Joker Review Thread

[AquaParade]

- Hope this is okay, mods.

Reviews for "Joker", which was screened at the Venice Film festival are now hitting the web! I'll get us started, but feel free to share more!

The film is a hit!

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/joker/

Bold, devastating and utterly beautiful, Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix have not just reimagined one of the most iconic villains in cinema history, but reimagined the comic book movie itself.


https://www.standard.co.uk/go/london/film/joker-film-review-venice-film-festival-2019-joaquin-phoenix-a4225396.html


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/joker-review-1235309


https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/joker-review-joaquin-phoenix-todd-phillips-1203317033/


http://collider.com/joker-review-video/?utm_campaign=collidersocial&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter/#images


And here is a rather negative review:

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/joker-movie-review-2019

[Autbot_Benz]

https://i.imgur.com/rVwNI8U.gif

So pumped for this and glad its being well received

[TigerClaw]

IGN gave it a 10.

kozkmhIyP0I

[AquaParade]

To think we have people calling the film a waste of time because it is not in the DCEU, or comparing Joaquins version of the character to SilentPool/BarakaPool.

This looks to be a game changer....

But be careful, I may have just read a mindblowing spoiler from a review linked to rotten tomatoes. I'll try and provide a link, but I'm a bit scared to go back and check if it's really a spoiler, tbh.

[CyberCubed]

http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/BsZ8JyNQ1Ji9y/giphy.gif

[AquaParade]

http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/BsZ8JyNQ1Ji9y/giphy.gif

Yup. This film is going to make a lot of money.

[CyberCubed]

We got 3 great live-action Jokers in our lifetimes.

Jack Nicholson as Joker '89, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight in 2008, and now Joaquin Phoenix in 2019.

We don't talk about Jared Leto.

[Leo656]

Interesting. I've only seen negative reviews thus far, albeit only a couple.

And as Andrew predicted, it is indeed an "Important Political Movie", right down to Joker's antics inspiring the common rabble to don clown masks and carry "Kill The Rich!" signs. :roll:

Looks like it's going to be tough to discuss this one while staying within the rules.

[AquaParade]

Interesting. I've only seen negative reviews thus far, albeit only a couple.

And as Andrew predicted, it is indeed an "Important Political Movie", right down to Joker's antics inspiring the common rabble to don clown masks and carry "Kill The Rich!" signs. :roll:

Looks like it's going to be tough to discuss this one while staying within the rules.

I think we should be fine if we try our best to step lightly around it. If we show the mods we can be civil and tempered, they may allow the necessary wiggle.room.

There are elements worth discussing without leaning heavily into politics anyway. I just read a ton of reviews that did it quite gracefully, if at all.

[Sumac]

I've read couple of reviews and they are quite ridiculous.
Like Andrew said some people see it is as an "Important Political Movie", with mentions of "Incels" (what little group of freaks have done to become such important fixture for left?) and "morally bankrupt America" and *wink-wink "vigilante action" wink-wink*.

I am quite sad, that instead seeing this movie for, you know, the movie, those so called "reviewers" are desperately trying to connect it to modern politics.

[Zulithe]

After many, many months of people doubting this film... from ******** on the leaked screenplay (which we don't know for sure resembles the final film), to attacking Joker fans and memers... looks like everything is gonna turn out a-okay!

[Andrew NDB]

Interesting. I've only seen negative reviews thus far, albeit only a couple.

And as Andrew predicted, it is indeed an "Important Political Movie", right down to Joker's antics inspiring the common rabble to don clown masks and carry "Kill The Rich!" signs. :roll:

It's puzzling to me because Nolan just did that in "The Dark Knight Rises." Rich people getting yanked out of their beds and all.

I've read couple of reviews and they are quite ridiculous.
Like Andrew said some people see it is as an "Important Political Movie", with mentions of "Incels" (what little group of freaks have done to become such important fixture for left?) and "morally bankrupt America" and *wink-wink "vigilante action" wink-wink*.

I am quite sad, that instead seeing this movie for, you know, the movie, those so called "reviewers" are desperately trying to connect it to modern politics.

I just don't understand why people see that as a positive thing. I mean, maybe I do, but I don't get it.

[Prowler]

I've read couple of reviews and they are quite ridiculous.
Like Andrew said some people see it is as an "Important Political Movie", with mentions of "Incels" (what little group of freaks have done to become such important fixture for left?) and "morally bankrupt America" and *wink-wink "vigilante action" wink-wink*.

I am quite sad, that instead seeing this movie for, you know, the movie, those so called "reviewers" are desperately trying to connect it to modern politics.

What the hell do Batman and Joker even have to do with incels lmao. :lol: Are these people crazy?

[AquaParade]

What the hell do Batman and Joker even have to do with incels lmao. :lol: Are these people crazy?

Well it stems from something to do with the leaked script, which I haven't read. But according to the creators, they veered heavily from the script and rewrote most of it.

So it wouldn't be surprising if it's just a case of people jumping to conclusions. Wouldn't be unusual in our time.

[Prowler]

Well it stems from something to do with the leaked script, which I haven't read. But according to the creators, they veered heavily from the script and rewrote most of it.

So it wouldn't be surprising if it's just a case of people jumping to conclusions. Wouldn't be unusual in our time.
...I don't know much about Batman or Joker, but I don't see how incels could fit in such world. Unless they decide to turn Joker into an incel or something. Is that what this is about? If so, then wow :lol::lol::lol:

But yeah, hopefully just people jumping to conclusions.

[TigerClaw]

We got 3 great live-action Jokers in our lifetimes.

Jack Nicholson as Joker '89, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight in 2008, and now Joaquin Phoenix in 2019.

We don't talk about Jared Leto.
You mean 4. Because of Cesar Romero. The original Joker.

[CyberCubed]

...I don't know much about Batman or Joker, but I don't see how incels could fit in such world. Unless they decide to turn Joker into an incel or something. Is that what this is about? If so, then wow :lol::lol::lol:

But yeah, hopefully just people jumping to conclusions.

It's because Joker is a psychopathic mass murderer and this movie will apparently make people sympathize with him and find his cause just. And since there's no Batman in the film to counter him, Joker is a protagonist in his own movie.

Joker is the most popular Batman villain but its because Batman is able to stop him at (almost) every turn. Nobody wants to watch a story about a mass murderer who kills people without any real reason and laughs about it. That's where the problem lies of people "We live in a society" type stuff.

[MikeandRaph87]

Is there a reason given for this taking place in 1981? I assumed 2019,but what significance is that year to what they want to do with the 1940 created character?

[CyberCubed]

Is there a reason given for this taking place in 1981? I assumed 2019,but what significance is that year to what they want to do with the 1940 created character?

The King of Comedy came out in 1981 and Robert De Niro is in the movie.

[Zulithe]

Everyone should see Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy before walking in to this. Clearly a ton of influence being taken. I actually hadn't seen The King of Comedy until this year, glad I did.

[CyberCubed]

Assuming Joker doesn't die or something by the end of the movie, I'm going to headcanon this as a prequel and origin story to Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. So that way we can see this Joker go up against Batman.

Yes I know it doesn't really fit, but who cares. :lol:

[AquaParade]

Assuming Joker doesn't die or something by the end of the movie, I'm going to headcanon this as a prequel and origin story to Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. So that way we can see this Joker go up against Batman.

Yes I know it doesn't really fit, but who cares. :lol:

No, it makes me no sense, but whatever makes you feel better :). My mind does strange things to justify Terrance Howard turning into Don Cheadle in the MCU films.

[sdp]

Some people are being ridiculous with this film, I did read the left crazies talking about how the movie was glorifying incels so they were likely doing damage control and also likely censoring some scenes from the movie and now it's the right crazies saying that it's an "important" movie, jeeze, can someone make a movie nowadays without either of the crazies influencing the product into something it's not?



Assuming Joker doesn't die or something by the end of the movie, I'm going to headcanon this as a prequel and origin story to Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. So that way we can see this Joker go up against Batman.

Yes I know it doesn't really fit, but who cares. :lol:

I'm sure if this movie is successful we'll either see a movie with the new Batman or even an entirely different Batman. Hell I'm sure we'll see Harley interact with this Joker as well. The DCEU is dead and WB is doing their animated strategy of convoluted continuity of yes but not strategy.

You mean 4. Because of Cesar Romero. The original Joker.

He wasn't a live action joker in my lifetime for what it's worth.

Also as far as Jared Leto, I agree he's a horrible Joker but at the very least I'll give him that he interpreted a very different Joker from Ledger which became the "defacto" Joker to people.

[AquaParade]

Some people are being ridiculous with this film, I did read the left crazies talking about how the movie was glorifying incels so they were likely doing damage control and also likely censoring some scenes from the movie and now it's the right crazies saying that it's an "important" movie, jeeze, can someone make a movie nowadays without either of the crazies influencing the product into something it's not?


Agreed 100%

[Coola Yagami]

So... are any of these reviewers givng it these rave reviews actual comic fans... like have they ever picked up a comic book in their lives, or just kinda get a vague idea of the Joker's existence since he's kinda mainstream.

Just wondering.

[Sumac]

Some people are being ridiculous with this film, I did read the left crazies talking about how the movie was glorifying incels so they were likely doing damage control and also likely censoring some scenes from the movie and now it's the right crazies saying that it's an "important" movie, jeeze, can someone make a movie nowadays without either of the crazies influencing the product into something it's not?
I've heard the take that this movie implies that poor should violently rebel against the rich. And every time it was in very excited tone.

If the "incel take" is just retarded, than "rebel against rich" is dangerous.

[AquaParade]

So... are any of these reviewers givng it these rave reviews actual comic fans... like have they ever picked up a comic book in their lives, or just kinda get a vague idea of the Joker's existence since he's kinda mainstream.

Just wondering.

Some are, some aren't. There are a lot of reviews out there.

What makes you wonder? What would the implication be?

For what it's worth, I've been reading Joker comics for 25 years. Love when he is written by Moore, Morrison, or Miller. I'm a diehard comic book fan, and I'll probably be raving right alongside those reviews by the time I see it.

Anything is possible, but all signs point to me loving it.

[Coola Yagami]

Some are, some aren't. There are a lot of reviews out there.

What makes you wonder? What would the implication be?

For what it's worth, I've been reading Joker comics for 25 years. Love when he is written by Moore, Morrison, or Miller. I'm a diehard comic book fan, and I'll probably be raving right alongside those reviews by the time I see it.

Anything is possible, but all signs point to me loving it.

IDK, I just never saw Joker as a rob from the rich, give to the poor kinda guy.

This whole thing about getting people to wear clown masks and form a mob mentality, I at least hope when all is said and done, he thanks them all by unleashing the laughing gas on them.

[AquaParade]

IDK, I just never saw Joker as a rob from the rich, give to the poor kinda guy.

This whole thing about getting people to wear clown masks and form a mob mentality, I at least hope when all is said and done, he thanks them all by unleashing the laughing gas on them.

So the idea is that the reviewers are able to appreciate the film because they aren't comic fans? Idk seems pretty flimsy to me, because I'm a fan of the comics and I think it looks fantastic.

It's clearly not what you want from a Joker movie, at least if you're going to come to a conclusion before seeing the film, but don't forget how flexible of a character this has always been. I don't think there's a correlation between positive reviews and lack of comic book fandom.

[Coola Yagami]

So the idea is that the reviewers are able to appreciate the film because they aren't comic fans? Idk seems pretty flimsy to me, because I'm a fan of the comics and I think it looks fantastic.

It's clearly not what you want from a Joker movie, at least if you're going to come to a conclusion before seeing the film, but don't forget how flexible of a character this has always been. I don't think there's a correlation between positive reviews and lack of comic book fandom.

I'm sure Joker has never looked like a Party City version of himself.

[AquaParade]

I'm sure Joker has never looked like a Party City version of himself.

Not following. The character has definitely looked like a "party city version of himself" lol. Ceaser Romero, for one.

But I was asking if the reviewers have to be comic book fans for their opinions to be valid, but I suppose it was rhetorical, because I know the answer is actually "no."

Sorry you dont like the makeup though. I think it looks great.

[IMJ]

And as Andrew predicted, it is indeed an "Important Political Movie", right down to Joker's antics inspiring the common rabble to don clown masks and carry "Kill The Rich!" signs. :roll:

It's a cliche tactic that always works. And a lot of people eat it up. People who are educated and have aspirations and get to know successful people don't have this mindset - whether they are having money troubles or not.

It's just another way to embrace counter culture and it works - people who haven't grown up yet eat that **** up and then people who become culture dwellers doing nothing with their lives continue their subscription to this as a way to cope.

Most normally operating people know that it's just a trope and often that the "evil rich" messages aren't true.

We got 3 great live-action Jokers in our lifetimes.

Jack Nicholson as Joker '89, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight in 2008, and now Joaquin Phoenix in 2019.

I am not hyped for this movie at all, but I really liked this post. Perspective! -thumb's up-

On a side note for anyone here that subscribes to the "evil rich" thing - then you are a fool for seeing this movie if you do because you are being manipulated by a large group of extremely rich people who are taking your money to see their movie while they talk down to you. On that note, I am not rich basically at all.

On the other hand if you are seeing this movie and don't give a crap about the context, and are just seeing it for a few hours of popcorn and escapism, then that's cool too.

[AquaParade]

No one is actually seeing this for political reasons or out of some sort of devotion to an ideal.

It's just the radicals, on both sides, finding another thing to complain about. In this case, a movie they have not seen.

[Coola Yagami]

Not following. The character has definitely looked like a "party city version of himself" lol. Ceaser Romero, for one.

But I was asking if the reviewers have to be comic book fans for their opinions to be valid, but I suppose it was rhetorical, because I know the answer is actually "no."

Sorry you dont like the makeup though. I think it looks great.

Naw, at the time Cesar Romero was pretty much the Joker brought to life. They didn't give him weird wacked-out make up or whatever that didn't match the comics.

IDK, it just feels weird taking a character that well-known and making him so different he's Joker in name only.

Leto was bad, but at least he was barely in the movie and the movie wasn't named after him.

I enjoyed the Crow and the Mask and while the Crow was 80% or so percent faithful to the comics, the Mask was not. But they both had the benefit of being unknown indie characters that didn't become mainstream until the movies came out.

The Joker doesn't have that benefit. You can't get away with making some weird-ass version of him and then 10 years later make some sort of 'did you know the Joker in the comics has permanent white skin?' unknown Joker facts video or whatever. He's just too well-known to mess with IMO.

And to top it off, people eat it up. I say those people that do have lost their 'not faithful to the comics' card the next time some other comic book movie comes out and bombs.

[AquaParade]

Double post

[AquaParade]

Naw, at the time Cesar Romero was pretty much the Joker brought to life. They didn't give him weird wacked-out make up or whatever that didn't match the comics.

IDK, it just feels weird taking a character that well-known and making him so different he's Joker in name only.

Leto was bad, but at least he was barely in the movie and the movie wasn't named after him.

I enjoyed the Crow and the Mask and while the Crow was 80% or so percent faithful to the comics, the Mask was not. But they both had the benefit of being unknown indie characters that didn't become mainstream until the movies came out.

The Joker doesn't have that benefit. You can't get away with making some weird-ass version of him and then 10 years later make some sort of 'did you know the Joker in the comics has permanent white skin?' unknown Joker facts video or whatever. He's just too well-known to mess with IMO.

And to top it off, people eat it up. I say those people that do have lost their 'not faithful to the comics' card the next time some other comic book movie comes out and bombs.

This film has a world-renowned actor, more creative freedom than any other comic book film out there, and is recieving Oscar Buzz, but you are upset about the makeup not being accurate. I'm just glad we have dissimilar taste.

So you don't like Heath Ledger's Joker either?
He also had normal skin & hair, unlike the comics.
He didn't have the comedian-related origin from the comics, which this new film does faithfully adhere to.
Also, if we are concerned with, arguably, trivial relations to the comic book character, Heath's Joker had scars, unlike Joaquin's version and the version from the comics. In many ways, the new version is more reverent to the comic books than Heath's. Not that it really matters. I love Heath's Joker, by the way.

I rather a story take creative liberty than be 100% devoted to someone else's comic book, if it means they reach the heights this film appears to reach. Being a complete slave to the material is so....rote.

And at the end of the day, why are you so sure it is unfaithful to the comics? There is the psychosis, the danger, the clown make-up, the charisma, the unpredictability. Any fan could tell you this is a Joker film, by the trailer, whether the films title is there or not.

So that combined with the fact that we havent even seen this film , just makes me puzzled by your strict apprehension to this film and devotion to the idea that it is unfaithful/unworthy. All due respect though.

[Voltron]

Guys, we've already had this discussion and you all said it was impossible to discuss this without it getting political. :roll:

Against my better judgment, I'll let this go so long as people remain civil.

[Coola Yagami]

This film has a world-renowned actor, more creative freedom than any other comic book film out there, and is recieving Oscar Buzz, but you are upset about the makeup not being accurate. I'm just glad we have dissimilar taste.

So you don't like Heath Ledger's Joker either?
He also had normal skin & hair, unlike the comics.
He didn't have the comedian-related origin from the comics, which this new film does faithfully adhere to.
Also, if we are concerned with, arguably, trivial relations to the comic book character, Heath's Joker had scars, unlike Joaquin's version and the version from the comics. In many ways, the new version is more reverent to the comic books than Heath's. Not that it really matters. I love Heath's Joker, by the way.

I rather a story take creative liberty than be 100% devoted to someone else's comic book, if it means they reach the heights this film appears to reach. Being a complete slave to the material is so....rote.

And at the end of the day, why are you so sure it is unfaithful to the comics? There is the psychosis, the danger, the clown make-up, the charisma, the unpredictability. Any fan could tell you this is a Joker film, by the trailer, whether the films title is there or not.




You mean... besides the fact that the people behind the film said it will have 'nothing to do with the comics'?

Ledger's Joker was a bit different. The Nolan trilogy tried so hard to somehow make Batman work in the real world. In fact The Dark Knight was more of a crime drama rather than a comic book movie and kept everything so grounded, the only cartoonish thing was the guy running around in the batsuit. They had to adapt Joker into that kind of movie, the comic book one would have been too cartoony in Nolan's world.

But that was a sequel, with rules established from a previous movie. This is a whole new thing. They could have done something more comic accurate but they went with the usual 'no, my version is better' mindset. It almost comes off as some sort of ' random guy in clown make-up goes crazy' type movie, they didn't have faith in their characer, so hey let's slap the Joker label on it and people will eat it up.

So far, it's working.

I mean, would people have cared is this was just called 'The Clown' or 'Look Who's Laughing Now' or whatever?

[AquaParade]

You mean... besides the fact that the people behind the film said it will have 'nothing to do with the comics'?

Ledger's Joker was a bit different. The Nolan trilogy tried so hard to somehow make Batman work in the real world. In fact The Dark Knight was more of a crime drama rather than a comic book movie and kept everything so grounded, the only cartoonish thing was the guy running around in the batsuit. They had to adapt Joker into that kind of movie, the comic book one would have been too cartoony in Nolan's world.

But that was a sequel, with rules established from a previous movie. This is a whole new thing. They could have done something more comic accurate but they went with the usual 'no, my version is better' mindset. It almost comes off as some sort of ' random guy in clown make-up goes crazy' type movie, they didn't have faith in their characer, so hey let's slap the Joker label on it and people will eat it up.

So far, it's working.

I mean, would people have cared is this was just called 'The Clown' or 'Look Who's Laughing Now' or whatever?

I would have cared to see this film under another name, sure - great cast, creative freedom, exciting critical reception. But I care more, because I can see elements of The Joker in it. It doesn't feel like too strong of a left turn to me...at all.
Like I said, all the elements that are essential to the Joker, in my mind, are loud and clear in the trailer.
I don't need him to take an acid bath in order to become The Joker anymore than I need a bat to physically crash through Bruce Wayne's window, as the catalyst to him taking on the theme of a bat. It's just not essential to the character, for me. People will differ on whatis essential to the character - even in the comics, Bob Kane's Joker is not Frank Miller's Joker is not Grant Morrison's joker - but it doesn't make it necessarily right or wrong.

I respect your reasons for excusing how different Heath's joker was, but they don't hold water for me. Heath's joker was different and fit the world they had envisioned, yes. The results were fantastic! If the same equation happens here, that's a wonderful thing, in my eyes.

If it makes you feel better, Todd Phillip's recently name dropped The Killing Joke when discussing his influences for the film. Other reviewers have said there are elements of the comic in there as well. I really think you could be jumping to conclusions. I mean, I can understand why, if that is the case, based on the press tour. They are being loud and clear that this film is "it's own thing", but they have also referenced the comics as an influence, and more importantly, you can see it in the trailers.

That's aside from the fact that we disagree on how faithful this film should be to the comics.

Guys, we've already had this discussion and you all said it was impossible to discuss this without it getting political. :roll:

Against my better judgment, I'll let this go so long as people remain civil.

Thank you.

Seems like cooler heads are prevailing so far.

[AquaParade]

Joker won "Best Film" award at the Venice Film Festival.

http://collider.com/joker-wins-venice-film-festival-top-award/

Often in the past, films that win this award go on to win Oscars as well.

[Sumac]

Who could have thought that movie about Joker, of all characters, made by the director of the Hangover trilogy, of all directors, can potentially become an Oscar winner?

[AquaParade]

Who could have thought that movie about Joker, of all characters, made by the director of the Hangover trilogy, of all directors, can potentially become an Oscar winner?

I did. I knew it. Called it from the start.

No, just kidding. I did have faith in the film, like many others, once they cast Joaquin Phoenix, but even then I would have never guessed it could be within reach of an Oscar. I'm so delighted that we are getting this film, because it's right up my alley. I'm just as excited to see if/how it can shake up the comic book film industry.

[AquaParade]

It's fascinating to read some of these negative reviews. Many of them are quite positive when it comes to the technical aspects of the film, creative choices, and well, pretty much everything else that makes up the film, aside from the fact that it could potentially be dangerous.

I don't care what this films message is at this point, I'm just glad it can exist despite all the finger-pointers out there who want something to get upset about. It seems to me that we are heading towards a time of major censorship.

To me, this is no different than the discussion about violent video games or Heavy metal.

Anyways, here's another "negative" and a generally positive review...

https://ew.com/movie-reviews/2019/09/10/joker-review/

A movie with the message this one hammers home again and again... feels too volatile, and frankly too scary, to separate from the very real violence committed by young men like Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur Fleck in America almost every day.

http://splashreport.com/tiff-film-review-joaquin-phoenix-joker/

Joaquin Phoenix's phenomenal performance elevates this creepy, somber, and disturbing origin story that excels when it focuses on its titular character and stumbles when it tries to be a civics lesson

Man, I have to say I've read a ridiculous amount of these reviews lately, and what strikes me as a pet peeve, is how often these pundits/journalists cannibalize each others reviews.

I know some of that is unavoidable and worth the convenience, but it's like one reviewer starts with "This is EXACTLY the type of movie the joker would want..." and then you see five other outlets copy them. I have a hard time believing they all came up with that sentiment individually, but I could be wrong. It's like how every reviewer had to refer to "Ant-Man & the Wasp" as a "palette cleaner", which was essentially true, but c'mon.

Okay, do I sound cranky yet? Good day.

[Andrew NDB]

I don't care what this films message is at this point, I'm just glad it can exist despite all the finger-pointers out there who want something to get upset about. It seems to me that we are heading towards a time of major censorship.

Ironically, even talking about the movie's message can get you banned from this board, potentially.

[AquaParade]

Ironically, even talking about the movie's message can get you banned from this board, potentially.

I guess we should be safe, because I don't think any of us truly know what the films message even is.

To me, it feels like everyone on the internet has just been ready to pounce and refute whatever it is this movie will try to say - if anything at all - in the case that it might be against their beliefs. That's my feeling on a lot of the speculation. If I were to be dramatic, it's like people sense an unknown power in this film and are afraid that it could be used against them.

As for those who have actually seen it, according to reviews, it sounds like the message a select few seem to be afraid of is the idea that this film justifies violence in the hands of someone, namely a mentally ill white man, who been mistreated by society or "forgotten". That's what I've gathered from spoiler-free reviews.
But you also see many reviewers who feel the movie just lays things out and leaves it up to you to decide its message.

So it's a mixed bag.

I guess we will have to wait to see the film ourselves before we can discuss whether it has a pointed political message.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Regardless of the films merits or messages or what have you, nothing engenders a ton of debate and discussion like a DCEU movie. :tgrin:

[ZariusTwo]

A couple of clips have leaked on Reddit.

[CyberCubed]

This film is dark. This Joker does feel like he may inspire the wrong people. Those two clips were really something. Gamers rise up

[AquaParade]

A couple of clips have leaked on Reddit.

I watched 3-4 minutes of leaked footage. Couldn't help myself.

Watching the footage, it's almost surreal to see a comic book character in a film that feels so visceral. This Joker feels so real. As a longtime fan, it's intoxicating to watch. Can't wait for the whole thing.

[IMJ]

Ironically, even talking about the movie's message can get you banned from this board, potentially.

Ridiculous.

If the content is there and film makers beat you over the head with it, then it's fair game for discussion on every level.

It's weird that cancel culture would exist on these boards, considering we are populated mostly with Gen X'ers rather than Millenials who are more likely to employ absolutist control tactics.

Although I'd hope to believe that if moderators are pulling the "ban" trigger here, then it is because some members are so obtuse that it can't help but lead to exaggerated conflict. As opposed to silencing opinions that dissent from their own.

On that note though, after coming back here to read and post for 13 years, I've seen a wide breadth of mentalities, but have never had any real or tangible problem. Basically ever. Soooo.....

-thumb's up to the TDrome-

I watched 3-4 minutes of leaked footage. Couldn't help myself.

Watching the footage, it's almost surreal to see a comic book character in a film that feels so visceral. This Joker feels so real. As a longtime fan, it's intoxicating to watch. Can't wait for the whole thing.

This is cool. I honestly figured this movie was a lost cause, bad idea that had no hope. I've seen reviews that go both ways, but they always seem to be highly galvanizing. No one says "eh, it's fine". They are saying that it's a waste of a movie, or that it's an absolute work of filmaking art. Crazy. Like the Joker.

[AquaParade]

This is cool. I honestly figured this movie was a lost cause, bad idea that had no hope. I've seen reviews that go both ways, but they always seem to be highly galvanizing. No one says "eh, it's fine". They are saying that it's a waste of a movie, or that it's an absolute work of filmaking art. Crazy. Like the Joker.

It really was cool. In the small glimpse I got, he didn’t feel like any Joker I’ve known before, (but I could say the same for Heath Ledger, at the time). He just felt alarmingly real and uncomfortably deranged. There really wasn’t a loveable charisma to speak of. Perhaps that will develop as the film goes along - and again, I only watched 4 minutes - or perhaps not. He doesn’t feel like a dark force of nature, he just feels like a sick and dangerous man.

I can see how this may not work for some people, but I’m fascinated.


And you’re right, this film is definitely getting a response out of people one way or another. Very curious to see how high the box office numbers can get. I

[Sumac]

To me, it feels like everyone on the internet has just been ready to pounce and refute whatever it is this movie will try to say - if anything at all - in the case that it might be against their beliefs. That's my feeling on a lot of the speculation. If I were to be dramatic, it's like people sense an unknown power in this film and are afraid that it could be used against them.

As for those who have actually seen it, according to reviews, it sounds like the message a select few seem to be afraid of is the idea that this film justifies violence in the hands of someone, namely a mentally ill white man, who been mistreated by society or "forgotten". That's what I've gathered from spoiler-free reviews.
But you also see many reviewers who feel the movie just lays things out and leaves it up to you to decide its message.
I find it incredibly ironic that some left afraid that this movie will inspire some right fanatics and at the same time lefty reviewers imply that Joker somehow might inspire people to fight against "oppression of the rich".
So, which is it? :ohwell:

Also, the fear of this movie, IMO, signifies that some people are afraid that some might see things differently, which for zealots or any person, who subscribes to authoritarian views, is fate worse than death, because, at this point they wouldn't have a choice, but to admit their failure.

[Xav]

This film is dark. This Joker does feel like he may inspire the wrong people. Those two clips were really something. Gamers rise upWhat the heck do gamers have to do with the Joker?

[IMJ]

What the heck do gamers have to do with the Joker?

I think this movie amidst game culture has been covered by YouTubers like the Quartering, who spends time talking about how the deeper end of the liberal pool has been discussing it on places like... ummm... Twitch?

From the stories it seems that ultra liberal video game streamers apparently get involved with a culture of purple haired weirdos that are gossiping about who f'd who and who was harassed even though their f was consensual, but only after some bi-guy got angry at some girl who strips on YouTube while delivering video game news on nights when the moon is full and the meowing cat purrs at the dark, nebulous sky during bla bla bla bla....

[CyberCubed]

4chan is also loving this movie and most view this version of Joker as a hero and someone to look up to. Joker is going to become the next Pepe le frog

[AquaParade]

What the heck do gamers have to do with the Joker?

It's a meme. And one of those jokes that people will repeat ad nauseam for a cheap laugh (see "Metal gear solid pachinko lol"). Be prepared for a lot of "we are a society lol" parodies of the film as well.

[Andrew NDB]

I'm still betting the third act is like an extended version of Bane telling the citizens of Gotham to "take your city back!" and all the rioting. With Joker instead of Bane.

So... maybe not the epitome of originality. But it's always fun to see Commodus playing weird characters.

[AquaParade]

I'm still betting the third act is like an extended version of Bane telling the citizens of Gotham to "take your city back!" and all the rioting. With Joker instead of Bane.

So... maybe not the epitome of originality. But it's always fun to see Commodus playing weird characters.

The trailers certainly make it appear that way.

I think the strengths of the film will lie in the acting, cinematography, score, etc. The plot being more of a basic frame or skeletal structure on which to highlight the other attributes of the film. I'll be pleased if the actual plot is really strong as well though.

[CyberCubed]

The movie is down to 77% now as more reviews are coming in. I can see it falling further as we get most of the reviews in over the next month:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/joker_2019/

Kinda reminds me of how Aquaman was in the 80% range when the first reviews hit and then it slipped all the way down to the 60% range when all the reviews were finished.

[AquaParade]

The movie is down to 77% now as more reviews are coming in. I can see it falling further as we get most of the reviews in over the next month:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/joker_2019/

Kinda reminds me of how Aquaman was in the 80% range when the first reviews hit and then it slipped all the way down to the 60% range when all the reviews were finished.

Except you didn't have people praising the film but giving it a rotten score in fear of animal cruelty.

[Sumac]

What the heck do gamers have to do with the Joker?
Some relatively influential people, connected to gaming, were able to push back against SJW insanity and get sizable following at that, which made some SJWs incredibly uncomfortable. Because of it gamers were proclaimed "public enemy of the progress #1" by some people and have become a scapegoat for all stuff SJWs doesn't like.

[sdp]

Some of those negative reviews are just because of political ideals and not the actual movies. We've indeed been living in an age of censorship where the reviewers and influencers get to censor by talking bad about a product.

And it's not just one political side, the other is the same thing just a different side of the coin, look at the reason the previous thread was closed.

[Andrew NDB]

So apparently Joaquin Phoenix was repeatedly storming off the set throughout shooting... except when he was acting with Robert DeNiro.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/consummate-actor-joaquin-phoenix-allegedly-stormed-off-1838039644

[Sumac]

Some of those negative reviews are just because of political ideals and not the actual movies. We've indeed been living in an age of censorship where the reviewers and influencers get to censor by talking bad about a product.

And it's not just one political side, the other is the same thing just a different side of the coin, look at the reason the previous thread was closed.
Welcome to the Soviet States of America, comrade!! :lol:

If art doesn't promote OUR point of view it is worthless and toxic!

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

So apparently Joaquin Phoenix was repeatedly storming off the set throughout shooting... except when he was acting with Robert DeNiro.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/consummate-actor-joaquin-phoenix-allegedly-stormed-off-1838039644

"Still—it’s a film about an angry clown who goes on to fight a man who dresses up like a bat, folks. It’s not that heavy."

:tlol:

[AquaParade]

So apparently Joaquin Phoenix was repeatedly storming off the set throughout shooting... except when he was acting with Robert DeNiro.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/consummate-actor-joaquin-phoenix-allegedly-stormed-off-1838039644

It's weird because Todd Phillps, the director, knows that saying this will garner one of two reactions -

A. Wow, Joaquin sounds like an asshole
Or
B. Wow, Joaquin is an intense actor. A true artist!

Though, I've been up this films butt since it was announced and neither of those seem like narratives that Todd has been pushing. He stated just the other day that Joaquin wasn't doing any method acting on set, and he appears to be very chummy with Joaquin.

Anyway, I'm probably reading too much into it. Can probably be chalked up to being asked a hundred questions a day and sometimes contradicting yourself.

[Andrew NDB]

Phoenix walks out of interview when interviewer asks him if he thinks the movie could inspire real life violence:

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/09/joaquin-phoenix-walks-off-interview-joker-violence-1202175817/

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Phoenix walks out of interview when interviewer asks him if he thinks the movie could inspire real life violence:

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/09/joaquin-phoenix-walks-off-interview-joker-violence-1202175817/

Not a great way to defend the film. And it's a valid question, given today's fine crop of idiots.

[IMJ]

Not a great way to defend the film. And it's a valid question, given today's fine crop of idiots.

I understand what you mean, against today's millenial population, but it's an unnecessarily provocative, and probably self-centered question (stirring up **** gets hits).

It's a movie, and the question itself implies the mindset of censorship. If someone can't see a movie without going off and doing something awful then that's an indicator of that person, not the movie.

It's ridiculous. It's absurd.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I understand what you mean, against today's millenial population, but it's an unnecessarily provocative, and probably self-centered question (stirring up **** gets hits).

It's a movie, and the question itself implies the mindset of censorship. If someone can't see a movie without going off and doing something awful then that's an indicator of that person, not the movie.

It's ridiculous. It's absurd.

I agree. But walking away from the question may seem noble in your mind, but it's too easy to misinterpret or come off as petty.

How hard is it to say "mass shooters will use any justification for their crimes?" Defend your art, man.

[IMJ]

I agree. But walking away from the question may seem noble in your mind, but it's too easy to misinterpret or come off as petty.

How hard is it to say "mass shooters will use any justification for their crimes?" Defend your art, man.

Oh okay, you aren't defending the concept of proliferating this nonsense, but rather saying that Phoenix could've just told the guy in any way, shape or form that it was ridiculous.

-thumb's up-

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Oh okay, you aren't defending the concept of proliferating this nonsense, but rather saying that Phoenix could've just told the guy in any way, shape or form that it was ridiculous.

-thumb's up-

Yes. I might have phrased that wrong. It's a valid question to be asked, simply because it's been asked before. Perhaps I should say "expected" question, not valid. Because anyone with a lick of sense knows it's going to be asked.

By walking away, Phoenix does nothing to address the issue. He's the main lead on a big movie everyone is going to see.

But he's already coming off a bit weird with his walking off set and walking off interviews and whatnot.

[Andrew NDB]

I found Phoenix's song.

Dbb7xeZGR-U

[sdp]

from what i read he didn't really walk out, he just went to ask WB PR what to say regarding a controversial question, he came back to finish the interview after consulting PR.

[AquaParade]

A group of family members and friends of those who died in the 2012 Dark Knight Rises movie theater shooting, have penned a letter to Warner Bros regarding the Joker movie, but it might not be for quite the reason you think...

https://www.newsarama.com/47067-dark-knight-rises-shooting-survivors-pen-letter-to-warner-bros-over-joker.html

Oh, and given the name of the thread, here - take another review:

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/joker/283452/joker-review-joaquin-phoenix

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

A group of family members and friends of those who died in the 2012 Dark Knight Rises movie theater shooting, have penned a letter to Warner Bros regarding the Joker movie, but it might not be for quite the reason you think...

https://www.newsarama.com/47067-dark-knight-rises-shooting-survivors-pen-letter-to-warner-bros-over-joker.html

Oh, and given the name of the thread, here - take another review:

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/joker/283452/joker-review-joaquin-phoenix

Sounds fascinating. :tgrin:

[Andrew NDB]

A group of family members and friends of those who died in the 2012 Dark Knight Rises movie theater shooting, have penned a letter to Warner Bros regarding the Joker movie, but it might not be for quite the reason you think...

https://www.newsarama.com/47067-dark-knight-rises-shooting-survivors-pen-letter-to-warner-bros-over-joker.html

Well-intentioned, misguided morons.

[Sumac]

Road to censorship is paved with the best intentions.

[Andrew NDB]

I love these diatribes that invariably begin with, "I'm totally for the freedom of speech, BUT..." or "I'm totally against censorship, BUT..." as they then go on to illustrate the opposite.

Like saying to someone: "No offense, but you're an a**hole." Are you sure you didn't mean to offend? Does the "no offense" part really make it more palatable?

[Autbot_Benz]

Road to censorship is paved with the best intentions.

Joker won't be playing at the theater in Aurora where the shooting happened

https://www.cbr.com/joker-not-playing-in-dark-knight-rises-aurora-theater/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[AquaParade]

And WB releases a statement...

https://talkiesnetwork.com/2019/09/24/warner-bros-releases-official-statement-on-joker-violence-controversy/

“Gun violence in our society is a critical issue, and we extend our deepest sympathy to all victims and families impacted by these tragedies,” reads the statement. Our company has a long history of donating to victims of violence, including Aurora, and in recent weeks, our parent company joined other business leaders to call on policymakers to enact bi-partisan legislation to address this epidemic. At the same time, Warner Bros. believes that one of the functions of storytelling is to provoke difficult conversations around complex issues. Make no mistake: neither the fictional character Joker, nor the film, is an endorsement of real-world violence of any kind. It is not the intention of the film, the filmmakers or the studio to hold this character up as a hero.”

This sure is shaping up to be interesting, even if I am mildly annoyed at the fact that we can't all be hyped up for the Joker movie.

[Andrew NDB]

Joker won't be playing at the theater in Aurora where the shooting happened

https://www.cbr.com/joker-not-playing-in-dark-knight-rises-aurora-theater/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I know I wouldn't be watching a Joker movie in that theater, opening weekend.

[AquaParade]

Hey, if anyone has Regal Member Reward Points sitting around that they’d like to make use of, you could have this art print shipped to me and I’ll Paypal you $15. I really want it but I’m not a member. Worth a shot.

https://regalcrownclub.regmovies.com/joker-13-x-19-regal-exclusive-numbered-art-print.html

[Coola Yagami]

Joker won't be playing at the theater in Aurora where the shooting happened

https://www.cbr.com/joker-not-playing-in-dark-knight-rises-aurora-theater/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I mean, it kinda makes sense. Especially with this current mentality where everyone is expected some sort of 'gamers will rise' type reaction.

You know the stupid thing is if people really are worried about some sort of uprising, maybe just.... Don't show the movie? Trash it and make a less contraversial one?

[AquaParade]

I mean, it kinda makes sense. Especially with this current mentality where everyone is expected some sort of 'gamers will rise' type reaction.

You know the stupid thing is if people really are worried about some sort of uprising, maybe just.... Don't show the movie? Trash it and make a less contraversial one?

This would be the exact opposite of what I prefer.

Can you imagine if we began a precedent of trashing, and essentially censoring, any film that got people riled up. Who would make that call? The government? No thank you. The fans? It would be beyond politics and turn into fanboy wars. In a small way, it already has.

The thing about this movie is that I truly feel people are willing danger into existence. At this point, with the accusations and proclamations flying around, if anything, we are going to convince incels that “Yup, this is the big one. Get your guns and gas masks loaded! Here it comes!!” More than any film ever could. it's starting to feel like a goddamn invitation.

It’s a movie featuring a bad person. We had nothing to be afraid of.

[Sumac]

Extreme arrogance and narcissism of certain group led to their extreme paranoia.

[Papenbrook]

Welp, it looks like Warner Bros. are banning the press from the premiere screening of Joker. (https://deadline.com/2019/09/joker-red-carpet-press-restriction-hollywood-premiere-1202746895/)

Umm ...

[Autbot_Benz]

Welp, it looks like Warner Bros. are banning the press from the premiere screening of Joker. (https://deadline.com/2019/09/joker-red-carpet-press-restriction-hollywood-premiere-1202746895/)

Umm ...

Good its the Press that has been pushing this negative light towards the movie.

[Sumac]

Welp, it looks like Warner Bros. are banning the press from the premiere screening of Joker. (https://deadline.com/2019/09/joker-red-carpet-press-restriction-hollywood-premiere-1202746895/)

Umm ...
Given fear-mongering that certain-aligned sources do, for the sake of "good boy points", it is understandable.

[AquaParade]

Good for them. Let the world watch before the discussion continues.

[drgon78]

The press is a bunch of trolling shill vultures anyway.

[AquaParade]

Don't tease me!

https://torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/it-was-something-that-was-fluid-and-alive-joaquin-phoenix-explains-why-he-said-yes-to-joker#comments

The question everyone is going to want to know at the end of that movie is: are we going to see your Joker come back?

I’m the wrong guy to ask (laughs). What do you think? Would you like that?

I have to say, I'm surprised I haven't seen this quote going around the web, considering how much a sequel is being discussed by fans.

[Andrew NDB]

I'm surprised Phoenix would even be open for that.

[AquaParade]

I'm surprised Phoenix would even be open for that.

Right. Anyone who follows his work can see that he doesn't like to commit, generally speaking.

At the same time, he really sounds like he had a great time making this film, in all the press he is doing.

[Autbot_Benz]

Its Joker week I am so pumped for it. gonna see it next tuesday

[Andrew NDB]

Joker director: "Wokeness ruined comedy."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/joker-director-wokeness-ruined-comedy/

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Planning to see it Thursday. Quite curious.

[AquaParade]

Same here. I have super high hopes, but I've been let down before. I'll be back with my general thoughts Thursday or Friday.

[CyberCubed]

Be safe, everyone. Don't get killed on the way to the theater. ;)

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Be safe, everyone. Don't get killed on the way to the theater. ;)

It's not getting there that worries me. It's being inside. :tlol:

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Gee, nothing morbid about THIS theead....

[Shark_Blade]

Seen it, enjoyed it. Pretty interesting take on Joker’s origin.

I thought it would be “The Killing Joke” retelling but it’s not, yet it’s still in the same vein. “All it takes is just one bad day...” (or in this movie, several days).

Love that uprising movement of the poor and oppressed hailed Joker as a symbol at the end. And I cant stop thinking about the major age gap between Joker and Batman now lol.

4/5

[Papenbrook]

Seriously, I hope that all movie-goers will be able to stay safe.

I would hate for anyone to get injured/killed at one of these screenings.

[Autbot_Benz]

And I cant stop thinking about the major age gap between Joker and Batman now lol.

4/5

you don't need to think about it cause Todd Philips says you won't be seeing his joker ever meeting batman.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/joker-batman-joaquin-phoenix-robert-pattinson-1203329997/

[Shark_Blade]

Fair enough, I can enjoy it as its own little universe.


Anyway, anyone else glad that Thomas Wayne got shot to death in the alley? He was so demeaning to the poor and oppressed, calling them “clowns” yet he still had the gal to be their hero by running for mayor. So arrogant and full of himself. Oh and he punched Arthur Fleck for “laughing”. Rich scum.

He deserved to be shot and I’m glad it happened lol. :D

[AquaParade]

Fair enough, I can enjoy it as its own little universe.


Anyway, anyone else glad that Thomas Wayne got shot to death in the alley? He was so demeaning to the poor and oppressed, calling them “clowns” yet he still had the gal to be their hero by running for mayor. So arrogant and full of himself. Oh and he punched Arthur Fleck for “laughing”. Rich scum.

He deserved to be shot and I’m glad it happened lol. :D

Too soon for open spoilers, dog.

[Autbot_Benz]

F

Anyway, anyone else glad that Thomas Wayne got shot to death in the alley? He was so demeaning to the poor and oppressed, calling them “clowns” yet he still had the gal to be their hero by running for mayor. So arrogant and full of himself. Oh and he punched Arthur Fleck for “laughing”. Rich scum.

He deserved to be shot and I’m glad it happened lol. :D

Even its obvious that would probably happen ****ING SPOILERS NumbNuts :roll::roll::roll::roll: The movie isn't out everywhere

[Autbot_Benz]

Too soon for open spoilers, dog.

even though its Obvious Spoilers still stupid :x

[Vegita-San]

The Media is making the frenzy around this movie worse...playing on peoples fears that something will go wrong at theater showings....and this is highly irresponsible.

[Autbot_Benz]

The Media is making the frenzy around this movie worse...playing on peoples fears that something will go wrong at theater showings....and this is highly irresponsible.

That's why the Media was banned from the premiere

[Andrew NDB]

That's why the Media was banned from the premiere

Which only exacerbates things even further, really.

[AquaParade]

The Media is making the frenzy around this movie worse...playing on peoples fears that something will go wrong at theater showings....and this is highly irresponsible.

I agree. I've said it before, but it feels more like the media have created more of an invitation for violence than anything else.

Can't wait for this film to make bank this weekend.

[Shark_Blade]

Too soon for open spoilers, dog.

Even its obvious that would probably happen ****ING SPOILERS NumbNuts :roll::roll::roll::roll: The movie isn't out everywhere

even though its Obvious Spoilers still stupid :x

Don’t read this thread then? We are literally reviewing the movie in here. :lol:

[IMJ]

Seriously, I hope that all movie-goers will be able to stay safe.

I would hate for anyone to get injured/killed at one of these screenings.

-concerning post above-
Can you explain why there is a relevant correlation between the Joker movie and someone getting killed at a screening?

The Media is making the frenzy around this movie worse...playing on peoples fears that something will go wrong at theater showings....and this is highly irresponsible.

-wisdom post above-

[Leo656]

Shark_Blade's particular brand of "enthusiasm" has me personally voting for them in the 2019 "Technodrome Member Most Likely To Actually Go On A Killing Spree In Real Life" Awards.

Also, no f*cking couth. I personally don't give a sh*t about Spoilers but at least use Tags out of respect for those who do. That's been standard policy around here since forever.

And that particular Spoiler has me rolling my eyes even harder at this movie. Sigh.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

That "Make Gotham Great Again" tag is glorious. Kudos to whoever put it in.

Also, what's the over/under on that particular phrase showing up sometime before 2020 in comics? :tlol:

[AquaParade]

Don’t read this thread then? We are literally reviewing the movie in here. :lol:

Yeah, I can't tell you what to do, but I just think it's a courtesy when the film hasn't been officially released everywhere. It's clear that people in the thread haven't seen the film and want to discuss it. That's what spoiler tags are for.

No biggie, but maybe for future reference. I know I've spoiled **** by accident too.

[IMJ]

Yeah, I can't tell you what to do, but I just think it's a courtesy when the film hasn't been officially released everywhere. It's clear that people in the thread haven't seen the film and want to discuss it. That's what spoiler tags are for.

No biggie, but maybe for future reference. I know I've spoiled **** by accident too.

I am forced to agree with you here. As another poster noted above, I also don't really care about spoilers - my life doesn't hinge so strongly on this stuff that I feel some impact when something is revealed (how the hell do you guys watch a movie more than once if the shock value is of such importance?).

But with that said, I honestly thought the movie was released already after some of the content of this thread. So basically, if for no other reason than to follow a BS convention of modern life, post a spoiler warning. I'll read it, and then I'll read your post anyway.

But then again, I swore up and down this flick was an unnecessary waste of resources and was going to flop, so that shows what I know I guess.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, I kind of just look at this movie as, "Oh look, another DC movie they're making instead of Man of Steel 2. Or Batman 1. Or just anything that's going to meaningfully elevate or grow things."

Not sounding good, too...

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/2019/10/02/joker-review-escape-to-the-movies/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.fanbyte.com/reviews/joker-review-when-just-looking-the-part-isnt-good-enough/

https://www.cnet.com/news/joker-movie-review-no-one-is-laughing-in-this-bleak-batman-spin-off/

[AquaParade]

Yeah, I kind of just look at this movie as, "Oh look, another DC movie they're making instead of Man of Steel 2. Or Batman 1. Or just anything that's going to meaningfully elevate or grow things."

Not sounding good, too...

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/2019/10/02/joker-review-escape-to-the-movies/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.fanbyte.com/reviews/joker-review-when-just-looking-the-part-isnt-good-enough/

https://www.cnet.com/news/joker-movie-review-no-one-is-laughing-in-this-bleak-batman-spin-off/

You don't think that a groundbreaking film, when it comes to content and creative freedom, could meaningfully elevate or grow things?

Its success could elevate the comic book film industry to great heights, by enticing other high profile artists to join in and convince studios to loosen the reigns of control.

Creative freedom. That is worth more than any sequel set-ups or Easter eggs for future movies in a cinematic universe ever could. But to each their own.

As for those reviews, yeah they're bad, but I wouldn't say it's "not sounding good". Just look at rotten tomatoes. Or any other positive reviews...which are everywhere. Honestly I'm confused by your comment. It sure is a polarizing movie though. As we already knew.

As for Bob Chipman, he gave Godzilla King of the Monsters a perfect or near perfect score, so gauge his opinion appropriately, all due respect.
I paid $20 for that movie and couldn't finish it. I felt bad about it but the movie is terrible. Him giving Joker a poor review is an absolute positive in my book.

I mean, seriously. Did you guys see King of the Monsters? So bad.

[Andrew NDB]

You don't think that a groundbreaking film, when it comes to content and creative freedom, could meaningfully elevate or grow things?

Maybe for more "movies in a bottle" like it. But we've rattled sabers about that before and can agree to disagree about what overall is the best outcome.

I mean, seriously. Did you guys see King of the Monsters? So bad.

The human stuff (which was quite good in the first one, if not at the best balance with the monster stuff) was appallingly bad in it.

[Leo656]

Whenever anyone here talks about movies, I'm immediately reminded why I don't talk about movies here anymore. :lol:
--------------------------------

I expect to see this if a whole week goes by without a theater shooting, but I'm not expecting to be Wow'ed. It definitely looks like an interesting character study, but the folks who are saying it's basically a lazy "Taxi Driver" remake with a popular brand name slapped on top to ensure tons of ticket sales are probably dead on the money. Because that's exactly what it looks like.

Which doesn't mean it's bad. It doesn't look "bad", exactly. It looks like it would be a good movie if it wasn't called "Joker", and that it's specifically called "Joker" for nothing but cynical financial reasons.

As a general rule, if your "adaptation" goes out of its way to disavow and reject the source material, I'd prefer you not piggyback on someone else's work to get more attention for yourself. It's cheap heat. But I know I lost that battle forever ago.

Looks intriguing. Probably decent. Doesn't need to be called "Joker", though. That's all a work, and it irritates me.

[AquaParade]

Maybe for more "movies in a bottle" like it. But we've rattled sabers about that before and can agree to disagree about what overall is the best outcome.



The human stuff (which was quite good in the first one, if not at the best balance with the monster stuff) was appallingly bad in it.

True and true. I respect your opinion, but I have to call oit the idea that a film can't meaningfully elevate things because it's not in a cinematic universe. Just crazy to me. But I guess you mean it wouldn't...elevate things for you. Which is fair.

The human stuff was abysmal. I wanted to ignore it and just be able to appreciate the monster stuff but apparently I wasn't capable.

Leo, I get where you're coming from regarding the source material. The team has pretty much gone out of their way to essentially say "this isn't a silly comic" which turns me off a tad, but I also think it's the nature of the press junket. You have to maybe overcorrect a tad so people understand this isn't your typical comic movie - it's quite different, and audiences should be aware.
Those are my feelings on comments from Joaquin and Todd.

As for the movies actual resemblance to the source material, I'm quite flexible. The craft is what matters most to me. I mean, i do need enough of a tug to feel like it's at least roughly based on the source material, and apparently there is enough there for me in that sense. It's a radical departure but still feels like Joker to me based on footage I've seen and specific comic-inspired plot elements. People say that if it wasn't called "Joker" then no one would know it's a Joker movie, but that is what I call an exaggeration. "Wannabe comedian in Gotham City has a bad few days and turns into a homicidal maniac in clown paint?" Yeah, that's Joker alright. At least one interpretation of him, of which there are many, each with their own variances.

Again, I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to adaptation, but this is recognizable as Joker from a mile away.

[ZariusTwo]

Seen it, enjoyed it.

Funny, I thought this was on past your bedtime.

[CyberCubed]

Movie is down to 70% now:



Joker is a bad movie, yes: It's predictable, clichéd, deeply derivative of other, better movies, and overwritten to the point of self-parody.

https://slate.com/culture/2019/10/joker-movie-review-joaquin-phoenix-violence.html

Yikes, looks like DC is back in the rut again.

Shame because I had high hopes in this one.

[AquaParade]

Movie is down to 70% now:



https://slate.com/culture/2019/10/joker-movie-review-joaquin-phoenix-violence.html

Yikes, looks like DC is back in the rut again.

Shame because I had high hopes in this one.

I don't know. That seems like a lot of weight to put into one review to me.

I'd focus more on the bigger picture when it comes to reviews, box office, etc.
For instance, If we are going to use Rotten Tomatoes as the keeper of truth, lets use the Rotten Tomatoes Joker Consensus: Joker gives its infamous central character a chillingly plausible origin story that serves as a brilliant showcase for its star -- and a dark evolution for comics-inspired cinema.

Movie is likely to set box office records for October this weekend, according to Fandango. And the people enjoying it are reviewing it quite highly. Maybe it's not for you? I don't know. I just am trying to understand the idea that DC is back in the rut again because not everybody loves this film.

I guess it depends on what you compare it to...which can be kinda sticky when we are talking about DC movies. I mean, I absolutely loathe Suicide Squad, but it made a lot of money and a chunk of fans. I can't really label it a failure, but I consider it a part of the terrible streak DC was on.

[CyberCubed]

There's over 200 reviews on rotten now so the score dropped to 70%. Wouldn't be surprised if it drops to the 60% range like Aquaman did.

DC just can't catch a break, other than Shazam I guess.

[AquaParade]

There's over 200 reviews on rotten now so the score dropped to 70%. Wouldn't be surprised if it drops to the 60% range like Aquaman did.

DC just can't catch a break, other than Shazam I guess.

Aquaman broke 1 billion in the box office. You don't get a bigger break than that. Maybe critics didn't love it, but they liked it, generally speaking. It did wonderfully. I didn't like it, but it doesn't change anything.

I didn't see Shazam, but it it's the lowest grossing DC film since the DCEU began. I guess you must be speaking to your personal satisfaction with the DC films, because financially, and even critically to an extent, you seem to be confused.

[Cure]

Funny, I thought this was on past your bedtime.

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

[neatoman]

I've actually seen this movie now.
Some aspects, such as Arthur's relationship with a single mother, is clearly shown to be part of his schizofrenic imagination. And it's heavily implied that much of the bad stuff that happens to him are also schizofrenic delusions. At first it seems like his problems are genetic, but when it's revealed that he's adopted it's implied that his illness instead stems from head trauma and repressed memories of his mother beating him as a child.

[Shark_Blade]

JnG7iZjCICg

Funny, I thought this was on past your bedtime.Aww, someone pissy cause they didn’t change your diaper? Thought this wasn’t shown at your elderly home? :D Why bother with this movie old man? Stick to yelling at clouds and people walking on your lawn, you’re good at that.

[Shark_Blade]

I've actually seen this movie now.
Some aspects, such as Arthur's relationship with a single mother, is clearly shown to be part of his schizofrenic imagination. And it's heavily implied that much of the bad stuff that happens to him are also schizofrenic delusions. At first it seems like his problems are genetic, but when it's revealed that he's adopted it's implied that his illness instead stems from head trauma and repressed memories of his mother beating him as a child.

Yeah that’s sad. I didn’t get how she, a mental patient gets to adopt a child legally though. Isn’t that weird or just a negligence case that allowed her such custody.

[Leo656]

Movie discussions on The Technodrome Forums:

Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes.

[IMJ]

There's over 200 reviews on rotten now so the score dropped to 70%. Wouldn't be surprised if it drops to the 60% range like Aquaman did.

DC just can't catch a break, other than Shazam I guess.

See, I'm on the fence now. I was calling this movie as a failure and waste of resources since I first heard about it.

But then it got all of this good traction and I was wondering if, inexplicably, it was going to be a good flick. Now this.

[Shark_Blade]

And here we go..

https://i.imgur.com/njVBzQg.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ucDHUtx.jpg

[Leo656]

As for the movies actual resemblance to the source material, I'm quite flexible. The craft is what matters most to me. I mean, i do need enough of a tug to feel like it's at least roughly based on the source material, and apparently there is enough there for me in that sense. It's a radical departure but still feels like Joker to me based on footage I've seen and specific comic-inspired plot elements. People say that if it wasn't called "Joker" then no one would know it's a Joker movie, but that is what I call an exaggeration. "Wannabe comedian in Gotham City has a bad few days and turns into a homicidal maniac in clown paint?" Yeah, that's Joker alright. At least one interpretation of him, of which there are many, each with their own variances.

Again, I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to adaptation, but this is recognizable as Joker from a mile away.

Right, because he's wearing clown paint. And they call it "Gotham", but it could easily be the exact same story if it were any big city and it wouldn't change anything. He could have Tourettes instead of a "laughing disorder", and it would be the same movie. Thomas Wayne could be called "Edgar Payne", and as long as he was a rich guy/Trump stand-in, the story would be the same. All of the "Joker" trappings are completely superficial, and don't ultimately affect much of the actual story of, "Mentally Ill Person Snaps After Being 'Pushed Too Far'."

Make no mistake, though, that probably works in the film's favor. That's why I think it's going to appeal quite a bit to a large group of people who would not normally see a movie (ostensibly) based on a comic book character. Because while they're using the name "Joker" to sell a tickets, it could ultimately be a story about any guy, in any city, and nothing would be different. He could be wearing a Guy Fawkes mask instead of clown paint, and it would be exactly the same thing, but probably wouldn't get as much attention.

Like I said, I think it's ultimately going to be a good "movie" movie and probably a pretty good character study of a mentally ill person. I just think it's only called "Joker" for publicity reasons and that's annoying.

[AquaParade]

Right, because he's wearing clown paint. And they call it "Gotham", but it could easily be the exact same story if it were any big city and it wouldn't change anything. He could have Tourettes instead of a "laughing disorder", and it would be the same movie. Thomas Wayne could be called "Edgar Payne", and as long as he was a rich guy/Trump stand-in, the story would be the same. All of the "Joker" trappings are completely superficial, and don't ultimately affect much of the actual story of, "Mentally Ill Person Snaps After Being 'Pushed Too Far'."

Make no mistake, though, that probably works in the film's favor. That's why I think it's going to appeal quite a bit to a large group of people who would not normally see a movie (ostensibly) based on a comic book character. Because while they're using the name "Joker" to sell a tickets, it could ultimately be a story about any guy, in any city, and nothing would be different. He could be wearing a Guy Fawkes mask instead of clown paint, and it would be exactly the same thing, but probably wouldn't get as much attention.

Like I said, I think it's ultimately going to be a good "movie" movie and probably a pretty good character study of a mentally ill person. I just think it's only called "Joker" for publicity reasons and that's annoying.

This same logic could be applied to Batman. Give him a spider mask and put him in Chicago and it's still the same story...it just looks weird.

If you change superficial aspects and it is still a Joker movie, that supports the argument that it's a Joker film at its core.

Which is essentially a failed comedian who's life comes crumbling around him until he snaps and turns to a murderous life free of rationality or ideals. And of course, there's the shaky narration aspect - maybe it's all bs. This film has all of that. It has legit elements of The Killng Joke and Dark Knight Returns. It's a full blown Joker movie in my eyes. I am a hardcore fan, and I've seen the film, which counts for something.

That's how I see it, but maybe we are just seeing things differently.

[AquaParade]

Saw the film and thought it was fantastic. I agree with the reviews that it is gorgeously shot, sounds beautiful, and has a captivating performance by Joaquin. It may be an even slower burn than I expected (so yeah, not perfect - the plot didn't always have a sense of urgency for me) but I already have several favorite scenes. Some scenes are actually quite haunting. That is not something I can say sincerely about any other comic movie. Really pleased with this film. It was a pleasure seeing such a down n dirty, realistic take on a character/franchise/genre I love.

For me, it was almost like a hyper-realized version of seeing live action Spider-Man, or another live action comic book movie, for the first time. That might come off stronger than I intend, but it's about that excitement that comes from seeing something "brought to life" on screen. The realistic take really does that for me. It feels alive. It's potent.

Side note: It's really odd what scenes some audiences will laugh at. Roaring laughter at parts I really didn't find comedic. And they weren't laughing at it for being bad, like Spider-Man 3. It was clearly people laughing at what they thought were jokes. Sorry to say, it actually kind if annoyed me. My solace being that I'm not the only person to have this experience, based on other online comments I've seen.

[IMJ]

For what it's worth, the more centric, non-SJW you tube reviewers are saying great things about the flick. I'm not trying to elevate Youtube reviewers, but I'm just more ensconced by this than I have been for a movie in - I don't know... forever because I've gone from waving this sucker off to actually being interested in it.

[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. I never saw Taxi Driver, but I've been meaning to for ages now, so I don't know how similar the films are, but I don't think that takes away from the fact that this works as a Joker origin.

This isn't a movie about the Joker, it's a movie about the guy that becomes Joker and how our cruel society can be very dismissive of people with mental illness, which leads to things like mass shootings, suicides, and all sorts of horrible tragedies. That's why the film was treated so realistically and not like a comic book movie. Arthur's tragedy feels very real in this film, even if generic to some of you, but that's kind of the genius of it. The film doesn't have to be called Joker, you can change names around and it can literally be a story about anyone. But isn't that kind of the point of the Joker? Anyone can become just like him after one bad day. I was even reminded of the Bjork stalker suicide tape at one point in the film which hammered home just how real Arthur's emotions are.

I had no expectations going into this film, and I was rather mixed on how they were going about portraying the Joker and whether or not they would go the stupid anti-hero route that glorifies a mentally deranged man. But I always kind of trusted that whether I liked the film or not, that it would at least be a solid film due to the people and passion behind it, and I honestly think they nailed it. I didn't expect the movie to go anywhere near the Batman mythos, but they did an amazing job setting it up with that ending.

[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]

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!

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]

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...:lol:

[AquaParade]

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/joker-box-office-record-thursday-previews-1203358492/

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

[Turo602]

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]

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:

- 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." :roll:

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]

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]

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.

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. :lol:

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]

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]

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. :lol:

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. :lol: 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. :lol:

[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]

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

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]

Finally seen it...

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



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 :tconfuse:

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.




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.

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.

[sdp]

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.

such a shame, I had high hopes. I'll be seeing it soon but I was hoping the bad reviews really was just anti-dc/political agenda.

[AquaParade]

such a shame, I had high hopes. I'll be seeing it soon but I was hoping the bad reviews really was just anti-dc/political agenda.

While there are some reviewers out there who have an agenda (and I believe there are even more who just think they're supposed to have an agenda), of course there will always be those who don't like it for other reasons.

Especially those going in and wanting the typical "comic book movie". I imagine they'll be bored to death at the lack of cgi, extravagant action scenes and corny stakes. Even I get a little tired during the second act of Joker, and I absolutely adore this film. Also, some may think it's just "edgy". I don't know. Can't expect everyone to like it, but it sounds like you put a lot of faith into Andrew's opinion resonating with yours, which is cool.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thewrap.com/joker-october-box-office-record/amp/

New October opening weekend record for any film, let alone an R-rated film. Let's be honest: there is a lot of crow to be eaten.

[Leo656]

Aqua:
It could certainly be interpreted that Thomas being a scumbag was a result of Fleck being an unreliable narrator, but I don't think it was. As I pointed out, and a little further reading of mine regarding more recent Batman material supports, "Thomas Wayne was rich and Rich People Are All Evil By Default" is quickly becoming the New Canon across the board. Taking that into account, I'm forced to believe that it was not part of Fleck's point of view, and that in this universe (as in most of the other recent ones, sadly), they simply chose to make Thomas Wayne a bad person because it suits their narrative.

In fact, Thomas being portrayed as covering up scandals by having people committed to Arkham and falsifying records (as well as having people drugged into a coma and/or killed outright) was a huge plot point of the Telltale video games. I know the filmmakers said that they ignored and avoided any "real" or pre-existing Batman/Joker material, but it's all a bit too similar for me to believe that this is all coincidental, or that they simply made these choices in a vacuum.

Seeing as this is a stand-alone movie and we'll never see a Batman emerge from the consequences of these events, it's not the biggest deal since the entire plot revolved around a Trump stand-in "getting what he deserved", and I get that. It served the story they wanted to tell. That's fine, I guess, it is what it is.

It bothers me more because it's become The New Normal, despite it going against a huge and oft-established chunk of WHY Bruce became Batman in the first place. As he rages to Alfred in the first Telltale game, he set out to live up to his father's example above all, and if his father was a monster, "Then WHAT was all this FOR?!" It's unfortunate that after nearly 80 years of an established narrative of Bruce's parents being Very Good People, which in turn sets up Bruce to also be a Very Good Person, more recent writers have unanimously decided to take the low road, making Bruce's parents scumbags because "C'moooon, they're rich, they've gotta be jagoffs, nothing else makes sense." Well, Bruce isn't, and if you take away his primary motivation it becomes increasingly harder to imagine any reason WHY he would have any moral compass at all.

Again, for this movie, it is what it is, and it fits the story they're telling, and wouldn't bother me SO much if a ton of overly-cynical and resentful Batman writers in recent years hadn't all decided to project their own hatred and distrust of rich people into the material despite it not at all fitting with the established story. It's not a small thing in the big picture. Thomas Wayne's portrayal is crucial to whatever kind of person Bruce eventually grows up to be. The Waynes need to be the "Only Good People in Gotham" or else the entire Batman story falls apart.

So no, I don't think it was in Arthur's head. But it's definitely a possibility given the way the movie presents itself, sure. And I might agree with that interpretation, or at least be more open to it, if so much other recent canon didn't contradict that possibility. The Waynes are simply Rich Evil Scumbags in all media, now, and I'm simply not a fan of it.

But that's more of a gripe I have with the Batman franchise at large.
It's a minor annoyance in the context of this film, and I grant that it suits their chosen narrative. It's just not a choice I'm a fan of in general, that's all.

[Andrew NDB]

Michael Moore loves it, says there is a "greater danger to society if you DON'T see it."

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2019/10/michael-moore-calls-joker-a-masterpiece-the-greater-danger-to-society-may-be-if-you-dont-see-this-movie

[AquaParade]

Aqua:
It could certainly be interpreted that Thomas being a scumbag was a result of Fleck being an unreliable narrator, but I don't think it was. As I pointed out, and a little further reading of mine regarding more recent Batman material supports, "Thomas Wayne was rich and Rich People Are All Evil By Default" is quickly becoming the New Canon across the board. Taking that into account, I'm forced to believe that it was not part of Fleck's point of view, and that in this universe (as in most of the other recent ones, sadly), they simply chose to make Thomas Wayne a bad person because it suits their narrative.

In fact, Thomas being portrayed as covering up scandals by having people committed to Arkham and falsifying records (as well as having people drugged into a coma and/or killed outright) was a huge plot point of the Telltale video games. I know the filmmakers said that they ignored and avoided any "real" or pre-existing Batman/Joker material, but it's all a bit too similar for me to believe that this is all coincidental, or that they simply made these choices in a vacuum.

Seeing as this is a stand-alone movie and we'll never see a Batman emerge from the consequences of these events, it's not the biggest deal since the entire plot revolved around a Trump stand-in "getting what he deserved", and I get that. It served the story they wanted to tell. That's fine, I guess, it is what it is.

It bothers me more because it's become The New Normal, despite it going against a huge and oft-established chunk of WHY Bruce became Batman in the first place. As he rages to Alfred in the first Telltale game, he set out to live up to his father's example above all, and if his father was a monster, "Then WHAT was all this FOR?!" It's unfortunate that after nearly 80 years of an established narrative of Bruce's parents being Very Good People, which in turn sets up Bruce to also be a Very Good Person, more recent writers have unanimously decided to take the low road, making Bruce's parents scumbags because "C'moooon, they're rich, they've gotta be jagoffs, nothing else makes sense." Well, Bruce isn't, and if you take away his primary motivation it becomes increasingly harder to imagine any reason WHY he would have any moral compass at all.

Again, for this movie, it is what it is, and it fits the story they're telling, and wouldn't bother me SO much if a ton of overly-cynical and resentful Batman writers in recent years hadn't all decided to project their own hatred and distrust of rich people into the material despite it not at all fitting with the established story. It's not a small thing in the big picture. Thomas Wayne's portrayal is crucial to whatever kind of person Bruce eventually grows up to be. The Waynes need to be the "Only Good People in Gotham" or else the entire Batman story falls apart.

So no, I don't think it was in Arthur's head. But it's definitely a possibility given the way the movie presents itself, sure. And I might agree with that interpretation, or at least be more open to it, if so much other recent canon didn't contradict that possibility. The Waynes are simply Rich Evil Scumbags in all media, now, and I'm simply not a fan of it.

But that's more of a gripe I have with the Batman franchise at large.
It's a minor annoyance in the context of this film, and I grant that it suits their chosen narrative. It's just not a choice I'm a fan of in general, that's all.

I can see how Bruce's parents being a big part of his moral compass is a part of Batman that speaks to you, so I get that preference. I'll take it either way, really, so I guess that specific aspect never resonated with me much in the past. Interesting for me to consider though.

I don't think most people necessarily revere Thomas Wayne as the moral compass to Batman, the way they see Uncle Ben as a moral compass to Peter.

I think his death affects Bruce the same way whether he was a jerk or not, to be honest. But Batman is such a flexible character that I dont even want to open that can of worms. I can also get behind a caring, loving Thomas Wayne, and see the beauty in taking the story that direction, as well.

I think your assuredness in the fact that Thomas is 100% meant to be depicted as cruel is reaching though. I'd bet $1000 Todd Phillip's has no idea, nor does he give two craps what is going on in a telltale game. I think it's becoming common because it's an interesting dynamic, and like you said, suited the story they wanted to tell.

Also, the plot boiling down to "a trump stand-in getting what he deserves" is disingenuous and seems included more to fuel your point about Thomas Wayne than an accurate summation of the film.

[Leo656]

Well, that's your opinion but I fully disagree. They wanted Alec Baldwin to play Thomas Wayne just because of his Trump parody on SNL, then backpedaled because it was TOO on-the-nose (They claimed "scheduling conflict", officially, but since Alec Baldwin has done f*ck-all nothing in the interim, I'm gonna call BS on that). Between that and plastering "KILL THE RICH" on-screen as much as possible, the movie's agenda isn't exactly subtle. They wanted to use the film as an anti-Trump statement. Whether that's good or bad is up to the individual, but to suggest or imply that it's not a huge part of the story is silly. It absolutely is. I promise you, they wouldn't have even made the movie, period, without that being the bedrock of it. No way.

Regarding Thomas, it's not that it "speaks to me", it's because that's how the story goes. Again, I'm going to slip into "Purist Asshole" mode here, but I own a few thousand comics, more than a few of them about Batman. Bruce Wayne is who he is because of the example his parents set for him, specifically his father, a man who had all the money in the world and could have done anything with his life, but chose the path of altruism. That is and has always been repeatedly reinforced, until recently, and the writers who've contradicted it are hacks. They've also done What If stories where his parents weren't good people and Bruce grew up to be a generic trust fund brat because he had no better example to follow from a young age. Bruce Wayne is an altruist because his father instilled and reinforced those values into him. If you take that away, the entire story of Bruce unravels. People don't just magically have a strong moral foundation; it has to come from someone or something.

Some people have suggested, "Well, Bruce was just a kid, he wouldn't know what his parents were really like." Bullsh*t. Before I was even 8, I knew full well that my parents were liars, thieves, criminals, and all-around Bad People. I didn't idolize them and pretend that they had qualities they didn't have simply because they were my parents. Kids are generally smarter than that. The problem is, the writers don't remember what it was like to be a kid, so they write kids as totally ignorant and oblivious even though that's not the case. If Bruce's father was such a prick, he would have at least noticed some of it and wouldn't have idolized him so much. "Bruce's Dad was an asshole and Bruce just never noticed because he loved him" makes Bruce an idiot, and Bruce can't be an idiot.

Again, it's not about "what speaks to me", it's about "That's how the story goes." Some things aren't open to willy-nilly reinterpretation just because some hack doesn't understand how the pieces all fit. Krypton blows up. Uncle Ben dies. Bruce Wayne's parents are good people. These things are generally not open for debate.

Perhaps to some people who don't read comics, it doesn't matter whether Bruce's parents were good people or not, but it matters a lot to those of us who do, generally speaking, and I'm on record as not even pretending to care about the opinions of people who don't read comics when it comes to this stuff.

Again, I liked the movie, but they could have told the exact same story with a few minor changes and I would have liked it a little bit more. Thomas Wayne's character could have been "Max Shreck" or whatever, and I don't think I'd have any complaints at all, were that the case. But I'm never a fan of characters being entirely rewritten against their established type just because a writer doesn't know how to use them properly.

To your example, if someone did a story where Uncle Ben was a prick, I would be annoyed with that, too, as I imagine most people would. His personality as relates to Peter's moral compass is exactly the same as Thomas to Bruce, and is every bit as important to the larger story. You can personally choose to feel otherwise, but it simply doesn't mesh with reality I'm afraid.

I'm getting flashbacks to people trying to make the case that Luke Skywalker was portrayed correctly in The Last Jedi, that it was either consistent with his established character OR that it didn't really matter anyway. Nonsense. It was a total assassination of character, written by a hack, and it absolutely matters. Now, Thomas Wayne's portrayal in this film is not THAT bad - and miles ahead of the TellTale games where he's a full-blown super-villain - but it's still against type, and I'm gonna go ahead and knock a point off because of it.

I'm open to hearing why the film HAD to make that choice, and why it simply couldn't work just as well with another character in place of Thomas Wayne. Lord knows the canon is full of shady rich politicians in Gotham; they could have easily used any of them instead and it's the same exact story.

[Andrew NDB]

Well, that's your opinion but I fully disagree. They wanted Alec Baldwin to play Thomas Wayne just because of his Trump parody on SNL, then backpedaled because it was TOO on-the-nose (They claimed "scheduling conflict", officially, but since Alec Baldwin has done f*ck-all nothing in the interim, I'm gonna call BS on that). Between that and plastering "KILL THE RICH" on-screen as much as possible, the movie's agenda isn't exactly subtle. They wanted to use the film as an anti-Trump statement. Whether that's good or bad is up to the individual, but to suggest or imply that it's not a huge part of the story is silly. It absolutely is. I promise you, they wouldn't have even made the movie, period, without that being the bedrock of it.

I don't doubt this all, given the current climate and all. On paper "Joker" is a strange choice at a very peculiar time for WB and their DC slate, otherwise.

I'm not even sure if the director wanted that stuff in there or if he was just savvy enough to sell it as such to (angry leftist) financiers because he wanted this movie made. In his interviews he comes across as kind of the opposite of what I was expecting.

And I STILL want to know what happened to Scorsese producing this.

[Leo656]

I don't doubt this all, given the current climate and all. On paper "Joker" is a strange choice at a very peculiar time for WB and their DC slate, otherwise.

I'm not even sure if the director wanted that stuff in there or if he was just savvy enough to sell it as such to (angry leftist) financiers. In his interviews he comes across as kind of the opposite of what I was expecting.

The best part of being an overwhelming cynic is that everything in life makes perfect sense. As opposed to being a cockeyed optimist, which is just silly.


And I STILL want to know what happened to Scorsese producing this.

He already made Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, didn't he? Just like Baldwin playing Tru-... er, "Thomas Wayne", it would have been too on-the-nose to the point of being distracting. As I said, this movie - good as it is - barely straddles the line between "Homage" and "Flat-Out Remake/Ripoff". If Scorsese was involved, I can totally see people giving him sh*t for ripping himself off with this.

[Powder]

Nothing new, really, but decent. Joaquin makes a good Joker, too bad that's all we'll ever see of it. A few moments were fantastic, others were cringey, it's half & half, but overall a pretty good character driven piece that we could use more in the vein of, these days.

[Voltron]

No politics please.

[Shark_Blade]

Bruce Wayne's parents are good people.
Nope. Telltale put their own spin on Bruce’s parents before too. Behind that admirable facade the Wayne parents were truly corrupt and many innocent people died because of them.

This Joker movie’s take on Thomas Wayne is similar too.

T-cQ2bi_-T8

[Voltron]

It's not just that Arthur is an unreliable narrator. He's not even in control of his narration. It's shown that he's paranoid schizophrenic and that reality constantly shifts around him. Even his own apartment changes in appearance throughout the film.

Nothing in the film can be taken at face value. The audience always has to be wary of the way Fleck's insanity colors the world around him.

As far as vilifying the rich, I don't see that as a main take away here. They aren't really shown that often, and when they are, it's just Thomas Wayne in a few brief glimpses.

In addition, he's portrayed as a gruff and uncaring man in the most usual and easily misconstrued ways. Every politician has made some gaff on television. And who wouldn't be furious at being stalked and accosted by the lunatic who terrorized your son? I'm surprised Wayne didn't have Fleck arrested. There were police everywhere.

In contrast, look at the protesters. They're a bunch of violent, faceless animals wallowing in their own filth. The entire city goes to hell under their watch. It could be argued that Thomas Wayne is right, and that he and his ilk ARE the necessary lynch pin of society.

In another strike against leftism, the government funded socialized health system is shown to be poorly run and grossly mismanaged. The first counselor was completely disinterested in Fleck. Her send off of him was apathetic and unconcerned. Arkham's records were disorganized AND were about to be handed over until Fleck started acting funny. And even when Fleck DID steal the records, no one came after him. Finally, he's locked up in a hospital where they can't even keep him properly contained. He's running around with someone chasing him. This is a total failure of government run healthcare.

I didn't see a lot of praise for either side in this film.

[Andrew NDB]

Nope. Telltale put their own spin on Bruce’s parents before too. Behind that admirable facade the Wayne parents were truly corrupt and many innocent people died because of them.

This Joker movie’s take on Thomas Wayne is similar too.



I guess when I really think about it, I never regarded Bruce's parents as overly virtuous... until the Nolan movies and the speech from Thomas on the train. It was a thing kind of exclusive to those movies, wasn't it? Up until then I never really thought of them as bad, but then I never really thought much about them at all... their place in Bruce's history was just to take him for that walk and get shot and die. Not good or bad, just basically administers of a decent childhood for Bruce before playing chicken with bullets.

I seem to remember the comics even dallying with the idea that Bane might have been the illegitimate son of Thomas Wayne once. It turned out to be false, of course, but it was dangled out there for a while.

[neatoman]

Wasn't this thread locked earlier?

[AquaParade]

Well, that's your opinion but I fully disagree. They wanted Alec Baldwin to play Thomas Wayne just because of his Trump parody on SNL, then backpedaled because it was TOO on-the-nose (They claimed "scheduling conflict", officially, but since Alec Baldwin has done f*ck-all nothing in the interim, I'm gonna call BS on that). Between that and plastering "KILL THE RICH" on-screen as much as possible, the movie's agenda isn't exactly subtle. They wanted to use the film as an anti-Trump statement. Whether that's good or bad is up to the individual, but to suggest or imply that it's not a huge part of the story is silly. It absolutely is. I promise you, they wouldn't have even made the movie, period, without that being the bedrock of it. No way.

Regarding Thomas, it's not that it "speaks to me", it's because that's how the story goes. Again, I'm going to slip into "Purist Asshole" mode here, but I own a few thousand comics, more than a few of them about Batman. Bruce Wayne is who he is because of the example his parents set for him, specifically his father, a man who had all the money in the world and could have done anything with his life, but chose the path of altruism. That is and has always been repeatedly reinforced, until recently, and the writers who've contradicted it are hacks. They've also done What If stories where his parents weren't good people and Bruce grew up to be a generic trust fund brat because he had no better example to follow from a young age. Bruce Wayne is an altruist because his father instilled and reinforced those values into him. If you take that away, the entire story of Bruce unravels. People don't just magically have a strong moral foundation; it has to come from someone or something.

Some people have suggested, "Well, Bruce was just a kid, he wouldn't know what his parents were really like." Bullsh*t. Before I was even 8, I knew full well that my parents were liars, thieves, criminals, and all-around Bad People. I didn't idolize them and pretend that they had qualities they didn't have simply because they were my parents. Kids are generally smarter than that. The problem is, the writers don't remember what it was like to be a kid, so they write kids as totally ignorant and oblivious even though that's not the case. If Bruce's father was such a prick, he would have at least noticed some of it and wouldn't have idolized him so much. "Bruce's Dad was an asshole and Bruce just never noticed because he loved him" makes Bruce an idiot, and Bruce can't be an idiot.

Again, it's not about "what speaks to me", it's about "That's how the story goes." Some things aren't open to willy-nilly reinterpretation just because some hack doesn't understand how the pieces all fit. Krypton blows up. Uncle Ben dies. Bruce Wayne's parents are good people. These things are generally not open for debate.

Perhaps to some people who don't read comics, it doesn't matter whether Bruce's parents were good people or not, but it matters a lot to those of us who do, generally speaking, and I'm on record as not even pretending to care about the opinions of people who don't read comics when it comes to this stuff.

Again, I liked the movie, but they could have told the exact same story with a few minor changes and I would have liked it a little bit more. Thomas Wayne's character could have been "Max Shreck" or whatever, and I don't think I'd have any complaints at all, were that the case. But I'm never a fan of characters being entirely rewritten against their established type just because a writer doesn't know how to use them properly.

To your example, if someone did a story where Uncle Ben was a prick, I would be annoyed with that, too, as I imagine most people would. His personality as relates to Peter's moral compass is exactly the same as Thomas to Bruce, and is every bit as important to the larger story. You can personally choose to feel otherwise, but it simply doesn't mesh with reality I'm afraid.

I'm getting flashbacks to people trying to make the case that Luke Skywalker was portrayed correctly in The Last Jedi, that it was either consistent with his established character OR that it didn't really matter anyway. Nonsense. It was a total assassination of character, written by a hack, and it absolutely matters. Now, Thomas Wayne's portrayal in this film is not THAT bad - and miles ahead of the TellTale games where he's a full-blown super-villain - but it's still against type, and I'm gonna go ahead and knock a point off because of it.

I'm open to hearing why the film HAD to make that choice, and why it simply couldn't work just as well with another character in place of Thomas Wayne. Lord knows the canon is full of shady rich politicians in Gotham; they could have easily used any of them instead and it's the same exact story.

The thing about referring to the comic books you have read as a holy grail and shield to your interpretation of the character is that it's fallacy.

I too, own and read thousands of Batman comic books. My bookshelf is, unashamedly, 50% Batman. Moore, Morrison, Dixon, Snyder, Finger, King, Gaiman, you name it. (DC "Absolute Editions" of Batman comics are my bibles)

And the one truth I've learned, and anyone who has read thousands of comic books knows, is that there is no truth.

Bob Kane and Bill Finger had Batman shooting criminals with a gun, for goodness sake. The world of Batman in the comics has been re-shaped and re-molded, either seismically, or slowly, in between each reboot or reversal the DC universe decides to pull.
There just isn't one "true" version of Batman, unless you are referring to Bob Kane and Bill Finger's vision, and I don't think you want to do that. The "true" Batman is an amalgamation of all the great creators who contribute to him.

We all have our limits on what changes may break the character, but a character as malleable as Batman? No one gets to lay down the law and decide that the only true version of Batman is one where Thomas Wayne is a charming fellow.

And I'm glad you've come to a final conclusion on the nature vs nurture debate, but I disagree there too. I know plenty of people with crappy parents who grew into some of the best people I know. I don't believe Bruce does what he does because his dad instilled good life lessons in him - if that were the case, they wouldn't need to die for him to be Batman. Bruce does what he does, so no one has to go through the pain he once went through.

So it's clear now that me enjoying a version of Thomas Wayne who is not perfect, has nothing to do with me not caring about the comics. I care very much about the comics.

And getting back to the film itself, I still don't believe that Thomas Wayne is proven to be all that big of an asshole in this movie. Like, Voltron (?) or someone said, in the other thread, here's Arthur, a guy who puts his hands in his kids mouth and stalks him, so it's sort of understandable that he treated Arthur like ****, even if it is sad. We don't know the situation with Thomas and the mother of Arthur, as of now, so I wouldn't pin that on him either.

And regarding the allusions to Trump in the story, I wasn't disagreeing that they are in there. It's definitely arguable.
My point was that it is disingenuous to frame the movie as "trump stand-in gets what's coming to him". Maybe this is semantics, but if you are going to say the film "boils down" to something, then that is way off the mark.

[Leo656]

Nope. Telltale put their own spin on Bruce’s parents before too. Behind that admirable facade the Wayne parents were truly corrupt and many innocent people died because of them.

This Joker movie’s take on Thomas Wayne is similar too.

T-cQ2bi_-T8

Doesn't mean it's right or consistent.

Good game, but I didn't care for the storytelling. The gameplay was quite good, however.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Based on the Alec Baldwin casting (before that got shot down) and assumptions of the movie, I was expecting Thomas Wayne to be a lot worse in this movie.

On my only viewing, he didn't seem diabolical so much as out of touch and insulated from the poor. Someone trying to do good, but too ignorant to actually much of a beneficial effect.

And punching Arthur in the face for talking to him, some creepy stranger with magic tricks? That's not being an @sshole, it's being a parent.

So still not a GREAT portrayal of Wayne, but much better than I was pessimistically expecting.

[Leo656]

I guess when I really think about it, I never regarded Bruce's parents as overly virtuous... until the Nolan movies and the speech from Thomas on the train. It was a thing kind of exclusive to those movies, wasn't it? Up until then I never really thought of them as bad, but then I never really thought much about them at all... their place in Bruce's history was just to take him for that walk and get shot and die. Not good or bad, just basically administers of a decent childhood for Bruce before playing chicken with bullets.

No, the Nolan film simply chose to lay it on a little bit thick in order to establish things very quickly. It was oft-established in the comics for many years that Thomas and Martha were virtuous people. Again, most notably the fact that Thomas was a highly-respected practicing surgeon - a thankless and extremely high-stress job - despite the fact that he was a multi-billionaire, simply because all his philanthropy wasn't enough to satisfy his innate desire to help people in a tangible and measurable way.

Again, reboots and retcons happen, and sure, a random writer can in theory come along and say, "Nah", to all of that, but if it doesn't actually make sense, I'm not going to regard it as canon. And Bruce Wayne growing up to become the person we know him to be simply does NOT make sense if his parents weren't there to set that example. It's long been established as the entire root of his morality. People can pretend it doesn't matter, but it does.
--------------------

Aqua: I think, ultimately, what we most strongly disagree on is whether or not a person (such as Bruce Wayne) can grow up to become the kind of (ultimately and fundamentally) good person that Batman is and needs to be, if they didn't have a strong role model to instill that kind of moral fiber within them. Maybe you think otherwise, but I think it's silly to suggest that people are just fundamentally good. Especially people like Bruce Wayne. We've seen what "Trust Fund Bros" are like in real life; that's what Bruce Wayne would be if his parents were scumbags, thus, they shouldn't be portrayed that way or else where does Bruce's morality come from?

People are inherently "bad" until they're taught why they should be good. And even then, it's not like that kind of moralism is absolute; people have crises of faith and lose their way all the time. Bruce Wayne has always - ALWAYS - deferred to his father's example in times when his faith was shaken, to the point where on occasion Alfred or someone would say to him, "Your father would be ashamed of you" when he was acting out of character or losing his way. THAT's why it's important to the larger story.

Although, in the end, for THIS story it's more or less inconsequential because it's most likely not going to give us a Batman, anyway, so we won't have to wonder about what kind of person he is by that point. But my ultimate point stands: Remove Bruce's role models, he really can't grow up to be Batman, at least not the one we know. Perhaps he'd still be a masked vigilante but his entire moral and ethical code would be completely different.

People aren't born with these qualities; they're learned and instilled in people. Obviously in real life, all rich people ARE inherently evil, power-hungry, etc., we see that all the time, but that's why the Batman story (and all super-hero fiction) is a heroic fantasy: You can have Good People exist whereas in real life, they don't. That kind of fantasy and escapism is part of the appeal. Remove the Waynes as the only "Good People" in Gotham City, and the entire Batman mythos unravels. All for the sake of, "Well, in REAL life..." Well, it's not real life.

It's bad enough that there aren't any truly good people in real life; I don't see why we need to tear down the ones who exist in fiction, as well, simply to remind ourselves that people are inherently Not Good. Isn't it bad enough that we're reminded of that just by looking outside or turning on the TV? The entire reason why characters like Superman and Batman, Jor-El and Thomas Wayne were created, was to try and serve as inspiration to Be Better. That was the entire point of their very creation, as well as their function in the ongoing narrative.

But sure, nah, it doesn't matter. We don't need any idealists or moralists, even fictional ones. They get in the way of reminding ourselves how silly it is that anyone would ever willingly be a good person for purely altruistic reasons. And I'M supposed to be the cynic? :lol:

It's fiction; let the Good Guys stay that way.

Based on the Alec Baldwin casting (before that got shot down) and assumptions of the movie, I was expecting Thomas Wayne to be a lot worse in this movie.

On my only viewing, he didn't seem diabolical so much as out of touch and insulated from the poor. Someone trying to do good, but too ignorant to actually much of a beneficial effect.

And punching Arthur in the face for talking to him, some creepy stranger with magic tricks? That's not being an @sshole, it's being a parent.

So still not a GREAT portrayal of Wayne, but much better than I was pessimistically expecting.

Oh, yeah, I agree. Furthermore, while he was definitely a good guy in established canon, Thomas did have a slight temper and would never tolerate that kind of thing towards a member of his family. So that wasn't out of left field at all. The implication (true or not) that he'd have an affair and then cover it up by condemning an innocent person to a lunatic asylum, though, is entirely not who that character is. I get why it suits the movie's narrative - just like Luke Skywalker had to be a crybaby and a coward to suit The Last Jedi's chosen narrative - but in neither case are those actions in any way consistent with who those characters are established to be, it's just a writer needing to "twist" something to their own ends.

But yeah, at least better than the Telltale games' storyline which essentially made Thomas Wayne the biggest criminal mastermind in the entire mythos. :lol: THAT was some serious nonsense. Thankfully the gameplay in both games made up for a pretty lousy reinterpretation of the Batman mythos. The second game's "Harley is really the Evil Genius and Joker was just her little Abused Puppy Dog" was especially stupid (As was "The Riddler is now essentially Jigsaw from 'Saw'," but that's a whole other can of worms :lol:). Great games for the gameplay, but the storytelling in both was absolutely horrible, albeit intriguing in an "Elseworlds" kind of way. But absolutely nothing from those games should ever be "canon" outside of their own universe. No way.
-------------

Anyway. This whole debate about the true nature of Thomas Wayne and his role in the larger Batman canon has now completely overshadowed the rest of the discussion about the film, which wasn't my desire or intent. At this point nobody's going to bend, so it's probably best that we all agree to disagree and go back to discussing the rest of the film, rather than get hung up on the fact that I had one gripe about it.

[IMJ]

I for one could go the rest of my life and never see another Batman origin story, or never see Thomas and Martha Wayne on screen ever again and I'd be okay with it.

Just get on with the Batmaning already. Affleck's Batman wasn't perfect, but when he was in action on the screen that was the best Batman ever filmed. The only other thing even remotely close is Sandy Collora's Batman Dead End.

From what I've heard the Joker flick is really good, and so were Nolan's films. But Nolan's films were not actually good Batman movies. They were good character dramas that created a trilogy about a man's three different stages of life activity that happened to have a watered down, realistic Batman in them. The Joker flick sounds like a character drama, similar to Nolan's approach. I'll see it at some point.

[Andrew NDB]

I for one could go the rest of my life and never see another Batman origin story, or never see Thomas and Martha Wayne on screen ever again and I'd be okay with it.

Just get on with the Batmaning already. Affleck's Batman wasn't perfect, but when he was in action on the screen that was the best Batman ever filmed. The only other thing even remotely close is Sandy Collora's Batman Dead End.

From what I've heard the Joker flick is really good, and so were Nolan's films. But Nolan's films were not actually good Batman movies. They were good character dramas that created a trilogy about a man's three different stages of life activity that happened to have a watered down, realistic Batman in them. The Joker flick sounds like a character drama as well. I'll see it at some point.

I admit, in "Joker" when I saw Thomas and Martha Wayne begin to walk out of the theater playing "Zorro" I kind of grunted and went, "Ugh, not this again." Even though it was a somewhat different spin on it. I mean we just got it in BvS, right?

[Leo656]

Just get on with the Batmaning already. Affleck's Batman wasn't perfect, but when he was in action on the screen that was the best Batman ever filmed. The only other thing even remotely close is Sandy Collora's Batman Dead End.


"Dead End" was pretty damn rad, but now that I'm older Boner's over-acting as The Joker really kind of makes me roll my eyes. :lol: It was almost as bad as Mike Matei's Joker on the Batman episodes of Angry Video Game Nerd. And you gotta try pretty hard to be as annoying as Motherf*cker Mike! :lol:

But yeah, that was the hotness back in 2002 or whatever. I 'Membah.
--------------------------------

Anyway, yeah, I personally love origin stories, but between Batman Begins and BvS, that part of the story has already been well and often told. Any future attempts to depict the Wayne murders couldn't possibly do it any better (including this film, where it's more or less just "Oh, hey, and THIS, too," to remind you that this story ostensibly still happens in the Batman universe). And if you can't do it better, don't do it.

[Andrew NDB]

"Dead End" was pretty damn rad, but now that I'm older Boner's over-acting as The Joker really kind of makes me roll my eyes. :lol: It was almost as bad as Mike Matei's Joker on the Batman episodes of Angry Video Game Nerd. And you gotta try pretty hard to be as annoying as Motherf*cker Mike! :lol:

But yeah, that was the hotness back in 2002 or whatever. I 'Membah.

I was always more partial to "Illegal Aliens vs. Predator":

Lu4gaVZw9Kg

[Leo656]

:lol: You're a fun guy, guy.

Here's a thing: Anyone else hear about how some people are boycotting the movie because of the Gary Glitter song? What a dumb reason not to go see a very good movie.

[Shark_Blade]

Doesn't mean it's right or consistent.

Good game, but I didn't care for the storytelling. The gameplay was quite good, however.

The comics are not right nor consistent either.

And considering video games contributes to major profits worldwide more so than comic books, it cannot be put aside. The impact is there and in-grained into people’s mind on how they see the characters.

Fictional tales are meant to be retold in many different ways. That’s how most/all brother grimms stories are retold anyway (little mermaid suicide but instead we got a happy ending etc)

[IMJ]

Fictional tales are meant to be retold in many different ways. That’s how most/all brother grimms stories are retold anyway (little mermaid suicide but instead we got a happy ending etc)

This isn't exactly true. Fictional tales are meant either to progress, or to tell a coherent story for entertainment, commentary or to impart some kind of wisdom. As a bi-product, the good ones or, arguably the more generic ones, have aspects to them that allow for re-invention and retelling.

For example, Iron Man is a character that can cross generations, and when his origins in Vietnam became dated, the character is malleable enough to have the story updated to Afghanistan with little negative impact on the thesis. Lots of things are like this.

The point of my post? Hollywood is not wisely reinventing anymore. They are creatively bankrupt and morally skewed by an agenda. And so we are seeing things basically taken to an uninteresting extreme based on those elements. This is happening as a whole, although I suppose that idea is a bit out of context here given that it seems like the Joker was a good flick. But there are plenty, plenty, plenty of other examples.

Just something to consider about the academic reality of storytelling.

[Autbot_Benz]

Just saw it I enjoyed it. No crazy White Incels causing problems like the lamestream media wanted you to believe . ya I kinda rolled my eyes at the batman foreshadowing but at least it didn't the cringe worthy MARTHA from the synderverse. Joaquin was very good in it

[IMJ]

but at least it didn't the cringe worthy MARTHA from the synderverse.

WhY did YOU say THAT NNNNAAMMMEE???!!

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

WhY did YOU say THAT NNNNAAMMMEE???!!

It's his mother's name!

[Leo656]

I'm just here to mention that the very first time anyone uses "Thing X made a lot of money" as an example of why it's of superior quality, I never, ever take anything that person says seriously ever again.

Just in case any of "Those People" ever try to play "Gotcha!" games with me. Might as well save the stamp, you're talking to yourself. Just FYI.
-----------------------

Also, a few Notes (I know people here generally hate Facts, but I worship 'em, so deal with it):

- The comics actually HAVE been consistent with regards to Thomas's character for most of the last 80 years; the changes that imply he's a jagoff are like, 5 minutes old by comparison.

- The Batman Telltale games - while some of the better Telltale games from a gameplay perspective and definitely a lot of fun - received the most mixed reviews from critics and fans, and severely under-performed sales-wise based on expectations and the popularity of Batman. The biggest complaint? People didn't like the story, and hated that they made Thomas Wayne a super-villain.

Again, just FYI. Point being, I'm not the only person who cares about this kinda thing, turns out it's actually most people. Neat!

[IMJ]

I'm just here to mention that the very first time anyone uses "Thing X made a lot of money" as an example of why it's of superior quality, I never, ever take anything that person says seriously ever again.

You mean like Iron Man 3 (-kaff coughcompletecrap cough -kaff)? There's a lot of dog **** across history that's made a lot of money either because of zeitgeist, mania, or groupthink. Beanie babies. Superman #75. East Indian Pale Ale.

[Leo656]

Superman #75 definitely sold a lot of copies through the glory of mass hysteria ("I'mma pay for my kid's college with this thing!" :lol:), but it's objectively not bad at all. Although it only has any real point within the context of the entire story; just picking it up cold without the previous chapters of the story obviously feels incomplete. But it wasn't designed to be experienced as a "solo mission" so I can't take points off for that. But that's me.

I still haven't seen Iron Man 3. I liked Iron Man 1, 2 was fun but underwhelming and I forgot about it entirely by the time I got home. To this day whenever I see commercials for Iron Man 3, it just further convinces me that no, I really shouldn't bother with it. I already know the whole story and all the "spoilers"; I know my tastes and temperament pretty well, that's one of those movies that would just put me in a lousy mood all day afterwards. I ain't got time for that.

[IMJ]

I already know the whole story and all the "spoilers"; I know my tastes and temperament pretty well, that's one of those movies that would just put me in a lousy mood all day afterwards. I ain't got time for that.

YYYuuup.

And it's even worse that Marvel chose to avoid the Mandarin, claiming that he was "racist stereotype" when in fact the character didn't have to be that at all.
And then even worse than that where so many dumb people believed this, when in fact this was a way to manipulate fans by Marvel who was catering to the Chinese market because Iron Man 3 was their first wide release there.
And even worse yet now that the agenda is over and Marvel is using the real Mandarin in Shang-Chi.
And even worse than that for me in particular because I was privy to what an Iron Man trilogy was supposed to be when I was told firsthand about the three-movie plan by the Director and cast in 2007 during a round of interviews I was doing with them at the time. And none of it came to pass.

I hate Iron Man 3.

[Leo656]

Your opinions intrigue me and I may wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Failing that, we could always just Poke Smot and talk about Melissa Benoist's beaver. Y'know, like, whatever.

[IMJ]

talk about Melissa Benoist's beaver. Y'know, like, whatever.

If that's a Rise of the TMNT character, you should know I don't watch the show. But if you meant the girl who plays Supergirl, I could definitely be drawn into that conversation.

[Leo656]

If you're an alternate-universe version of me from the Dark Multiverse, you have to tell me upfront or it's entrapment.

...Is this a date? Are we dating? I'm confused.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I am totally down for a discussion of how terrible Iron Man 3 was, and what a total bastardization of the Mandarin they did. There WAS a non-racist way to portray that villain and NOT make him the butt of stupid jokes.

Or y'all can talk about Supergirl's dam-building mammal. Whatever.

[Leo656]

"Dam-building mammal". :lol: You're alright, You.

[Sumac]

I hate Iron Man 3.
I love Iron Man 3.
It's a cool sci-fi buddy cop movie. And I like that it focuses more on the Stark, than on his Iron Man persona, so to speak. It is certainly more fun than IM2. Mandarin...well, I could care less about him as long as movie was fun.

Though fake!Mandarin was a fun twist, but the true villain was incredibly weak, which is par for the course for the most MCU movies.

[Autbot_Benz]

I love Iron Man 3.
It's a cool sci-fi buddy cop movie. And I like that it focuses more on the Stark, than on his Iron Man persona, so to speak. It is certainly more fun than IM2. Mandarin...well, I could care less about him as long as movie was fun.

Though fake!Mandarin was a fun twist, but the true villain was incredibly weak, which is par for the course for the most MCU movies.

Same for all reasons above

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Just saw it, and I was blown away by Phoenix's performance.

He is both funny and terrifying.

[D Piddy 1982]

Saw it last night and wanted to come straight to the TD forum and scan through this thread (well I didn't know this exact thread existed, but guessed there might have been a Joker thread in the movie section).

Have scanned through to see if anyone has mentioned what I came here to say, but can't see it unless it's in a spoiler section. And I don't believe what I'm going to say is a spoiler, but definitely worth sharing for Turtles fans...

In the first quarter of the film there was an actor who looked and sounded familiar but I just couldn't place him, plus the film was moving through it's paces so I didn't have much time to dwell on it.

By the end of the film I had forgotten about it, but as I sat there watching the credits one name suddenly jumped out at me: JOSH PAIS! Anyone else notice him or his name?

"I don't think it's loaded kid"

[CyberCubed]

Hopefully I can see this movie this weekend. I haven’t paid for a movie ticket since like 2012 or so, I can’t even remember the last time I sat in a theater.

[AquaParade]

-----------------------

Also, a few Notes (I know people here generally hate Facts, but I worship 'em, so deal with it):

- The comics actually HAVE been consistent with regards to Thomas's character for most of the last 80 years; the changes that imply he's a jagoff are like, 5 minutes old by comparison.


Again, just FYI. Point being, I'm not the only person who cares about this kinda thing, turns out it's actually most people. Neat!

Hey man, you're not quoting me, but several of your posts directly reply to points I went balls deep on in my reply to you, so it's easy to feel like I'm being addressed. You chose to evade those points I made, and debate can be exhausting, so I understood.

Then you laid out a "let's agree to disagree" on the Thomas Wayne thing, but apparently changed your mind - That's a good thing, in my eyes. Discussion is what the forum is for!

But these are your weakest arguments yet. One is just a reiteration of your belief with no new substance. You're just saying "Yeah the comics actually HAVE been consistent" aka "I AM right". Based on what new evidence? Otherwise, where is this going?

Anyways, if you are going to kill the convo, then bring it back to life with no new points, but just a reaffirmation of your belief that you are correct, then you should just acknowledge the original counter-post, right? Where else can the discussion go?


I guess when I really think about it, I never regarded Bruce's parents as overly virtuous... until the Nolan movies and the speech from Thomas on the train. It was a thing kind of exclusive to those movies, wasn't it? Up until then I never really thought of them as bad, but then I never really thought much about them at all... their place in Bruce's history was just to take him for that walk and get shot and die. Not good or bad, just basically administers of a decent childhood for Bruce before playing chicken with bullets.

Yup. The Nolan movies emphasized it a bit, and some of the comic writers choose to play into it, but many people don't recognize Thomas Wayne's moral center as the driving factor in Bruce doing what he does. I never did. And that's valid.

This isn't an Uncle Ben - Peter Parker dynamic. In that story, the theme of living by the morals of your parents is much more concrete and acknowledged.

Bruce lives in the shadow of his parents death, of course. He misses and loves them.

He doesn't dress up as a Bat and save people because "W.W.T.D?" (What Would Thomas Do?)

Sometimes people latch onto certain aspects of a character and have a hard time letting their interpretation go. At the end of the day, Batman is one of the most malleable characters in fiction, and there is more than one right interpretation. We've all witnessed that.

[Leo656]

Yawn.

Again, you don't think it matters, I do. It is what it is.

And it was clearly in response to S.B.'s nonsense, but I don't want to give them credit for anything, ever, which is why I didn't quote them. I feel bad for taking their bait in the first place, so consider this an "apology" I guess.

You seem to have a real problem with the fact that there's one small thing about this movie I didn't care for. Deal with it. We don't need to keep going on about this.

I apologize for letting S.B. drag me back into a "debate" I was already done with. I'll try not to let it happen again.

And you're wrong; it's not a "conversation", it's a circle-jerk, and I've been bored with it for three days. Don't take this too harshly, but I really don't care about this anymore. You feel the way you feel, I disagree, nobody is going to budge, so let's move on instead of regurgitating the same sh*t back and forth. Pretty sure anyone reading this thread would prefer to talk about the actual movie and doesn't really care about this particular difference of opinion between you and I.

Again, it's all been said, and I was not specifically replying to you. We don't agree, we never will, so the wise thing to do is move on. Call that an "admission of defeat" if it gets you hard. Whatever lets people go back to talking about the movie, and not whether or not I have some kind of mental problem because I didn't like one small thing in it.

[AquaParade]

Quick thought: they never pick up the thread regarding Arthur being in a mental hospital before the events of the film. We don't know why he was locked up or any of the circumstances surrounding it.

This is a marijuana and beer induced theory so butcher it appropriately, but...could it be that the final scene in the movie takes place before the events of the film, along with the flashback we see?

Does Arthur's look in the flashback resemble the way he looks at the end of the film?

This is a half-asssed theory if I ever had one, because I don't even know why they would do that, but what do you think? All I need to know is that Arthur looks somewhat younger in the flashback to debunk my theory. Take me out back and put me down.

Edit: *commits Seppuku*
If this were true, it would imply that Arthur imagined the whole dang thing, which is boring. Also, why would he be running free after having killed the nurse? Unless imagined that as well. Also lame.

I'll leave this post here as a monument of shame and an example to others. Winners don't use drugs.

[Leo656]

I caught it, too. It definitely raises a few questions about the sequence of events, what actually happened and what didn't.

There's a theory floating around, for example, which speculates that the entire movie was entirely in his imagination. People point out that specific scene - and its lack of explanation or extrapolation - as "proof". Supposedly nothing in the movie actually happened, and the entire time Arthur is just screwing with the Asylum nurse before he kills her.

It's a way to go, I guess, but I don't like that theory. I would prefer to be able to take SOME of what I watched at face value, even though some of it being purposely vague is just fine. The entire film being a fake-out is pretty bad writing, I think, or at least not very satisfying.

We'll probably never know.
----------------

Don't be so hard on yourself, son. In my experience people who don't "herbalize" tend to be jagoffs. Reefer should come free in the mail to every household, like those little samples of Tide laundry detergent. It's basically essential for anyone who wants to walk around NOT an asshole. :lol:

But yeah, you're fine.

[CyberCubed]

My theater erupted with laughter during the scene when the midget tried to leave Artur's apartment but the chain lock was too high on the door for him to reach. Seriously, people laughed like it was a comedy. I thought it was amusing but the way people found it so funny kinda rubbed me the wrong way, especially with the guy trying to escape with his life.

[Leo656]

That was the funniest part of the whole f*cking movie. :lol: Everyone was cracking up where we were, too. Sure, it was "We really shouldn't be laughing" laughter, but again, it was the closest to "funny" the movie ever got, and I think it was deliberately played to get exactly that response.

Especially the fake "jump scare". :lol: Poor little guy probably pissed himself.

Aside: I've occasionally worked with a midget wrestler (Short-Sleeve Sampson) who insists on calling himself a midget, and his catchphrase is "It's Midget Time!", so that's what I roll with because he's by far the one I've spent the most time around. And he could probably beat me up. :lol:

Legit, he told me quite decisively, "I ain't a Little Person, I'm a f*ckin' midget!" and then he cut the dopest freestyle rap. I ain't gonna argue with him.

[Voltron]

The Joker is at his best when he makes us laugh at his evil. How many times have I caught myself laughing at things I'm not supposed to.

"Excuse me, operator? I think my line has been. . . disconnected!"

[ZariusTwo]

So SNL may have completely stolen Joker's thunder with their Grouch parody lately


kqpak5lFxvs

[MikeandRaph87]

So SNL may have completely stolen Joker's thunder with their Grouch parody lately


kqpak5lFxvs

I came to this thread to post this video. SNL sucks these days, but this sketch is great. Love it!

[AquaParade]

My theater erupted with laughter during the scene when the midget tried to leave Artur's apartment but the chain lock was too high on the door for him to reach. Seriously, people laughed like it was a comedy. I thought it was amusing but the way people found it so funny kinda rubbed me the wrong way, especially with the guy trying to escape with his life.

I can somewhat relate to this.

To be frank, I actually don't think it's a funny joke, whether it's offensive or not. "oh...he is too short to reach the door. Ha..ha?". Of course, comedy is subjective, so who am I to say definitively what is funny and what is not?

The thing is, I think one thing that propels it to being funny to a lot of people is a sense of false superiority when they see it. That's why the laughter makes me a bit uncomfortable. I just don't think a person being too short to reach a door is really enough to make a theater roar into laughter, all on it's own. But it happened in mine too.

I also think the other reason people laugh at jokes in this movie, that others might not find funny, is for a release of tension. Often, when people are going through a dark ride, they will anxiously reach for a reason to laugh or release some anxiety.

But, hey, that's just my opinion, obviously. I wouldn't push that narrative on anyone who laughed at the joke - comedy is, again, subjective - but that's my read from the situation.

[CyberCubed]

Yeah. My other favorite scene in the movie is the tail-end when the gang smash into the police car and let Joker out. And Joker uses the blood on his face to make his "red lips" for the first time by smearing it all the way to the end. That was amazing and I didn't think they would do it, that signified his complete transformation into Joker to me. And it also makes sense how Joker can get a gang to work for him if they believe in him and want to "rise up" against society.

Given Bruce is 8-10 in this, I can see Arthur turning into a master criminal within the next 10 years. It would make sense, we see his beginnings and he needs time to become a master criminal thief. And it would give enough time for this Bruce to age to Batman. I know people don't like Joker being that much older than Batman, but I feel it works here.

[AquaParade]

Yeah. My other favorite scene in the movie is the tail-end when the gang smash into the police car and let Joker out. And Joker uses the blood on his face to make his "red lips" for the first time by smearing it all the way to the end. That was amazing and I didn't think they would do it, that signified his complete transformation into Joker to me. And it also makes sense how Joker can get a gang to work for him if they believe in him and want to "rise up" against society.

Given Bruce is 8-10 in this, I can see Arthur turning into a master criminal within the next 10 years. It would make sense, we see his beginnings and he needs time to become a master criminal thief. And it would give enough time for this Bruce to age to Batman. I know people don't like Joker being that much older than Batman, but I feel it works here.

Fun fact: in the script, Joker picks up a shard of glass and cuts the smile into his face.

Personally, I like what they went with.

As for the age difference, it's one of my least favorite talking points on this movie. It's just a "who cares??" to me. But I think your justification works.

[CyberCubed]

While this movie did not inspire me to a life of violence or to a life of crime, I do feel like I want to “rise up” so to speak. You couldn’t help but cheer for Joker at the end in a dark way. We do live in a society.

If this Joker never appears again I headcanon it to be Heath Ledger’s Joker’s origin story. Isn’t it funny how the backstory of Joker falling into acid and getting his skin bleached is now dropped just for face paint these days? I guess they feel the acid backstory for Joker doesn’t make sense anymore outside comic book settings.

[Andrew NDB]

While this movie did not inspire me to a life of violence or to a life of crime, I do feel like I want to “rise up” so to speak. You couldn’t help but cheer for Joker at the end in a dark way.

Not really.

We do live in a society.

Most people do.

If this Joker never appears again I headcanon it to be Heath Ledger’s Joker’s origin story.

It would almost line up, but then there's the matter of Bruce's parents' death being completely different than what we saw in Begins.

Isn’t it funny how the backstory of Joker falling into acid and getting his skin bleached is now dropped just for face paint these days? I guess they feel the acid backstory for Joker doesn’t make sense anymore outside comic book settings.

Well, it's not like him falling in acid has ever been 100% canon to anything. Though "Suicide Squad" kind of suggested it was a thing again.

[AquaParade]

While this movie did not inspire me to a life of violence or to a life of crime, I do feel like I want to “rise up” so to speak. You couldn’t help but cheer for Joker at the end in a dark way. We do live in a society.

If this Joker never appears again I headcanon it to be Heath Ledger’s Joker’s origin story. Isn’t it funny how the backstory of Joker falling into acid and getting his skin bleached is now dropped just for face paint these days? I guess they feel the acid backstory for Joker doesn’t make sense anymore outside comic book settings.

I think that origin only strengthens the story if you want to emphasize the fact that his new look helped push him over the edge. I don’t find it all that interesting or necessary, personally. No issue with it, just not essential, in my eyes. And most audiences eyes, clearly.

I’ve seen a lot of people express your sentiment of wanting to pretend Heath Ledger’s Joker is Joaquin’s. Never understood this, but don’t let me rain on your parade. I have my own head-canon in different ways too, so I think I get it.

At the same time, with this one, I think “why?”. I mean, the characters aren’t even alike. I guess my mental gymnastics are often used to “clean things up” when canon or retcons become too messy, if that makes sense. Mostly with comics.

But it’s harder for me to imagine watching The Dark Knight, and thinking “oh yeah! That’s totally the Joker from the other movie. Hehe.” and having it affect my enjoyment in any way.

But hey, I’m trying. Perhaps it gives you a feeling of watching a grandiose narrative. Maybe it’s fun to put both movies on your shelf and feel like you have a long running story,
Interpreted by different artists. Idk.

[Andrew NDB]

Most credible theories find a lot of credible evidence that the Ledger Joker is like a Special Ops guy that went over to Afghanistan/Iraq and came back with some major trauma (https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/8j0i62/potential_spoilers_patton_oswalt_theorizes_that/). There's several clues in the movie to this end.

That doesn't really seem compatible with the Phoenix Joker.

[Leo656]

Well, it's not like him falling in acid has ever been 100% canon to anything.

Completely false.

From Detective Comics #168 (dated February 1951), "The Man Behind The Red Hood", through "The Killing Joke" (published in 1988 ), there was absolutely, positively, 100% NO confusion or discrepancy surrounding the Joker's origin. He had ONE origin, oft-repeated and referenced many times. And any confusion which has come up afterwards is simply people reading too much into one throwaway line of dialog in "Killing Joke". Even Killing Joke doesn't erase, replace, or supersede the older version in any significant way, it merely expands on it and changes a few key details. Point of fact, just a few years before Killing Joke, they'd already re-reinforced Joker's Red Hood origins in the three-issue "Untold Legend of the Batman" mini-series.

Short version: A guy called The Red Hood was part of a botched robbery and jumped into a vat of chemicals when confronted by Batman, which turned him into The Joker. The rest of the details have varied a tiny bit but for about 40 years it was not open to debate. In fact, it was SUCH hard canon that it was one of those "Literally Everyone Knows That" bits of trivia, both in real life and the DCU itself. Other characters made reference to it. Joker himself would make reference to it, even when he was completely alone and talking to nobody but himself - which to me throws a lot of shade at the "He likes to make up stories to screw with people" explanation. As recently as the mid-90s, Joker would have "flashbacks" to being Red Hood and the events that transpired.

Killing Joke was not written to erase or replace the established story, just add texture to it. The changes are relatively minor - instead of being a "master criminal", for example, "Red Hood" was revealed to be a patsy for the gang itself, a fall guy, but there was no question still that the events depicted were "hard canon".

Where people get confused is because of ONE line in the story, where Joker says that he has trouble remembering his own past, and "prefers it to be Multiple Choice!" But again, this is where people read too much into it. This line only exists for the reason of, in most tellings Red Hood was a criminal mastermind, but in TKJ he's just a sucker who gets in over his head, while everything else remains the same. There's STILL not supposed to be any question as to whether the events at Axis Chemicals took place - they absolutely did - it was simply to smooth over a continuity wrinkle that was left over from "Untold Legend", which had only recently been published and was still selling plenty of copies. And it makes sense in-context: whenever Joker "flashes back" to see himself as Red Hood, he generally "remembers" the Master Criminal, not the poor sucker whose wife died right before the big heist. THOSE details are "fuzzy canon", not the larger details.

The fact is, the character still reacts emotionally whenever he sees the Red Hood mask, or is confronted by someone else calling themselves "Red Hood"; that only makes any sense at all if that stuff actually happened. And we have no real reason at all to dispute that it did. They did a terrible "alternate origin" in Batman: Confidential about 13 years ago, to try and line it up more with the Heath Ledger version, but it was awful, and most people ignore it, so we still don't have any real alternative origin. We have the Red Hood story, and a few small details which may have happened one way or another, but ultimately, THAT is the origin of the character, at least in the comic books.

To say it was never canon is blatantly, provably false. It's such hard canon that other DCU characters treat the event as if it's common knowledge and Joker himself has never even tried to dispute it. Even "regular people" in the DCU who've tried to research the Joker's past can ONLY conclusively prove one thing: That he was Red Hood before he fell in the acid, which means that in-universe it must not be a very well-kept secret. The only "unknowns" are who the Joker was beforehand - his real name, etc. - and whether or not Red Hood was truly a criminal genius or simply a putz who had One Bad Day. And that's fine, those details can remain fuzzy without actually changing the larger story at all, and it's good to leave a bit of mystery and all that.

The movies, obviously, are an entirely different thing. I'm merely responding to Andrew's claim that the Red Hood/Axis Chemicals origin was "never 100% canon", which is false. Despite the fact that some writers more recently think they can come up with a better one, or at least one that ties into the films better (which is really the only reason anyone has even tried to change it), the fact is that it's the ONLY "canon" origin the character has ever had, and was never disputed or even questioned for almost 50 years. That should count for something.

Now, if some people say they prefer it when the character has no origin because it makes him "scarier" or whatever, that's their prerogative. Everyone has their own "headcanon", as has been discussed. But the fact is, he does have an established origin in the comic books and it's still never been discredited. The fact that Jason Todd ironically calls himself "The Red Hood", for example, makes no sense at all if you get rid of or ignore that version of the story. It's all right there in the material; whether people want to accept it or not is their own hangup. But to say it never happened or was never canon is completely wrong.

[Xav]

Isn’t it funny how the backstory of Joker falling into acid and getting his skin bleached is now dropped just for face paint these days? I guess they feel the acid backstory for Joker doesn’t make sense anymore outside comic book settings.Not really. Both Gotham and Suicide Squad had him fall in acid, I think the only other time he didn't was in The Dark Knight.

[AquaParade]

Not really. Both Gotham and Suicide Squad had him fall in acid, I think the only other time he didn't was in The Dark Knight.

Well, "Joker" as well, now.

And it may be the new kid on the block today, but it will merge with the
Joker zeitgeist in the long run and have its influence on the character, even if in minor ways. That even includes the comics. I bet within five years, we see Joker doing elaborate dance scenes in the comic books.

Did B:TAS ever clarify?

[ZariusTwo]

Did B:TAS ever clarify?

B: TAS seemed to indulge in multiple choice for him too...Mask of the Phantasm cast him as a mobster who murdered Andrea's father, while an episode of the series focused on him having had a failed stand-up career as part of his backstory.

[CyberCubed]

Joker was never the red hood in B:TAS but he did fall into acid.

[sdp]

If we include the BTAS animated comics he did fall into acid and was the redhood but that comic clashes continuity wise with the show.

Haven't watched the movie but I mean people forget this is a comic book movie, I lol at those who wanted this to be "art" and rate it bad because it's at the end still a comic book movie, I just expect a good origin story for joker not 1984.

[AquaParade]

Wow, this movie could become the top grossing R-rated film of all time. It's already one of the most profitable comic book movies.

Guess who else still makes the list?:tcool:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/10/20/joker-box-office-738-million-joaquin-phoenix-todd-phillips-batman-robert-pattinson-venom-deadpool-logan-aquaman-wonder-woman-shazam-jumanji-it-marvel-tarantino-gravity/amp/

[sdp]

I watched it friday night, it's ok. Needed more Joker, needed to be shorter, needed to be less pretentious of "what's real/what's in his mind". It's not a bad movie, it's not a great movie, it's somewhere in between, critics on both sides of the political spectrum made this movie out to be something it really wasn't.

[Coola Yagami]

Not really. Both Gotham and Suicide Squad had him fall in acid, I think the only other time he didn't was in The Dark Knight.

Not only that but media shows that Joker's skin is that natural color, not just face makeup. Harley, having been dunked into acid in recent years is the most obvious one though due to all the skin she's showing.

Anyways the movie was amazing. I find it kinda meta that Joker's killings had nothing to do with politics but the people in Gotham were trying to turn it into something political... Just like all the media out there trying to turn this political in real life. The media seemed to almost try too hard to provoke a shooting so they could point and say 'we were right!!'

The scene with the smaller dude did scare me cause I thought Joker was being a dick and only 'let him go' because he knew he'd be trapped and couldn't unlock the door himself. It did get a few laughs in theaters but then a sense of dread cause we thought his death was coming. I'm glad he let him go.

I think the deaths were the most shocking because they were realistic and not over the top special effects and lasers or whatever. Props to making that final gunshot look so realistic.

[ToTheNines]

Completely false.

From Detective Comics #168 (dated February 1951), "The Man Behind The Red Hood", through "The Killing Joke" (published in 1988 ), there was absolutely, positively, 100% NO confusion or discrepancy surrounding the Joker's origin. He had ONE origin, oft-repeated and referenced many times. And any confusion which has come up afterwards is simply people reading too much into one throwaway line of dialog in "Killing Joke". Even Killing Joke doesn't erase, replace, or supersede the older version in any significant way, it merely expands on it and changes a few key details. Point of fact, just a few years before Killing Joke, they'd already re-reinforced Joker's Red Hood origins in the three-issue "Untold Legend of the Batman" mini-series.

Short version: A guy called The Red Hood was part of a botched robbery and jumped into a vat of chemicals when confronted by Batman, which turned him into The Joker. The rest of the details have varied a tiny bit but for about 40 years it was not open to debate. In fact, it was SUCH hard canon that it was one of those "Literally Everyone Knows That" bits of trivia, both in real life and the DCU itself. Other characters made reference to it. Joker himself would make reference to it, even when he was completely alone and talking to nobody but himself - which to me throws a lot of shade at the "He likes to make up stories to screw with people" explanation. As recently as the mid-90s, Joker would have "flashbacks" to being Red Hood and the events that transpired.

Killing Joke was not written to erase or replace the established story, just add texture to it. The changes are relatively minor - instead of being a "master criminal", for example, "Red Hood" was revealed to be a patsy for the gang itself, a fall guy, but there was no question still that the events depicted were "hard canon".

Where people get confused is because of ONE line in the story, where Joker says that he has trouble remembering his own past, and "prefers it to be Multiple Choice!" But again, this is where people read too much into it. This line only exists for the reason of, in most tellings Red Hood was a criminal mastermind, but in TKJ he's just a sucker who gets in over his head, while everything else remains the same. There's STILL not supposed to be any question as to whether the events at Axis Chemicals took place - they absolutely did - it was simply to smooth over a continuity wrinkle that was left over from "Untold Legend", which had only recently been published and was still selling plenty of copies. And it makes sense in-context: whenever Joker "flashes back" to see himself as Red Hood, he generally "remembers" the Master Criminal, not the poor sucker whose wife died right before the big heist. THOSE details are "fuzzy canon", not the larger details.

The fact is, the character still reacts emotionally whenever he sees the Red Hood mask, or is confronted by someone else calling themselves "Red Hood"; that only makes any sense at all if that stuff actually happened. And we have no real reason at all to dispute that it did. They did a terrible "alternate origin" in Batman: Confidential about 13 years ago, to try and line it up more with the Heath Ledger version, but it was awful, and most people ignore it, so we still don't have any real alternative origin. We have the Red Hood story, and a few small details which may have happened one way or another, but ultimately, THAT is the origin of the character, at least in the comic books.

To say it was never canon is blatantly, provably false. It's such hard canon that other DCU characters treat the event as if it's common knowledge and Joker himself has never even tried to dispute it. Even "regular people" in the DCU who've tried to research the Joker's past can ONLY conclusively prove one thing: That he was Red Hood before he fell in the acid, which means that in-universe it must not be a very well-kept secret. The only "unknowns" are who the Joker was beforehand - his real name, etc. - and whether or not Red Hood was truly a criminal genius or simply a putz who had One Bad Day. And that's fine, those details can remain fuzzy without actually changing the larger story at all, and it's good to leave a bit of mystery and all that.

The movies, obviously, are an entirely different thing. I'm merely responding to Andrew's claim that the Red Hood/Axis Chemicals origin was "never 100% canon", which is false. Despite the fact that some writers more recently think they can come up with a better one, or at least one that ties into the films better (which is really the only reason anyone has even tried to change it), the fact is that it's the ONLY "canon" origin the character has ever had, and was never disputed or even questioned for almost 50 years. That should count for something.

Now, if some people say they prefer it when the character has no origin because it makes him "scarier" or whatever, that's their prerogative. Everyone has their own "headcanon", as has been discussed. But the fact is, he does have an established origin in the comic books and it's still never been discredited. The fact that Jason Todd ironically calls himself "The Red Hood", for example, makes no sense at all if you get rid of or ignore that version of the story. It's all right there in the material; whether people want to accept it or not is their own hangup. But to say it never happened or was never canon is completely wrong.

It’s Ace chemicals, you ****kng moron.

[MikeandRaph87]

Why can't Joker be Jack Napier, a failed comedian hurting for money played the fall guy in a botched robbery in which he ran next door and fell into a batch of chemical waste that turned him into the Joker we know today then lost his pregnant wife as a punishment for his failure?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Why can't Joker be Jack Napier, a failed comedian hurting for money played the fall guy in a botched robbery in which he ran next door and fell into a batch of chemical waste that turned him into the Joker we know today then lost his pregnant wife as a punishment for his failure?

Because he shouldn't have a name. A past, sure, but his name should never, EVER be known.

[CyberCubed]

Why can't Joker be Jack Napier, a failed comedian hurting for money played the fall guy in a botched robbery in which he ran next door and fell into a batch of chemical waste that turned him into the Joker we know today then lost his pregnant wife as a punishment for his failure?

Joker losing a pregnant wife is awful, I don't like the idea of Joker, even when he was "normal" having a woman he loved romantically and not just as a fling. Yuck.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Joker losing a pregnant wife is awful, I don't like the idea of Joker, even when he was "normal" having a woman he loved romantically and not just as a fling. Yuck.

Agreed. Far too cis-normal.

Joker should be gay. Or transgender.

Or am I missing the point you were trying to make?

[Leo656]

It’s Ace chemicals, you ****kng moron.

It's been either depending on the writer, child.

Wow, you really "got" me. :roll:

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Agreed. Far too cis-normal.

Joker should be gay. Or transgender.

Or am I missing the point you were trying to make?


No, he should be bi! That way his relationships with Harley AND Batman would both make perfect sense! (I kid, I kid....)

[Jester]

pointless attack
Seriously Nines, this contributed nothing.

[Xav]

Because he shouldn't have a name. A past, sure, but his name should never, EVER be known.Why not? Various versions have given him a real name, Batman 89, Gotham, this film etc, and they all seemed to be liked well enough.

[CyberCubed]

Agreed. Far too cis-normal.

Joker should be gay. Or transgender.

Or am I missing the point you were trying to make?

Joker should never love someone romantically. He’s insane, it makes no sense. Joker having flings and one night stands is fine, but to romantically be involved? Joker cares for no one other than himself. And even pre-Joker he should not be like that.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

So, self-absorbed narcissist. Yeah, makes sense. Or, maybe losing that ONE person who actually matters to him is what drives him over the edge?

[LeotheLateBloomer]

I'm super late in giving my thoughts but hey, I'm living up to my name, lol. I watched this movie twice so that tells you that I really enjoyed it. I really felt for this version of the character though it was hard to tell which scenes were all in his head besides the ones involving his love interest, obviously. Some theorized that the entire movie was all in his head except the very end scene.

[IMJ]

One thing I do get sick of is the familial or poetic connection that film makers put into movies thinking it will make things somehow more artistic. It's become a trope.

"The villain knows the heroes secret ID because it makes it more personal". "The villains actions actually catalyze the murder that creates Batman". "The villain and the hero are lifelong friends who cry together at the end of the movie before one of them dies". "The villain is the father figure to the hero to create drama"

It's become a trope and a cliche, especially in superhero movies. That's also part of the reason why Ledger's Joker was so good. He was just there. And Batman had to stop him.

[MikeandRaph87]

So, self-absorbed narcissist. Yeah, makes sense. Or, maybe losing that ONE person who actually matters to him is what drives him over the edge?

It worked for Mr. Freeze and they can react differently. Besides with Nora there is some hope while not with Joker's unnamed wife and unborn child. I don't know why Joker has to be an unknown identity either. Pushback in Gotham Knights had the right idea, but did not execute it well. Its like Joe Chill going unnamed With everything Joker is done it makes little sense for no one to know what his name was.

[CyberCubed]

In Batman ‘89 and B:TAS Joker is already a gangster/mob boss before falling into acid. I like his origin already being rooted in crime to begin with rather than just an ordinary guy going crazy.

[Andrew NDB]

In Batman ‘89 and B:TAS Joker is already a gangster/mob boss before falling into acid. I like his origin already being rooted in crime to begin with rather than just an ordinary guy going crazy.

Though if not that, I like the postulation about TDK that he's like a former military Special Ops guy who did crazy stuff in Afghanistan/Iraq and came home messed up, angry at the human condition.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Though if not that, I like the postulation about TDK that he's like a former military Special Ops guy who did crazy stuff in Afghanistan/Iraq and came home messed up, angry at the human condition.

I like that it's only implied, though.

[AquaParade]

I like that it's only implied, though.

Same. I'd love to know whether Heath and Christopher Nolan were playing around with that idea, but either way, it works quite well, being nebulous, as is common with the Joker.

[Andrew NDB]

I really prefer to look at the Joker's origin like most people with the origins of Immortals in Highlander. As in, prefer not to ever know with the belief that making up an origin would cheapen the thing.

[AquaParade]

I really prefer to look at the Joker's origin like most people with the origins of Immortals in Highlander. As in, prefer not to ever know with the belief that making up an origin would cheapen the thing.

I generally agree, but maybe less so than I did a year ago. Like, I’m obviously completely fine with how it was handled in Joker. I essentially just need some element of mystery to the truth, but I’m fine with a past being implied, quite heavily, apparently.

[Voltron]

Joker's dip in the chemicals was always a solid and present part of his past. Everything else was not. It contrasts with Bruce's background, where everything is known and expanded upon to the point that there are no secrets with him. It makes sense that his antithesis would be a mystery.

I don't think it makes him scarier to be unknown, though. I think it makes it more difficult to empathize with him, though. That's important, since it keeps the Joker pure. Any redemption arcs or tear jerking back stories are typically lies he's using to manipulate or delusions he's using to justify his behavior.

[Leo656]

The cinematographer tries to clarify one of the things people are speculating and debating about, giving a conclusive answer from the perspective of the people who made the film. Spoilers, obviously.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/10/joker-arthur-kills-sophia-debate-answer-1202184505/#respond

As I theorized, the filmmakers tried to present Arthur only killing people who had "done him wrong" before the end, therefore he spared Sophia.

What I find entertaining and annoying are the people in the Comments who see fit to argue with the people who made the film about what actually happened. I'm all for leaving some things open for interpretation, BUT, I'm also really big on taking what filmmakers say they intended at face value. If a person says, "I/We made this thing, and what I intended was This," it's kind of arrogant for another person to insist otherwise. Like there's "interpretation" and then there's Facts, y'know?

Anyway. For better or worse it looks like we have an official answer on how that scene was intended to be received. Whether a person agrees with it or not is their own prerogative, of course, but I choose to take them at their word.

[Andrew NDB]

What I find entertaining and annoying are the people in the Comments who see fit to argue with the people who made the film about what actually happened. I'm all for leaving some things open for interpretation, BUT, I'm also really big on taking what filmmakers say they intended at face value. If a person says, "I/We made this thing, and what I intended was This," it's kind of arrogant for another person to insist otherwise. Like there's "interpretation" and then there's Facts, y'know?

Like TMNT (2007).

Kevin Munroe, writer/director of the film: "It takes place after the old movies and is in the same universe. Period."

Fans: "But iiis it, though?"