. So I don't really see where people are coming up with this concern when it seems obvious they're protecting themselves from the inevitable comparisons and disappointment from the internet that is going in expecting to see the murderous and humourous Joker with the traditional purple suit and makeup when this film isn't even about that character, but the person who will become that character. Joaquin Phoenix isn't emulating any past portrayals and what they're doing, while partly inspired by the comics, is still very original to the character and not an adaptation. A story like this leaves itself open to interpretation because there is no definitive answer to it in the comics, which is why they can call this guy Arthur Fleck and get away with it.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Turo602

I know why, but I was getting more at the notion that some people are bothered by the fact that they've been distancing themselves from the comics, which to me seems like a pointless thing to gripe about considering the nature of the story which has no real precedent in the comics aside from what, The Killing Joke? Which even then, the influence of that story is very evident from the trailers alone, and the talk show scene itself has some basis in The Dark Knight Returns. So I don't really see where people are coming up with this concern when it seems obvious they're protecting themselves from the inevitable comparisons and disappointment from the internet that is going in expecting to see the murderous and humourous Joker with the traditional purple suit and makeup when this film isn't even about that character, but the person who will become that character. Joaquin Phoenix isn't emulating any past portrayals and what they're doing, while partly inspired by the comics, is still very original to the character and not an adaptation. A story like this leaves itself open to interpretation because there is no definitive answer to it in the comics, which is why they can call this guy Arthur Fleck and get away with it.

Some good points. I pretty much agree.


In the press, I believe they are purposely giving a strong "anti-comic book" stance, to get the message across that this is a different type of movie. Yet, in this film, there are elements lifted directly from some of the most famous Joker moments in comic books. It takes liberties, sure, but it is also reverent and extremely faithful to the source material at times. That's what a great adaption does. I can't get on with the notion that this is a "Joker movie in name only". It's a Joker movie.

And guess what? Frank Miller's Joker is a completely different beast than Mark Hammil's Joker. Grant Morrison's Joker would eat Bill Finger's Joker.
The Joker is a man of many interpretations, to such an extent that DC has Geoff John's writing a story right now that implies there have been at least three different people actually portraying the Joker throughout the comic book universe over time. Yup. Three Jokers. Kooky little idea, but you can see where the inspiration came from.
Point is, characters change and evolve. They're fluid.

I just hope the MCU hasn't broken the audience into only wanting films that completely ape the source material, the way they've conditioned portions of the audience to reject films that aren't in a shared universe.
I mean, not even the MCU is slavish - Civil War the movie, is not a direct adaption of the Civil War comic book - but they have been the film studio that is most faithful to adapting the comic book material. And that's all well and good. I love the MCU. I love seeing elements of the stories I've read represented on the screen. But we can have different interpretations as well. The comics have been doing it for years. That's where some of the best stories and ideas came from.

Edit: Easter Egg - Notice the"Batman: The Animated Series" font used for the logo of the television show which Joker is a guest on.

[Leo656]

Finally seen it. Pretty good. People are overrating it from both ends, but it's a good movie. And it's by far the closest thing to a "real movie" that anything based on a comic book has ever been. As I said, wipe off the face paint and change a few names, and it doesn't even "need" to be a "Joker" movie, but I think that's partly why it works so well. It's also 99% of the reason anyone's going to see it, and I get that. But as I told my one friend who said he wasn't interested in it because he's sick of comic book movies, "This is definitely not a comic book movie."

As Joker origins go, though, it's one of the better ones. It's frustrating though because Phoenix plays the role extremely well, yet it's a dead end because it's not going to lead to anything else. They've been adamant that this movie won't ever grow into a typical "comic book movie" thing where he'll eventually fight Batman, or even get a sequel of its own. And that makes sense, but it once again begs the question, "Why bother?" with regard to the entire movie. It's a good film as its own thing, but in a year or two when the next Jared Leto Joker-related movie comes out everyone is just going to whine about it. Therefore, this movie, for good or ill, hurts the larger "brand". Whether you like it, don't like it, it hurts the Big Picture of DC films because it's one-and-done. Which isn't this movie's fault, but again, "thanks" to the chuckleheads at WB for not knowing what the f*ck they're doing between 5pm and 5:05 on any given day. They could have made a few minor changes to the narrative, and it could easily have slid into the "canon" of the other films.

It's good to leave people wanting more, but it's frustrating. And I have no problem with Leto, I just know most people do, so if I were WB I would have probably used this opportunity as more than just an "experiment". It works, it's a good movie, and he gave a great performance. But now it's over, and what do we have to look forward to? Hating the next Joker-centric movie and having to watch everyone on the internet try and come up with all-new snarky jokes about Leto? Gee, that sounds like fun.

Minor Spoiler-y things:

Spoiler:

- The trend of modern writers not knowing who Thomas Wayne is continues to infuriate me. ((Deep breath)) Thomas Wayne is NOT an analog for Donald Trump! They did this same exact thing in the Telltale Batman games, "Well, Thomas Wayne was a billionaire so OBVIOUSLY he was an evil scumbag by default." As written by someone who has nothing but resentment for anyone doing better than they are in life, and can't see how anyone can both have money AND be a good person.

Thomas Wayne was a humanitarian who used his family's fortune to fund multiple charitable organizations, and was an actively-practicing surgeon in spite of having more money than God because he wanted to help people in tangible ways. That's the character, that's who Thomas Wayne is. His example is entirely why Bruce is a good person and not a trust fund brat. These things are important. I know that this particular story needed a Trump stand-in or else the entire thing wouldn't hold together, but this irritates me just about as much as the character assassination Luke Skywalker went through in The Last Jedi, for the sake of that film's questionable narrative choices. Writers who have no idea who these characters are, twisting them into something "wrong" just to suit their own choices. Maybe don't do that? Maybe either tell a different story or use different characters?

Again, this isn't the first time in recent memory that someone who didn't know any better chose to demonize Thomas Wayne, simply because "All Rich People Are Bad, M'kay". And it's very lazy and hack-ish.

- That leads me to my only other real criticism, that being the entire movie's Anti-Trump sentiment is about as subtle as a brick to the face. I'm not gonna lie, it was a little unsettling when some of the more shabbily-dressed people in the theater actually applauded when the Wall Street guys got murdered, or again when the Waynes got shot at the end.

Yeah, for real, a few people CLAPPED when Thomas and Martha Wayne got shot, and I heard someone mumble "That's RIGHT!" when the gunman told Thomas "You get what you deserve."

The media's blowing it way out of proportion, BUT, they're 100% right that "certain people" are going to take the wrong message from this movie. And I wanna say that's not the movie's fault, but... well, when you flash the words "KILL THE RICH" on the screen every few minutes in boldface caps, and present your murderous psychopath as the HERO of the piece, well... it is what it is.

On the whole, I liked it a lot more than I expected to but the things I expected to annoy me did indeed annoy me. It's a very good movie, though, a good slow-burn psychological thriller, I guess I'd say. I'm not sure what to describe it as, because it's definitely in no way a "comic book movie" (which I feel is going to help it appeal to a much different audience). I have a feeling it's gonna be too slow or psychological for some people, though; I saw a LOT of people checking their phones or walking out during the "slow" parts.

Recommended, and I'll buy the disc, but in the long run this is only gonna cause more problems for the ongoing series of "real" DC films. I won't be shocked if they just throw a bunch of money at Phoenix and Leto next year - Leto to sit at home and Phoenix to reprise the role in the "real" DC films going forward. They'll just pretend this origin movie wasn't set in the early-1980s and that it's the same Joker from Suicide Squad, and ask us all to play along. I can't see them doing anything else. Nothing else makes sense, and even THAT doesn't even make sense, but it makes more sense than having Phoenix give such a great performance in a movie that is ultimately "meaningless" in the grand scheme of things.

I wouldn't say it's "Best Picture" material, but it's good. I mean, it's about as much of an "homage" to Taxi Driver and King Of Comedy as House of 1000 Corpses is to Texas Chainsaw Massacre (as in, change a few names and it's no longer an "homage" but almost a complete remake), but at least they took everything they "borrowed" and made it into a compelling film of its own.

[Andrew NDB]

Saw it. I've read it described as "a dumb person's idea of what an artsy movie is." Seems about accurate.

Lots of quiet moments with Phoenix doing crazy stuff by himself. And laughing. Like, that right there is 75% of the movie. A great and memorable performance from him but nothing else and nobody in the movie was noteworthy.

So much hubbub about Marc Maron in the movie over the months, yet the movie comes out and he's in it for like 4 seconds. It doesn't even register as a cameo.

[Leo656]

Spoiler:

I thought it was interesting how he's portrayed as something of an unreliable narrator, and how a lot of things were only happening in his imagination, like his "relationship" with the girl down the hall...

...But I have a strong feeling that not everyone caught that. People are so literal-minded nowadays, after all.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Spoiler:

I thought it was interesting how he's portrayed as something of an unreliable narrator, and how a lot of things were only happening in his imagination, like his "relationship" with the girl down the hall...

...But I have a strong feeling that not everyone caught that. People are so literal-minded nowadays, after all.

Spoiler:

I knew it right away. That lady was like, "I saw you following me and my small child around the city all day... that's cute, let's be friends!" Nope, that's got to be in his head, she totally wouldn't say that.

I thought it might go a bit deeper. i.e., his mother would be revealed to be imaginary, or had already died years ago.

[Leo656]

Yeah, definitely. I would have rolled my eyes at that part with her, but I'd already read about what the twist was with that, so I thought it was kinda funny given the actual circumstances. But yeah, that would have been terrible writing otherwise.

I did hear a few people in the lobby mumbling about it, though, so even after the "reveal" which completely makes that part plain, some people still didn't catch it. Can't say I'm surprised.

[Turo602]

I'll never understand why people want to ruin perfectly good movies by tying them to a garbage film universe that's only going to age the movies poorly in the future. It's the equivalent of idiots who wanted Tom Welling to play Superman on the big screen or wanted Grant Gustin's Flash to be carried over to Justice League. There can be multiple versions of characters on screen at the same time. People will get over it. Joker doesn't need to be tarnished by a sh*tty Batman reboot just because the movie was successful. That's the most corporate mindset and the reason we can't have anything nice. With how much more terrible the MCU is looking post Endgame, I'm f*cking glad DC isn't forcing themselves into a corner with what kind of movies they can or cannot make without being worried about how it all fits when sometimes, it shouldn't.

[Leo656]

I see your point, and I won't entirely argue - I certainly never, ever wanted Welling in a Superman movie, or Gustin's Flash in a movie, etc. etc. - but I still feel that it's a shame that, given how strong Phoenix's performance was, that we're not likely to ever see this version of Joker again.

There's going to be more Batman and Joker movies, after all, eventually. And while we technically have a Joker for those movies, most people don't like him. So we have a Joker which most people seem to like a lot, who's never going to be allowed to fully "grow into" the character as we know and want to see him in future films, and on the other side we have a fully-formed Joker played by Leto who most people don't want.

Regardless what anyone thinks about the "DCEU" or whatever, that's a sh*tty situation. Why leave the "Good Joker" in limbo for the sake of preserving this one film's integrity? Next year nobody's even gonna remember this movie existed, attention spans being what they are. It'll be praised today, forgotten by next Christmas, but we still have about 3 to 5 more years of people bitching about Leto - assuming that the stuff they've talked about with him is still a Go, and he seems to imply that it is - and it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

I don't think it would "ruin" this movie if they fudged a few things just to be able to keep Phoenix in the role. Again, I personally have zero problems with Leto's version. But you can already tell that SO many people are gonna be begging for Phoenix instead - just like they did (and some still do) with Bale as Batman - that to some degree it would be worth it if they caved in, just to cease the caterwauling.

It would ultimately be Win/Win for everyone, even if it would be stupid on its face. Again, I agree with you on principle, I'm just looking at the bigger picture. We're going to get more movies with the Joker in them no matter what, and I'd honestly rather they "ruin" this film by paying Phoenix a ton of money to keep playing the role in future films, than listen to any more "clever" quips about Leto's face tattoos.

I mean think about it, J.K. Simmons playing J. Jonah Jameson in the newest (and completely unrelated to his own previous) Spider-Man movie makes zero sense, either, and is objectively nonsense pandering for nitwits. People still love it, though, because it's what they want, and they made it clear for many years they'd never settle for anything else, so the studio ultimately caved rather than fight against the tide. This would be no different, if we're being honest.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

or Gustin's Flash in a movie

I'd take that over ever seeing Ezra Miller in the part again.

[Leo656]

That's certainly an opinion, brother.

I'm definitely not a huge fan of "Ezra Miller Reciting Joss Whedon's Garbage Script as The Flash", but he seems like a good enough actor in general, to the point where he'd probably be perfectly fine in the role if just about anyone else was steering him. At this point I've seen enough Joss Whedon stuff to know that he simply isn't very good, and drags everyone involved in his projects down with him into Quipfest Hell.

Neither Ezra nor Grant actually plays "Barry Allen", anyway, since "Barry Allen" has never had a personality beyond Generic Do-Gooder, so it's all six-of-one, to me. One is too quippy, the other too whiny. Barry's a cipher so either interpretation is equally valid, frankly. Neither one is "correct" so the rest comes down to personal taste. I know some people (mostly chicks) who say Ezra was their favorite part of Justice League. It is what it is.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I see your point, and I won't entirely argue - I certainly never, ever wanted Welling in a Superman movie, or Gustin's Flash in a movie, etc. etc. - but I still feel that it's a shame that, given how strong Phoenix's performance was, that we're not likely to ever see this version of Joker again.

There's going to be more Batman and Joker movies, after all, eventually. And while we technically have a Joker for those movies, most people don't like him. So we have a Joker which most people seem to like a lot, who's never going to be allowed to fully "grow into" the character as we know and want to see him in future films, and on the other side we have a fully-formed Joker played by Leto who most people don't want.

Regardless what anyone thinks about the "DCEU" or whatever, that's a sh*tty situation. Why leave the "Good Joker" in limbo for the sake of preserving this one film's integrity? Next year nobody's even gonna remember this movie existed, attention spans being what they are. It'll be praised today, forgotten by next Christmas, but we still have about 3 to 5 more years of people bitching about Leto - assuming that the stuff they've talked about with him is still a Go, and he seems to imply that it is - and it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

I don't think it would "ruin" this movie if they fudged a few things just to be able to keep Phoenix in the role. Again, I personally have zero problems with Leto's version. But you can already tell that SO many people are gonna be begging for Phoenix instead - just like they did (and some still do) with Bale as Batman - that to some degree it would be worth it if they caved in, just to cease the caterwauling.

It would ultimately be Win/Win for everyone, even if it would be stupid on its face. Again, I agree with you on principle, I'm just looking at the bigger picture. We're going to get more movies with the Joker in them no matter what, and I'd honestly rather they "ruin" this film by paying Phoenix a ton of money to keep playing the role in future films, than listen to any more "clever" quips about Leto's face tattoos.

I mean think about it, J.K. Simmons playing J. Jonah Jameson in the newest (and completely unrelated to his own previous) Spider-Man movie makes zero sense, either, and is objectively nonsense pandering for nitwits. People still love it, though, because it's what they want, and they made it clear for many years they'd never settle for anything else, so the studio ultimately caved rather than fight against the tide. This would be no different, if we're being honest.

The best thing any performer can do is leave the audience wanting more. I'd rather Joaquin Phoenix exit the Joker role on a high than ruin his own legacy by playing Joker in a cartoony film where we're supposed to believe he's banging Margot Robbie.

If your biggest concern is people whining on the internet, maybe just stay off the internet. That isn't a good enough reason to tarnish a film. The audience shouldn't dictate what happens in the movies, especially when that audience is filled with casual movie goers who still think Bale is the greatest Batman or want one actor to play a role forever because they lack the capacity to see beyond what they know until they get it.

Just look at the many people who thought no one else could play Spider-Man but Tobey Maguire, until they fell in love with Andrew Garfield, and now Tom Holland. Opinions change all the time and people can never like different things anyway as both Tobey and Garfield are terrible now and Heath Ledger's Joker is overrated. Pretty soon, Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is gonna be awful and Tom Holland was never that good of a Spider-Man. People will dismiss Hugh Jackman's Wolverine too once he's recast in the MCU. Then you're gonna see dumb posts about how Hugh Jackman was only good at half the role while this new guy is the whole package... until he's not.

Like I said before, people will get over it and move on, but at least we'll always have a great film to look back on and rewatch, without remembering that he fought Robert Pattinson in a worse film. I'll settle with Leto's laughable "sexy" Joker in films that couldn't be saved if it means preserving a better film. Besides, Leto's Joker could still be salvaged if they truly are ignoring the last Suicide Squad film.

[Leo656]

Again, I can't disagree on principle, but ultimately, film is a commercial medium. Nobody cares about any individual film's "integrity", they only care about getting what they want, and they won't stop whining until they get it. If anyone honestly cared about preserving the sanctity of good movies we wouldn't be on our sixth Terminator flick. You care, I care sometimes, but let's be real, nobody else does.

Maybe it's because he was only "The Joker" for about ten minutes at the end. Yeah, "Leave them wanting more", but it also feels like he didn't get the chance to fully commit. He did a great job with everything he was given, don't get me wrong, but most of the movie, he wasn't playing "Joker". And then as soon as he was, the movie's over, right when we're finally getting what most people ostensibly paid to see. There's already some vocal backlash about it. I don't agree with it, because I personally like a good slow burn once in a while and I felt this movie worked it well (plus it's an origin story, anyway), but it's a valid point of criticism and it's not going away, either.

Bottom line, people DO want to see more of this Joker, and frankly, it sucks that we probably won't, regardless of how "noble" the reasons why not.

I will say, I wouldn't want to see this Joker fighting RPatz. Affleck, yes, sure, that would have been great, probably. But I'm still not sold on Sparkly Vampire Guy playing Batman. I promise you, that whole thing started as an office joke that got way out of hand.

I hear what you're saying, don't fully disagree... but frankly, I don't think we were quite given enough to justify "Leave them wanting more." What we got was great, but there was still room to do a lot more without wearing out his welcome. Arthur Fleck was an interesting character to watch descend into full-blown madness, but we only saw "Joker" for a couple of minutes of the film. And I think what we saw in that few minutes was good enough to be just a little bit unsatisfying, given that it's ALL we got of the fully-formed character.

I mean, if anything, take it as a credit to his performance. If he sucked, I wouldn't care. But he was really good, and if he got another shot, he'd most likely be really good yet again. I just feel like "settling for less" for other movie Jokers when they finally have a perfectly good Joker who people actually like would be a bit of a waste, that's all. People have been begging for a non-Leto joker, they have one, and they like him... but they can't use him. Because "This movie's too good"? "Let the sh*tty, 'regular' comic book movies have a sh*tty, less-interesting/popular Joker since they're not Real Movies anyway"? I get it, but I don't think too many others' would feel the same.

Whether or not the desires of the rabble counts for anything is, I guess, a matter of opinion, though.

[Andrew NDB]

I feel like our options shouldn't just be "fairly good standalone DC movie" and "kind of OK/bad DCEU movie." They should do a lot better than this.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Whether or not the desires of the rabble counts for anything is, I guess, a matter of opinion, though.

That's kind of my whole point. I don't give a sh*t what people want. I care about what I want, because most people don't know what they want or they want things for the wrong reasons, but at the end of the day, they'll still eat anything up and forget about it the next day. Those kind of opinions don't hold any weight with me and should ultimately be ignored because there are people who do actually care. Otherwise, people wouldn't be so adamant about remaking films like The Princess Bride or Back to the Future. The rest of the world? They don't care. So why does it matter what they want?

If we want more Joaquin Phoenix as Joker, the answer isn't insert him into the DCEU because that's what people want despite it clashing with everything they've built. It's give the movie a sequel. I'd be down for that, but whether or not it's necessary, I don't know. If people really don't want Leto, recast him or do better with him. Don't ruin something that's already great. We need more standalone and creative movies, not safe and formulaic films that have given the term "comic book movie" a bad name.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Finally seen it...

Minor spoilers to follow and this is a large post, so I'll tag it...

Spoiler:

Leo, I enjoyed reading your well articulated thoughts. I couldn't tag your whole post, because it was altogether too large haha. This isn't just a response to you, but for anyone. It's a good launching pad for me though. Thanks!

When it comes to the question "Why bother?" The answer is "for the film, itself". So you, I, and the audience were all able to go enjoy and discuss this film. Even further, it's because pitching this as something stand-alone was the only way we were ever going to get it. You kooky kids are missing the forest for the trees - we just got a great film. That's why bother

And from a business perspective, it's a bit more objective. Just, no. Guys, girls. This film does not "hurt" the DC brand by being a one-off. I'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous argument on the board right now, and with all due respect, must come from a place of either ignorance or spite at the fact that this isn't part of a shared universe, because it does not come from a place of business/industry expertise. I can tell you that.

Either way, the fact remains that putting out an award winning "film of the year" that sets Box Office records, while winning over a majority of fans and critics, with a recognized fresh, new type of comic book film - no guys, that doesn't hurt DC. It helps them.
Simple as that.

If you are trying to phrase the idea that "if this was a film that was kicking off a shared universe, then they would benefit more, because they could more easily build off its success", then sure, I agree. But that is not the same as "this successful film hurts DC". That's false. And the idea that the films existence is "meaningless" without a shared universe? Sad.

That said, I'd also love more of this Joker. Not in a shared universe, which could taint it. And not neccesarily against Batman, although the idea does excite and interest me. But any sequel that the team behind this movie might want to do intrigues me. And I think we might actually get it. If you go on YouTube and watch Joaquin's latest interview. He says that he can't stop thinking about this character and is pressing the director, Todd Phillips, to see if there is more they can do with Joker. How exciting.
In case anyone is interested- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WqVB7OcERU&t=491s

Obviously. I still maintain that this is 100% Joker adaption, scars and all. Just like the comics, it's okay to reinvent some aspects of a character and still recognize it as the same chatacter. We don't read Grant Morrison and say "this is Joker in name only, guys. Not like Bill Finger's at all". Putting it up on the screen doesn't change those rules.
And, look at the ending of the film - it really doesnt get more Joker than that, by leaving you secure in the fact that maybe none of the details of his story are even true. Switch em around and make it your Joker., if you like .
Anyways, I've beat this horse to death so I'll leave it at that.

You did mention that you told your friend "it's not a comic book movie". I 100% agree. I told my friend the same thing. It's not what anyone going to see a "comic book movie" would expect. I hope that changes one day, because comic book movies can be like this.

I enjoyed reading your interpretation of the film itself.
I disagree that having Thomas Wayne be a prick is a negative choice. I sort of like it - but here is the kicker: again, think back to the ending of this film. We are seeing this through Joker's eyes. It stands to reason that Thomas may or may not have been a great guy. That's not a cover up or excuse for plot-holes. The film strongly implies that the events we see are not 100% factual. Another reason I strongly believe this film is faithful to the character of Joker - more than the trailers and cast implied.

Regarding your audience reactions: Oh man, my first audience really disgusted me with their laughter at certain points. Interesingly enough, they we re not cheering or laughing at the parts you mentioned, but we must have had similar thoughts in those moments - "are we watching the same film??" Or "this is supposed to be tragic...and you're laughing". Even " you're stupid" in my less proud moments. Thankfully, the second audience I saw this with were much more in tune with me.

I also agree that this film borrowed a ton from other films. I recently watched King of Comedy, which had a more agile hand when it came to implementing the hallucination aspect. Thankfully, the film did so many other things well, that I wasn't much bothered by how much it pulled from other films. The plot was pretty basic, but the acting, music, and choreography propped it up greatly.

Anyways, I always enjoy reading and debating your thoughts. Hopefully I didn't come off as too snarky, in an attempt to strongly emphasize my position.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Spoiler:

I thought it was interesting how he's portrayed as something of an unreliable narrator, and how a lot of things were only happening in his imagination, like his "relationship" with the girl down the hall...

...But I have a strong feeling that not everyone caught that. People are so literal-minded nowadays, after all.

Spoiler:

Yet you seem to have ignored other aspects of this, such as "Arthur's" interpretation of Wayne, and everyone else in his life. There is a lot of questionable stuff going on with this story.

Let me be clear, that this isn't as profoundly stated as the false neighbor situation. If anyone missed that, they're not paying attention, because it was the single worst piece of exposition in the film. We didn't need that spelled out in a flashback.

EDIT: Turo, you are out here sharing words of wisdom. Just caught up on this thread.