Joker 2

[Andrew NDB]

Sounds like it's really going to happen:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/joker-2-another-dc-origin-film-set/

[CyberCubed]

There should be a bit of a time skip to show his beginning as a criminal mastermind.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Maybe it's unfair of me but... I'm skeptical.

[Andrew NDB]

All I see at this point is "Not Man of Steel 2."

[AquaParade]

Several reputable trades are reporting conflicting things right now. Some saying the sequel is on and others refuting the fact.

I seriously hope the sequel is happening. It's pretty easy for me to write-off something I don't like, so I'm glad to roll the dice on a sequel. It could be great. Easily my most anticipated film if true.

[Andrew NDB]

Apparently the director will oversee other DC origin movies?

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3594801/joker-getting-sequel-origin-stories-works/?fbclid=IwAR1yHUAaqUQXGwPkPswS_2KdqQyYbR2OxIpQcJDx GA8U-qq7ipMIqVzdCag

So... over here we have the Harley cinematic universe, and over here we have the DC villain origin universe.

[AquaParade]

https://deadline.com/2019/11/joker-sequel-no-discussions-yet-todd-phillips-no-dc-origin-villian-films-planned-1202790774/

The Joker sequel news that hit a trade today is great click bait, but multiple inside sources said that while a sequel to the billion dollar grossing film is an obvious likely eventuality that makes all the financial sense in the world, at this point there are no deals for a sequel, nor even any negotiations with director Todd Phillips or his co-writer Scott Silver to craft one.

We will have to wait and see. :ohwell:

Deadline, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter tend to be the most reliable movie news sources, and they are saying conflicting things right now. Pretty interesting actually. My guess is that talks are happening, but nothing official yet.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

All I see at this point is "Not Man of Steel 2."

Man, you and me both.

No Man of Steel 2, no Green Lantern Corps. :tsad:

And, uh... not that I WANT the film with Ezra Miller, but it also means no Flash. So silver linings, I guess? :tlol:

[AquaParade]

Would have loved to see what Man of Steel 2 could have been. I mean, I guess you can argue that BvS is Man of Steel 2, technically, unless Zach Snyder actually had a different direction he wanted to take things.

I think, in theory, introducing a new Batman in what would be "Man of Steel 2" could have worked in a cool way. Obviously, they crammed too much into BvS, but I still think I would have liked to see Man of Steel 2 as a Batman vs Superman film, but with more focus and less narrative threads.

That aside, I still would have seen a Man of Steel 2, without Bruce. I really enjoyed Man of Steel. When I think of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman together, it's actually a pretty cool set of films, in my mind. They aren't perfect and they aren't my favorites, but I appreciate them.

[Andrew NDB]

Man, you and me both.

No Man of Steel 2, no Green Lantern Corps. :tsad:

Which are the only two things they should even be worrying about right now.

And, uh... not that I WANT the film with Ezra Miller, but it also means no Flash. So silver linings, I guess? :tlol:

And again, if they go around and recast Batman, maybe even Superman, but don't recast Flash (the only role that ever needed to be recast)... that will be infuriating.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Which are the only two things they should even be worrying about right now.

Who needs the Justice League when you can have Harley Fvcking Quinn and a geriatric Joker?

[Andrew NDB]

Would have loved to see what Man of Steel 2 could have been. I mean, I guess you can argue that BvS is Man of Steel 2, technically, unless Zach Snyder actually had a different direction he wanted to take things.

He did. He wanted to do MoS 2 and was ready to do MoS 2 but WB made him do BvS. WB had been trying to make a BvS movie since the 2000s.

Who needs the Justice League when you can have Harley Fvcking Quinn and a geriatric Joker?

Getting to a proper "Justice League" should always be the destination. They don't even have a destination anymore.

[AquaParade]

Justice League has always been corny as hell to me, not gonna lie. I love the characters, but their allegiance just seems goofy to me. The X-Men feel like a family, and the Avengers...I don't know, maybe it's their "rag-tag" qualities that make it an easier sell to me. I don't have a good excuse for them. Maybe I think the Avengers are lame too.

I'm not trying to piss all over the JL. I love DC, love Batman to death, big fan of Clark, Wonder Woman. But other then Morrison's (who can sell me on anything) run on Justice League, I've never really found their stories or dynamic compelling. Give me another Joker over a Justice League reboot, any day.


*ZiiIIIIIIIiip*

[Andrew NDB]

But other then Morrison's (who can sell me on anything) run on Justice League

When I imagine the "ideal" Justice League movie, I'm thinking of Morrison's JLA run. Just about any of his story arcs could be a movie, beautifully.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Getting to a proper "Justice League" should always be the destination. They don't even have a destination anymore.

That's the truth of it. Now it's just "throw $hit at the wall", see what makes profit, and then milk it to death.

That's why we're getting a "Trench" spinoff, and Harley Quinn movies, and another Suicide Squad.

[Andrew NDB]

That's why we're getting a "Trench" spinoff

AKA, "Royalties for Geoff Johns."

[AquaParade]

When I imagine the "ideal" Justice League movie, I'm thinking of Morrison's JLA run. Just about any of his story arcs could be a movie, beautifully.

I love those books but it’s hard for me to imagine them on film. Still, if it could be done, I’d probably dig it.

I guess I think of Justice League as one of the least interesting DC properties, oddly enough. Maybe that puts me in the minority. I’m much more interested in Swamp Thing, Doom Patrol, The Question, Sandman (both versions), Watchmen, and of course, Batman, Joker, and anything Gotham. Those aren’t strict boundaries for myself, just an example of the DC properties that I prefer over Justice League.

But yeah, I get the desire for a Justice League focused cinematic universe. It makes sense.

[Leo656]

Maybe it's unfair of me but... I'm skeptical.

Yep.

First one was good, but so was Wonder Woman, and by all accounts WB learned exactly every single wrong lesson from the success of that and other films, and has micro-managed the sequel into a train wreck. Obviously, I haven't seen it, but many people already have, the test screening leaks all mirror each other, so there's obviously some fire behind the smoke, and it all sounds horrible. I can totally see something bad happening to a Joker sequel, as well.

If we know nothing else, WB is incapable of repeating a triumph. The problem with movies like Wonder Woman and Joker succeeding beyond expectations is, they weren't really expected to do all that well in the first place, thus the studio sort of stayed in the background and let the filmmakers do their jobs, and that led to some great things. HOWEVER, the thinking of the average WB executive is, "Well now, if some piss-ant movie like 'Joker' can make over a billion dollars WITHOUT our hands all over it, just imagine how much money we can make after we focus-group the hell out of the sequel!"

Don't forget, it only made as much profit (NOT box office, specifically Profit) because they didn't spend anything on it. They'll inevitably spend more on the sequel, which means they'll need to sell even more tickets to break even, and more spending means more micro-managing. They also simply can't keep making Joker movies that only passingly reference Batman, so whether anyone likes it or not, they're most likely going to try and finagle something to tie the "Joker Universe" into the Pattinson Batman universe, if they're not already trying to do that. Which I'm positive they are. I can promise you that they do NOT want three or four conflicting "Jokers" running around in a bunch of movies that don't connect. People like this Joker, thus WB is going to try and find a way to make him the "Official" version of the character going forward. I'm quite certain that the main reason they didn't already announce a sequel is because they're simply trying to "make it fit" with their other plans.

I mean, I liked the first one alright despite expecting nothing from it, so I'm cautiously optimistic. There's just only a few ways it can go Right and a hundred ways it can go Very Wrong. Phoenix did a good enough job to make me want to see more of him. BUT. It's WB. WB has never seen a good thing they couldn't ruin. It's entirely what they do.

We'll see.

[AquaParade]

Nah. They aren't about to tie it in with Matt Reeve's Batman or anything.

Todd and Joaquin have WB by the balls right now. They can choose to leave or return. If they return, it's going to be on their terms. Their terms have clearly been stated as "separate universe from DCEU".

Of course, if the first film is anything to go by, this film will have to go through a gauntlet of doom prophecies and audience outrage before it is finally allowed to prove itself.

My two cents, anyway.

[Leo656]

We'll see. You have a lot more faith in them than I do.

If you really believe that there have been NO conversations about "square peg/round hole"-ing this into their larger universe, I have a bridge to sell you. Movie executives don't care one bit about "integrity", nor are they inclined to let employees dictate terms to them about their big-name franchises. It might happen, it might not, but I promise you, that's a conversation they're having.

And even if it doesn't, and remains wholly its own separate thing, there's STILL a good chance they'll f*ck it up. Because again, it's WB. All they do is take good ideas and f*ck them up beyond repair due to shortsightedness and greed. I mean, every studio does that, but WB has raised incompetence to an art form.

Can they make two slam dunks in a row? Maybe, but it would be the first time in forever. We'll see.

[AquaParade]

We'll see. You have a lot more faith in them than I do.

If you really believe that there have been NO conversations about "square peg/round hole"-ing this into their larger universe, I have a bridge to sell you. Movie executives don't care one bit about "integrity", nor are they inclined to let employees dictate terms to them about their big-name franchises. It might happen, it might not, but I promise you, that's a conversation they're having.

And even if it doesn't, and remains wholly its own separate thing, there's STILL a good chance they'll f*ck it up. Because again, it's WB. All they do is take good ideas and f*ck them up beyond repair due to shortsightedness and greed. I mean, every studio does that, but WB has raised incompetence to an art form.

Can they make two slam dunks in a row? Maybe, but it would be the first time in forever. We'll see.

I'm willing to believe the conversation happened on Warner Bro's side, but Todd and Joaquin have made their intentions clear and they have the negotiating power.
It's disingenuous to categorize Joaquin and Todd as mere "employee's" in this scenario - they have power. If WB wants this Joker, they need to play nice with them. This isn't Peyton Reed on an Ant-Man film. Not to mention, you have Matt Reeves who has also clearly stated that he wants to be left the hell alone.

They could screw it up themselves though.

[Leo656]

I'm aware that those individuals have said a lot of things and their hearts are likely in the right place. They're still merely employees, though, in the eyes of WB "corporate", and no, that hasn't earned them any significant special treatment, although that would seem to make sense. Ultimately WB is going to do whatever they feel is going to maximize profits across the board, not just doing what's best for one singular film. Having two or more actors playing the Joker across several films is a frivolous expense, for one thing. If they can save $20 million by getting it down to One Guy, then it only makes business sense to do exactly that. Everyone already said they were stupid/crazy for splitting the role between multiple actors in the first place, and we're already presently down to One. That's telling. They didn't have to fire Jared Leto, they chose to - "conveniently", right around the time "Joker" started doing great. Now they've got some tough decisions to make.

We know they're going to put a Joker in a future Batman film (possibly even the upcoming one, although it's getting a bit late in the game for that). Casting calls and auditions cost money, hiring actors and dealing with agents costs money, enticing the fanboys to not hate a new performer in an existing role costs money. They already have a guy people like. The most cost-effective thing to do would be to maximize the use of their existing resources, rather than start from Square One all over again.

Phoenix and Co. ARE merely employees in this scenario, albeit they presently have some clout. But I think you're overestimating just how much that really matters to a global conglomerate like WB. When you're dealing with billion-dollar companies, the thinking at the Top Level is, the COMPANY is responsible for the success of anything they put out, the individual people involved are only responsible when things go poorly. You and I know that's not true, but I've attended management seminars, I understand how "Corporate" looks at things. Put simply, "Employees are tools to be used. If things go bad, it's 100% the employees' fault; if things go well, it's 100% the company's incredible foresight that allowed those people to succeed." I repeat: All success belongs to The Company, and all failures belong solely to The Employee. That's how things operate at the billion-dollar corporate level. It's nonsense, but it's how it goes. One movie won't change that.

I'm just incredibly pragmatic about these kinds of things. I'm not going to go so far as to say, "This is definitely going to happen", but it's definitely a strong possibility and saying otherwise is kind of silly. No actor or director has enough "pull" to stop the parent company from doing whatever they jolly well please, regardless of how well their most recent project did. It's ultimately going to come down to whatever WB thinks will save them money up front while maximizing profits from future films.

And even if none of that happens, it's still about 60/40 as to whether or not they'll just ruin the sequel by strong-arming their own choices into it, like they're apparently doing with the Wonder Woman sequel.

I fully admit that I expect the worst from WB by default, because they're a terrible, terrible company that makes every possible bad decision at every given opportunity, but I'm also just a pragmatist who doesn't deal in wishful thinking. Plus, I've already been burned too many times by these assholes. "Joker" was a pleasant surprise but they've got a long way to go to convince me that it was anything but a fluke.

Again... we'll see.

[AquaParade]

We can call them employee's, but it doesn't change the fact that they have a product DC wants and DC will have to bend to their terms if they want that product.

It's not about special treatment. It's about "if you want this product, here are the terms." It's that simple. These guys are not under contract for multiple films. This isn't the negotiating table for the first "Joker". The dynamics are different now that the film is a worldwide success story and one of the most profitable of all time.

When has Joaquin ever done anything he didn't want to do? If he doesn't want to do a film in a shared universe, he ain't doing it. If DC dictates a shared universe, he walks.

I hear what you're saying about the power dynamics in Hollywood, and if this were any Marvel film, you'd be 100% right, but this isn't that. Based on the lack of contractual obligation that typically plays a huge part in how the the creative power is divided, and the clear comments made in unison by the star and director about where they want to see the film head, it's clear to me that this is not a film that is about to be manhandled into a shared universe.

[Leo656]

I have never in the history of the world seen a scenario where a director and/or actor essentially held an entire studio hostage and said, "We do this MY way or not at all." Those people would be told exactly where to go in no uncertain terms just for trying that kind of thing. It's simply not how the business works. Nobody anywhere has that kind of leverage. It simply doesn't happen.

Again, I'm not going to give an over/under on how likely it is to see the "Joker" universe merged into the rest of their Batman stuff. It might happen, might not. So don't take this as a prediction. All I'm saying is, I promise that it's at least been discussed, and that ultimately, WB isn't going to be told what to do or not to do by any actor or director. They'd love to keep Phoenix, but they definitely won't all start crying the blues if he ends up walking if he doesn't want to do what they ask. As far as WB is concerned, they were the geniuses who gave him the opportunity, NOT that he's the one who made them a billion dollars.

Also, if they wanted to, they could probably force him to do whatever they wanted, depending on what kind of contract he has. I have zero knowledge of those details, though, so I won't speculate. But it's been known to happen with a lot of actors.

Sh*t happens, is all I'm saying. Every good movie WB has ever made was in spite of the best efforts of WB themselves, so if they do a good sequel, hey, I'll be happy.

IF.

[AquaParade]

I have never in the history of the world seen a scenario where a director and/or actor essentially held an entire studio hostage and said, "We do this MY way or not at all." Those people would be told exactly where to go in no uncertain terms just for trying that kind of thing. It's simply not how the business works. Nobody anywhere has that kind of leverage. It simply doesn't happen.

Again, I'm not going to give an over/under on how likely it is to see the "Joker" universe merged into the rest of their Batman stuff. It might happen, might not. So don't take this as a prediction. All I'm saying is, I promise that it's at least been discussed, and that ultimately, WB isn't going to be told what to do or not to do by any actor or director. They'd love to keep Phoenix, but they definitely won't all start crying the blues if he ends up walking if he doesn't want to do what they ask. As far as WB is concerned, they were the geniuses who gave him the opportunity, NOT that he's the one who made them a billion dollars.

Also, if they wanted to, they could probably force him to do whatever they wanted, depending on what kind of contract he has. I have zero knowledge of those details, though, so I won't speculate. But it's been known to happen with a lot of actors.

Sh*t happens, is all I'm saying. Every good movie WB has ever made was in spite of the best efforts of WB themselves, so if they do a good sequel, hey, I'll be happy.

IF.

The reason you don't see these scenarios where the creatives "hold up" the studio's, is because this type of scenario is quite rare. Actually, to keep things in the DC realm, the reason negotiations for "Wonder Woman 84" took so long, were reportedly because Patti Jenkins was holding out for a hell of a pay day. In a similar scenario to this, Wonder Woman was mainly left alone, as you pointed out, and Patti Jenkins was only signed for one film. When the film was a huge hit, the studio wanted her back....but it took some time, because Patti now had the Powaaahhh, baby $$$$. She negotiated for more money and creative freedom, because she was free to walk.

But it doesn't end there, because Todd's film, Joker, cost even less than Wonder Woman and made even more. And Joaquin has way more negotiating power than Gal ever did, who was already signed on for multiple films, and has way less "star power". So, you can imagine....

So, it's actually not that unheard of, even within Warner Bro's in the last couple of years. But it is more rare then the quite common scenario you have described. Usually film studios do hold all the power. It's when things sneak up on them, that the tables are allowed to turn a bit.

And you've echoed my same point that yeah, Joaquin can just walk if he doesn't want to do a shared universe sequel. That is what it comes down to. There doesn't have to be a sequel, but if there is one, Joaquin will have a say in how it goes. Like I said, initially...
AquaParade:
When has Joaquin ever done anything he didn't want to do? If he doesn't want to do a film in a shared universe, he ain't doing it. If DC dictates a shared universe, he walks.

Sounds like we agree there, but...

Leo656:They'd love to keep Phoenix, but they definitely won't all start crying the blues if he ends up walking if he doesn't want to do what they ask.

You say WB won’t cry the blues if he walks, but yeah, they kind of will. The dude just made them more money than any of their other films. If they ain't crying about that, then I don't know what they're crying about.

Leo656: if they wanted to, they could probably force him to do whatever they wanted, depending on what kind of contract he has. I have zero knowledge of those details, though, so I won't speculate.

You say they can force him to do what they want - No. they can’t. That’s the whole point, man lol. He is signed for one film. It looks like you’ve got your facts wrong, my dude. That explains a lot because your argument is sound but doesn’t fit this scenario.

It’s fair for people to have whatever lack of faith they want in a film, but the context and circumstances surrounding “Joker” give no reason to believe Joaquin will be manhandled into whatever shared universe DC wants. Quite the contrary.

[Leo656]

Neither you nor I know what kind of contract Phoenix has, so it's pointless to speculate or try and say one of us has "the facts wrong". We can only speak to what we know. We DON'T know what the fine print says.

Much bigger stars than Phoenix have been forced to do movies that they had no interest in doing, simply because of some fine print somewhere. He's made ONE billion-dollar picture in his entire career; that hardly makes him Will Smith all of a sudden, and even Will Smith has been pushed around plenty in his career. I like Phoenix, but in Hollywood terms, he's still "a nobody who got lucky all of once." He's made a lot of good movies but nothing aside from this and the Johnny Cash movie ever made a big splash (and most people don't remember that one because it was so long ago). I admire his artistic integrity, but you know who doesn't? The guys in suits who sign the checks. To them, he's still just a guy they paid to do a job.

Again, we don't KNOW the terms of his contract, we only know what we've been told, and frankly, people in that business lie as a general rule. And there IS always a chance that WB put in a "you do what we tell you" clause. I say this only because it happens a lot. Channing Tatum being the first person who comes to my mind, and frankly he's a bigger "star" in Hollywood terms than Phoenix is.

I just have a hard time believing that any billion-dollar corporation would ever put any single actor or director in a position to hold so much leverage over them. The entire reason they have expensive shark lawyers and novel-length contracts is to prevent exactly that from happening.

Either way, you're still over-estimating the importance of this One Movie to WB's larger output. Yes, they're desperate for their DC brand to succeed, but they still have Harry Potter and Godzilla, among other things. They will not break down in tears if things fall apart between them and Phoenix. They're not going to hook their entire company's future on one horse.

I don't know, man. Like I said, "We'll see." But you can't presume I'm flat-out wrong in thinking what WB may or may not do, because you don't actually know any more than I do at this point. What I know is, studios tell actors what to do, not the other way around, and the squeaky wheel always gets replaced, not kowtowed to.

Thus... "We'll see."

[Coola Yagami]

IDK man.... just not feeling it.

I mean I loved the Joker, it was an awesome movie, but it was clearly set to be a stand alone film and there's always consequences when someone decides to go back and somehow make a sequel to a movie that was never intended to have one.

See the first movie ended just right, with Fleck becoming the Joker. Or at least this film's version of him. If anything the movie is more about a guy gone mad that could have literally have been anyone and not necessarily be THEE JokerTM. Since it ended with his genesis, it just feels right, for the sake of making a good movie, and telling a good story.

However when it comes to the comics, Arthur Fleck is no Joker. He is hardly a criminal mastermind or has the balls to go up against someone like Batman. He's not gonna suddenly learn advanced chemistry and come up with the Joker Venom and whatnot. The first movie ended fine, telling a new story, but with a sequel NOW you have the pressure of somehow turning Fleck more and more into the comic version of the Joker. Honestly he is so far removed from the more traditional version of the character that trying to somehow shoehorn him into that sort of role will almost ruin his previous performance.

I mean what's he gonna do? Dance as his goons shoot up people? Play lethal pranks or kill people with one-liners? That wasn't Arthur Fleck, not even the Joker version of him. The man is literally harmless without a gun.


I just honestly don't see what kind of story can be told now without ruining what made the first movie so great.

[AquaParade]

Neither you nor I know what kind of contract Phoenix has, so it's pointless to speculate or try and say one of us has "the facts wrong". We can only speak to what we know. We DON'T know what the fine print says.

I think it's clear that Joaquin has a one film contract. He has said himself it was planned as a one-off. You're free to call him a liar, but I think it's pretty clear to everyone that this was a one-film deal. For anyone paying attention, there is a history with Joaquin's career. He doesn't sign on for multiple films at once. Look it up if you are interested. I'm going to go off the combination of his word and his past history over "actors sometimes lie" conjecture. The former is tangible.


Much bigger stars than Phoenix have been forced to do movies that they had no interest in doing, simply because of some fine print somewhere. He's made ONE billion-dollar picture in his entire career; that hardly makes him Will Smith all of a sudden, and even Will Smith has been pushed around plenty in his career. I like Phoenix, but in Hollywood terms, he's still "a nobody who got lucky all of once." He's made a lot of good movies but nothing aside from this and the Johnny Cash movie ever made a big splash (and most people don't remember that one because it was so long ago). I admire his artistic integrity, but you know who doesn't? The guys in suits who sign the checks. To them, he's still just a guy they paid to do a job.

He signed on for one film. It made a lot of money. If they want another film with him in it, they have to agree to each other's terms. Joaquin has said he doesn't want to do a shared universe film. If he still feels that way, they won't be making him. We are going in circles and are both pretty set on our stance here.


I just have a hard time believing that any billion-dollar corporation would ever put any single actor or director in a position to hold so much leverage over them. The entire reason they have expensive shark lawyers and novel-length contracts is to prevent exactly that from happening.

That's what happens when you sign hot names to one film and decide later on you want a sequel. Joaquin and Todd hold the leverage here - that's business. You don't have to believe it.

Either way, you're still over-estimating the importance of this One Movie to WB's larger output. Yes, they're desperate for their DC brand to succeed, but they still have Harry Potter and Godzilla, among other things. They will not break down in tears if things fall apart between them and Phoenix. They're not going to hook their entire company's future on one horse.

No, I'm not over-estimating it's importance, but I am stating the fact that WB values what this film brings to the table. It's not just "DC doesn't care whether they can make another Joker or not. It's whatever to them". No, they are in the business of making money and Joker just made them more in one go, than any of their other films have. That's a big deal to them. They don't say "whatever, we have Harry Potter and stuff" to that.

Of course the studio won't break down if they can't make a sequel, but they still want to work one out. They will compromise, like they did before, except with less leverage now, with Todd and Joaquin to make it happen.

If I am overestimating this movies importance, then why would WB suddenly be mucking their fingers up in it, if it isn’t considered important to them? Sort of negates your original point, if this film isn’t important. Then WB can just leave them alone again.

"Hook their entire company's future on one horse" ??

Now who said that? I don't think allowing creative freedom to Todd and Joaquin, like they just did to great success, would qualify as hinging their entire company's future on one horse. I mean, that's sort of ridiculous. They have other things going on, like you just said.

I don't know, man. Like I said, "We'll see." But you can't presume I'm flat-out wrong in thinking what WB may or may not do, because you don't actually know any more than I do at this point. What I know is, studios tell actors what to do, not the other way around, and the squeaky wheel always gets replaced, not kowtowed to.

I believe that you are wrong, yeah. You believe I'm wrong. That's cool. I'm just here stating the facts as to why I feel that way. Studios don't get to tell actors what to do when they aren't under contract. Simple as that. If all we are here to do is disagree whether or not we want to believe that Joaquin and Todd are lying about signing on for one film, then I'm out. I'm taking them at their word, sorry. It's clear that this was a one-film deal.

[AquaParade]

IDK man.... just not feeling it.

I mean I loved the Joker, it was an awesome movie, but it was clearly set to be a stand alone film and there's always consequences when someone decides to go back and somehow make a sequel to a movie that was never intended to have one.

See the first movie ended just right, with Fleck becoming the Joker. Or at least this film's version of him. If anything the movie is more about a guy gone mad that could have literally have been anyone and not necessarily be THEE JokerTM. Since it ended with his genesis, it just feels right, for the sake of making a good movie, and telling a good story.

However when it comes to the comics, Arthur Fleck is no Joker. He is hardly a criminal mastermind or has the balls to go up against someone like Batman. He's not gonna suddenly learn advanced chemistry and come up with the Joker Venom and whatnot. The first movie ended fine, telling a new story, but with a sequel NOW you have the pressure of somehow turning Fleck more and more into the comic version of the Joker. Honestly he is so far removed from the more traditional version of the character that trying to somehow shoehorn him into that sort of role will almost ruin his previous performance.

I mean what's he gonna do? Dance as his goons shoot up people? Play lethal pranks or kill people with one-liners? That wasn't Arthur Fleck, not even the Joker version of him. The man is literally harmless without a gun.


I just honestly don't see what kind of story can be told now without ruining what made the first movie so great.

I can understand this. It is risky going for a sequel to a story like this. I mean, it feels sort of finished and complete, story-wise. How do you expand on a mental health story like this? I am having a hell of a hard time imagining a sequel.

I guess that's what excites me though. That and the fact that I really trust this team now. The direction, acting, music, and cinematography were all fantastic, so I have some faith in this team. If the movie sucks, I'm comfortable ignoring it forever.

Consider this: we swallow down sequels all the time that exist solely because of a contract fulfillment and need to make money. While this film doesn't escape that - of course it is still a product, designed to make money - it at least looks to be propelled by a creative choice. This film isn't contractually obliged. It's being made because the creators want to make it. To me, that is exciting.

[Andrew NDB]

I was reading that Phoenix's deal DID include possible sequels today? Though I'm skeptical. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who's paint himself into doing movies he wouldn't want to, like let's say if Joker 1 ended up being a miserable experience for him.

[AquaParade]

I was reading that Phoenix's deal DID include possible sequels today? Though I'm skeptical. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who's paint himself into doing movies he wouldn't want to, like let's say if Joker 1 ended up being a miserable experience for him.

Him and Todd have reinforced the idea that this was designed as one-off too often for me to think otherwise without some kind of evidence. I think I also saw that rumor fly around but we’ve seen pretty much every rumor pop up.

He doesn’t seem like that kind of actor at all though, I agree. There was the whole Dr. Strange debacle of course.

“We have no plans for a sequel. The quote was, ‘I will do anything Joaquin wants to do.’ And I would. But the movie’s not set up to [have] a sequel. We always pitched it as one movie, and that’s it,” Phillips has said.

“We made this movie, I pitched it to Warner Bros. as one movie. It exists in its own world,” he added. “That’s it.”

[Leo656]

Coola: I share many of your exact same concerns.

Whenever anything that was designed to NOT be sequelized inevitably gets a sequel... it almost never works out well. That's the inherent danger of success.

They CAN make a good sequel. In theory. As I've said, I definitely liked Phoenix enough to see more of his portrayal, but everything you said is true as well. This Joker is compelling, but nothing at all like the character the general audience knows, and most of the film's criticism was entirely centered around that. The few people who did not like the movie all had the same complaint: "That ain't no Joker." And it's a fair point, I feel. As origins go, it's a good one, but it's still miles away from the character anyone knows.

Obviously, there's a way they can make the sequel all about linking Point A to Point B, and showing how he becomes the more familiar version that we know... but then that runs the risk of pushing it closer to what everyone says they don't want, which is for this to end up like a "standard" comic book film. But if you keep doing this series, you run out of options; you can't depict the "downward spiral into madness" forever, yet if you pay it off by actually putting him against Batman, now it's "just a regular comic book movie." So then WHAT do you do?

There's just so many variables. It'll be tricky to catch lightning in a bottle twice. But there's always a chance they can do a good sequel. If it were anyone but WB I'd be more confident, most likely.
---------------------

Aqua: WB ("allegedly") fired Jared Leto before the opening weekend grosses for "Joker" were even finished being tallied. That tells me a lot more than whatever Phoenix has said publicly about his contract, at least on WB's end, and what WB is thinking/hoping. Actors also are generally not supposed to talk in public about such things or they can get sued out of existence. So... yeah, it's not impossible for him to have lied, or at least told a half-truth. Nobody signs up for "one movie" based on ANY comic book franchise; there's always something about options for sequels and spin-offs, because again, the studios don't want to be caught with their pants down if a movie does better than expected.

It's very likely that there is a fine print clause which says only one movie was guaranteed, but that if the movie made over X million dollars that he'd be under obligation to either do a sequel OR play the Joker in another movie of WB's choosing. THAT kind of thing happens all the time, it's standard with anything based on a pre-existing franchise that might have a long tail.

We don't know. I don't know. I'm merely speculating based on Standard Operating Procedure in Hollywood. WB maybe didn't expect a billion dollars at the box office but they would NEVER sign any actor to a "one-and-done" deal for a character as famous and popular as the Joker. They'd absolutely have included a way to get him back if the movie did well. Otherwise they'd have to go crawling to him with their ass in the air and beg him to do the sequel, and studios DON'T do that. Again, that's why entertainment lawyers make so much money: to keep the power in the hands of the studios, and not whatever actor or director had a hit this month.

I could also fill a phone book with the names of film franchises that were implicitly designed to be "Just One." Wes Craven was adamant that there only be one "Nightmare On Elm Street", for example. We know how that turned out, in spite of his every effort (including several attempts to put the whole thing out of its misery his own self). That's one of a hundred examples I could cite.

You're right, we are going in circles. Because you apparently believe in Wishful Thinking and taking people's words at face value. I don't, not ever, I go by what Does Happen and Has Happened, and make my predictions accordingly. I will especially NEVER defer to something someone said during a press tour as "proof" of their pure intentions. You're telling me that a billion-dollar company can't force an actor to do what they want, but I'm saying, Yes, they can, it happens all the time. You're telling me the terms of a guy's contract when neither you nor I has seen it, so your guess is as good as mine about what it says. I'm basing MY predictions on the way things actually operate in Hollywood on a daily basis, not the reassuring words of an actor doing a press tour. Especially not someone like Phoenix who has gone out of his way to lie about numerous other projects in his career, sometimes for no reason but his own amusement. Jesus, man. I'm not saying it's a good state of affairs, I'm simply saying, that's how sh*t works in The Business. I have no dog in the race otherwise.

Yes, there is a 1% chance that WB was stupid enough to allocate full creative control to an actor who's only had one other hit movie in his entire life, and whose last notable movie was a mockumentary about what a failure his career has been. You're right, that's possible, just like anything is possible. What I'm saying - based on factual evidence as to how movie studios actually operate and do business - is that it simply isn't very likely.

I don't get why that's 1. So hard to understand, and 2. Why it's so offensive to you even to consider, to the point where it seems you're getting upset with me about it. "My goodness, people LIE sometimes? Movie studios might not have scruples? WHAT ELSE haven't I been told?!" It just makes you come off as a mark. And I do believe you're smarter than that. Honest, snark-free question: Did you also believe Kevin Eastman when he said he was balls-deep in the creation of the newer TMNT films, or did you spot that for the Obvious Lie that it was? How about Cameron and "his" new Terminator flick that we know he had nothing to do with? I'm incredibly confused WHY you'd take anything any of these people say publicly at face value. I'm not being mean, I'm just saying, it's not a good look, man. Everything - everything! - is spin.

Once more: You and I know exactly the same amount of information, at this point, which is not much at all. My predictions and speculation are evidence and common sense-based, while yours are seemingly based on wishful thinking and the words of people who are paid to lie. I'm sorry, but these things are not as simple as you want to believe they are.

For the last time: We'll See. As certain as I am that WB did everything they possibly could to protect themselves in the event the Joker movie did well, and the fact that they most likely DO have a substantial say in what comes next (no matter what ANYONE has said in public about it), I'm certainly not inclined to spend the rest of the week arguing about it. The last thing I'd ever do, though, personally, is take anything anyone said in a press release at face value. There's today's nickel's worth of free advice, feel free to take it or leave it.
--------------------

Andrew: As I said above, I am HIGHLY skeptical that WB would take a character like Joker and let anyone propose a "one-and-done" without leaving themselves a back door for sequels. That NEVER happens in Hollywood. It's The Joker, not Captain Boomerang. WB had to know that it would at least be moderately successful, and prepare paperwork accordingly so they could churn out more if they wanted to. Studios do NOT arbitrarily leave an inordinate amount of power in the hands of actors or directors when there is so much potential money on the table. This would be a first. And I'm not inclined to believe it.
-------------------------

Now, let's please get away from speculating as to what kind of power a global conglomerate may or may not have over a harelipped leading man with all of two profitable movies to his name, and please go back to speculating as to whether or not the inevitable sequel is going to suck. My Magic 8-Ball says, "Of course it will, dummy, it's WB!" But I'unno, maybe not. There are still plenty of good stories to tell with this version of the character, but also a lot of ways WB can polish all of the shine off, because WB f*cking sucks and ruining good things is what they do best.

So... We'll See.

[Andrew NDB]

Him and Todd have reinforced the idea that this was designed as one-off too often for me to think otherwise without some kind of evidence. I think I also saw that rumor fly around but we’ve seen pretty much every rumor pop up.

He doesn’t seem like that kind of actor at all though, I agree. There was the whole Dr. Strange debacle of course.

Definitely designed as a one off thing from all angles creatively... but I wouldn't rule out WB themselves insisting on a 3 picture deal "just in case." I just find it hard to believe that Phoenix would sign such a thing unless he was reassured they wouldn't actually ever hold his feet to the fire on such a thing.

[Leo656]

Definitely designed as a one off thing from all angles creatively... but I wouldn't rule out WB themselves insisting on a 3 picture deal "just in case."

That's exactly what I'm saying. Historically, that is how these projects work. It is what it is.

If not direct sequels, it's generally also "_______ is under obligation to do another film of the studio's choosing." Which could theoretically be anything, up to and including a "real" Batman franchise picture.

Actors don't dictate terms. Studios do. That's all I'm saying. We don't know what the fine print says... but we do know how it works most of the time, and that's what I personally choose to lean into.

[AquaParade]

WB ("allegedly") fired Jared Leto before the opening weekend grosses for "Joker" were even finished being tallied. That tells me a lot more than whatever Phoenix has said publicly about his contract, at least on WB's end, and what WB is thinking/hoping. Actors also are generally not supposed to talk in public about such things or they can get sued out of existence. So... yeah, it's not impossible for him to have lied, or at least told a half-truth. Nobody signs up for "one movie" based on ANY comic book franchise; there's always something about options for sequels and spin-offs, because again, the studios don't want to be caught with their pants down if a movie does better than expected.

To be honest, I'm still confused as to where you place the "importance" of this film in WB's eyes. Your point early seemed to hinge on the fact that this sequel would be too big of a monster for WB to not stick their fingers in and mess with the formula. That now that they had a behemoth on their hands, they'd want to have more of a say.... but then you went on to tell me I was overestimating this film & it's sequels importance in WB's eyes, because they had other franchises to think about. Doesn't make sense. But...

- People do sign up for one movie. Being rare and being unheard of aren't the same.
- Studio's do not want to get caught with their pants down. Doesn't mean it never happens. Again, look up the Jenkins situation. I provided a clear example of WB director, in the last few years, who held out for more power & pay on the WW84 sequel after she was only signed on for 1 film.
It happened at this very studio only a few years ago. I don't see how you can look at that situation and say "nope. doesn't happen." That is fact. You can ignore it if you like, but there is pure evidence that studio's aren't always 100% prepared.

It's very likely that there is a fine print clause which says only one movie was guaranteed, but that if the movie made over X million dollars that he'd be under obligation to either do a sequel OR play the Joker in another movie of WB's choosing. THAT kind of thing happens all the time, it's standard with anything based on a pre-existing franchise that might have a long tail.

Yup. That happens all the time. But not here, likely.

We don't know. I don't know. I'm merely speculating based on Standard Operating Procedure in Hollywood. WB maybe didn't expect a billion dollars at the box office but they would NEVER sign any actor to a "one-and-done" deal for a character as famous and popular as the Joker. They'd absolutely have included a way to get him back if the movie did well. Otherwise they'd have to go crawling to him with their ass in the air and beg him to do the sequel, and studios DON'T do that. Again, that's why entertainment lawyers make so much money:to keep the power in the hands of the studios, and not whatever actor or director had a hit this month.


Man, you have this eloquent way of starting your points with "neither of us know, but actually I know this - they would NEVER...."

This is incorrect though. Here is an example of this happening at the very same studio a couple years ago. Says it better than I could -

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/wonder-woman-sequel-patty-jenkins-officially-set-return-as-director-1031052

"When the film became an immediate hit, lassoing over $103 million in its opening weekend, Jenkins and her camp found themselves in a very enviable position. Negotiations began for her return after that first weekend but dragged on even as the movie showed remarkable staying power, becoming a true (and rare for summer 2017) phenomenon.

Sources say Jenkins will receive directing and writing fees in the high seven figures (somewhere in the $7 million to $9 million range) on WW 2 but, more significantly, will have a considerable backend. The deal is a superheroic leap for Jenkins, who was paid $1 million for directing the initial WW but was looking to get something more on the level of Zack Snyder's pay after he helmed Man of Steel. Just as Wonder Woman broke barriers for superhero movies, Jenkins' deal breaks a glass ceiling for women directors."

THR - highly reputable source. Still want to deny that actors & directors never hold leverage over a studio? Maybe you're right about WB not being the brightest bunch. You don't seem to have much faith in them. Maybe that applies to their contractual arrangements. You don't think they wish their lawyers had roped in Patty for more films, before having to increase her pay by 8 million dollars, share the backend, and likely allow for more creative freedom? They didn't know what they had. They slipped. They bent their knees to bring Patty back.

And oh man, it goes even deeper! I don't want to stuff this post up with links, but everyone go ahead and check out the type of weight Gal was reportedly throwing around before signing on for Wonder Woman 84 - Because, guess what? She had a three-picture deal (BvS, Justice League, WW) so they had to play ball to sign her back on. Huh.

You're right, we are going in circles. Because you apparently believe in Wishful Thinking and taking people's words at face value. I don't, not ever, I go by what Does Happen and Has Happened, and make my predictions accordingly. I will especially NEVER defer to something someone said during a press tour as "proof" of their pure intentions. You're telling me that a billion-dollar company can't force an actor to do what they want, but I'm saying, Yes, they can, it happens all the time. You're telling me the terms of a guy's contract when neither you nor I has seen it, so your guess is as good as mine about what it says. I'm basing MY predictions on the way things actually operate in Hollywood on a daily basis, not the reassuring words of an actor doing a press tour. Especially not someone like Phoenix who has gone out of his way to lie about numerous other projects in his career, sometimes for no reason but his own amusement. Jesus, man. I'm not saying it's a good state of affairs, I'm simply saying, that's how sh*t works in The Business. I have no dog in the race otherwise.


It's confusing that you are relegating my argument to be based on "wishful thinking" when I provided the example of Joaquin's history of movie choices and the WW 84 situation. He has denied many roles because they were linked to sequels. I am using past history of Joaquin as well as context from his own words. You are using past history based on other actors.

And hey, I know you aren't trying to argue the scenario you describe is a good state of affairs. That's all good. And I'm not trying to tell you that you are necessarily wrong about the inner-workings of Hollywood. I am saying you can't take one template and apply it to every situation and just say "I know Hollywood. I know how this works. I've seen it." There are variables involved. Things don't always go the way you are imagining, 100% of the time. Haven't you ever heard of "exception to the rule"? They always exist. I've provided examples of that above. I could dig up more but this is getting a bit long in the tooth. .

[AquaParade]

Yes, there is a 1% chance that WB was stupid enough to allocate full creative control to an actor who's only had one other hit movie in his entire life, and whose last notable movie was a mockumentary about what a failure his career has been. You're right, that's possible, just like anything is possible. What I'm saying - based on factual evidence as to how movie studios actually operate and do business - is that it simply isn't very likely.

No one is saying they gave him full creative control. Although...I mean, it looks like they did though, huh? They clearly got to make the movie they want to make .Rated "R", no Batman shoehorned in, no forced sequel.

If by "control" you mean allowing him to sign up for one film, then yeah. They did do that. We all know they didn't really give a diddly about this film. The budget was way lower than normal, they weren't given as many days as they wanted to shoot, despite that small budget, and according to reliable trades, some at the studio were pretty much under the belief that the film wasn't going to actually move forward, but it somehow did. Really not that hard to believe that they weren't hawking over his contract as hard as they wish they had now.

Plus, that's the ball game Joaquin plays. If you want him, you have to play by some of his rules. The man, who's career you say wasn't going all that well, was willing to turn down millions of dollars and the role of a Marvel superhero because the contract wasn't going the way he wanted. That says something about his negotiation power and his willingness to bend to a studio's whims before walking away. Again, this is especially true if his career was as "down in the dumps" as you paint it to have been. Cause, I mean, "who's only had one other hit movie in his entire life, and whose last notable movie was a mockumentary about what a failure his career has been." does sound kind of harsh.



I don't get why that's 1. So hard to understand, and 2. Why it's so offensive to you even to consider, to the point where it seems you're getting upset with me about it. "My goodness, people LIE sometimes? Movie studios might not have scruples? WHAT ELSE haven't I been told?!" It just makes you come off as a mark. And I do believe you're smarter than that. Honest, snark-free question: Did you also believe Kevin Eastman when he said he was balls-deep in the creation of the newer TMNT films, or did you spot that for the Obvious Lie that it was? How about Cameron and "his" new Terminator flick that we know he had nothing to do with? I'm incredibly confused WHY you'd take anything any of these people say publicly at face value. I'm not being mean, I'm just saying, it's not a good look, man. Everything - everything! - is spin.

Oh, I'm not...offended? Not upset with you, at all. Where is the naivety of that quote meant to capture me coming from? I'm well aware that studios lie and play hardball. I called out Ben Affleck as lying about remaining as Batman from day 1 - not everyone did. I called out Reeve's when he was still pretending his Batman film would take place in the heart of what was the DCEU at the time. Trying to paint this as a scenario where I'm just the "naive guy who doesn't understand Hollywood" wouldn't be accurate. I follow the industry closely too. It's more about learning to weave and sift through the lies to find the truth, it's not that every single thing someone says in Hollywood has a big fat "LIE" stamp on it. That is naive.

I'm just not going to place my belief that "everyone in Hollywood is a liar" over the lethal combination of Joaquin's word, Joaquin's past actions, Todd's word, and WB's past history with Jenkins. It'd be foolish of me to ignore all that evidence.
I've actually provided quite a large amount of context to support my stance in this very post, so I'm prob beating a dead horse, by now.

Once more: You and I know exactly the same amount of information, at this point, which is not much at all. My predictions and speculation are evidence and common sense-based, while yours are seemingly based on wishful thinking and the words of people who are paid to lie. I'm sorry, but these things are not as simple as you want to believe they are.

No, see, I'm providing tons of context as to why I feel this way. From the

- Jenkins negotiations for WW84
- Joaquin's willingness to depart from MCU
- Joaquin's quotes about this being a one-off (but really, his actions speak louder than words ever could and he abandoned MCU over contract disputes)
- Todd's quotes about this being a one-off

I am using context of past history and what we have seen come to fruition as well as context from press and interviews for this film. I'm going out of my way to cite my reasoning. It's really disingenuous to say this is all my "wishful thinking". To be frank, I'm the only one of us providing any context beyond "I know Hollywood." Which I also do. You are setting me up as a strawman going off "wishful thinking", when the truth is that I am providing context for my thought process every step of the way.

The reality is, you may watch Hollywood too, but you really are going off of nothing but your perceived knowledge of the industry. I also have knowledge of the industry, as well as the context and articles I am providing.

For the last time: We'll See. As certain as I am that WB did everything they possibly could to protect themselves in the event the Joker movie did well, and the fact that they most likely DO have a substantial say in what comes next (no matter what ANYONE has said in public about it), I'm certainly not inclined to spend the rest of the week arguing about it. The last thing I'd ever do, though, personally, is take anything anyone said in a press release at face value. There's today's nickel's worth of free advice, feel free to take it or leave it.

We'll see. "for the last time" ?? Sure. We can end the debate, but if you reply to my points, I'll probably reply to yours. So I take it this is your way of saying you're done, as opposed to trying to tell me that I'm done. :)
I enjoyed the debate though.
Definitely designed as a one off thing from all angles creatively... but I wouldn't rule out WB themselves insisting on a 3 picture deal "just in case." I just find it hard to believe that Phoenix would sign such a thing unless he was reassured they wouldn't actually ever hold his feet to the fire on such a thing.

The guy who turned down millions and an evergreen role at Marvel, because he didn't want to sign on for more than one film? Yeah, I have a hard time believing that too. Sounds like wishful thinking for someone who wants a guaranteed sequel, tbh. (Not implying that's you, Leo)

Joaquin does what he wants. His actions speak louder than words.

[Coola Yagami]

Plus they kinda have to have Phoenix or they'll be stuck with a Son of Mask situation where it already sucks cause the original star didn't return for the sequel.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Gotta admit, I love these massive posts from Aqua and Leo. Great reading. Keep 'em coming, guys.

[AquaParade]

Glad you enjoy reading, CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy!**

Fresh interview! - Todd speaks on the sequel rumours:

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/todd-phillips-disputes-joker-sequel-rumors-no-contract-1202191289/

“Here’s the real truth about a sequel,” Phillips said. “While Joaquin and I have talked about it, and while touring the world with Warner Bros executives — going to Toronto, and Venice, and other places — of course, we’re sitting at dinner and they’re saying, ‘So, have you thought about…?’ But, talking about contracts, there’s not a contract for us to even write a sequel, we’ve never approached Joaquin to be in a sequel. Will that happen? Again, I just think the article was anticipatory at best.”

Nothing official yet.

Choose to believe them or not, I guess. I do.

[Leo656]

Gotta admit, I love these massive posts from Aqua and Leo. Great reading. Keep 'em coming, guys.

Nah.

/10char

[AquaParade]

Either way, as bad as I want this film, where could they even take it?

Honestly, my mind goes somewhere like Alien to Aliens, or Terminator to Terminator 2. I think you have to swerve a bit, even though it sounds like a potential huge "jump the shark" moment. But what else can you do??
I don't know. Maybe you go "Godfather'esque" operatic gangster film? What is the story there? To be honest, I'm having a hell of a fun time trying to crack the nut of what angle this next film could utilize.

There are obvious routes you could go, but they don't necessarily seem like the right ones. Dredging up Batman, for example.

Hmm. What about featuring the Joker heavily, but having the protagonist being someone in Joker's inner circle, akin to the "Joker" graphic novel by Azzarello and Bermejo.
Seeing through a new character's eyes how this type of madness can be contagious. Seeing Joker's madness spread, his reputation grow, and perhaps eventually topple over on itself, through the eyes of someone looking for a purpose or sense of home by means of Joker's "cult". Maybe there is a story there?

I'm really spitballin here, but I think it does need this type of mix-up, even if not the one I am describing.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Either way, as bad as I want this film, where could they even take it?

Honestly, my mind goes somewhere like Alien to Aliens, or Terminator to Terminator 2. I think you have to swerve a bit, even though it sounds like a potential huge "jump the shark" moment. But what else can you do??
I don't know. Maybe you go "Godfather'esque" operatic gangster film? What is the story there? To be honest, I'm having a hell of a fun time trying to crack the nut of what angle this next film could utilize.

There are obvious routes you could go, but they don't necessarily seem like the right ones. Dredging up Batman, for example.

Hmm. What about featuring the Joker heavily, but having the protagonist being someone in Joker's inner circle, akin to the "Joker" graphic novel by Azzarello and Bermejo.
Seeing through a new character's eyes how this type of madness can be contagious. Seeing Joker's madness spread, his reputation grow, and perhaps eventually topple over on itself, through the eyes of someone looking for a purpose or sense of home by means of Joker's "cult". Maybe there is a story there?

I'm really spitballin here, but I think it does need this type of mix-up, even if not the one I am describing.

I think it'd be something like Joker 2: The Riddler, or something like that. Joker's insanity inspires someone else to embrace their inner darkness, that kinda thing.

Or maybe Joker 2: Hugo Strange. THAT'D be an interesting film... Hugo Strange psychoanalyzing the clown.

[Galactus]

So you're telling me this complete one-off art house, auteur driven, "real" movie about "real" issues that is only masquerading as a major comic book movie is now getting franchised?

Well I never.

Looking forward to Joker 2: Arthur vs Grodd: Dawn of the Legion.

[Leo656]

See, maybe I'm wired different from most - very likely - but I absolutely don't find any of the speculation/wishful thinking/predicting about the possible plots of future movies "fun", and haven't for a very long time. I like to drop my two cents in like anyone else, but I definitely am long over the "Maybe they'll do THIS!/I hope they do THAT!" phase.

I learned a very long time ago that whatever I WANT them to do, they're not gonna do, and in fact, they'll probably go out of their way to do the opposite. Far, FAR too many things that I was looking forward to turned out to be sh*t. And I don't like feeling disappointed. I think "Justice League" was the last time I had any positive expectations for a movie whatsoever. And I don't even hate that movie. But it definitely made me feel like an idiot for 1. Believing the trailers, and 2. Ever being half as excited as I was.

As far as a movie's storylines, plot, whatever... I don't predict, speculate, or hope. I can do that about stuff like whether or not it will make money, get good reviews, whatever, because those things are very easy to forecast. As far as the story part goes, it's always gonna be whatever the hell they wanna do, anyway, and it's never gonna be in any way related to what makes sense (or if it's an adaptation, anything from the source material). So I'm definitely not about to start wasting neurons on pondering what the next Joker movie's story is gonna be. It doesn't matter what we think or predict. There's a very slim chance it might not even happen (although that's like, a 1% chance). Why worry about it now?

We'll find out when we find out, and that's good enough for me. I'd rather have zero expectations and be pleasantly surprised (as I was with "Joker"), than have a whole wishful scenario in my head and be pissed off when it doesn't come to pass. That's exactly why people hate the Star Wars Prequels so much, for one thing, the fact that the entire fanbase spent 20 years writing the movies in their imagination before getting something that was nothing like that. :lol: Doesn't seem healthy or productive. Too much like grade school kids at the lunch table. Thus, why my final word on any upcoming movie is always, "We'll See." That's all we know for a fact; we will, indeed see. But anything else is wasted energy, to me.

((Shrug))

[AquaParade]

I think it’s fun to discuss things. Yeah, sometimes I form expectations that can lead to initial disappointment, but that’s just a hump I have to get over. If the movie is worth my time, I’ll come around to it. The speculation and build up to a film is a lot of fun for me. I enjoy using my imagination to rack up ideas on which direction a film could take and bouncing them off of others.

I think it'd be something like Joker 2: The Riddler, or something like that. Joker's insanity inspires someone else to embrace their inner darkness, that kinda thing
Or maybe Joker 2: Hugo Strange. THAT'D be an interesting film... Hugo Strange psychoanalyzing the clown.

So you think they may bring in another famous DC villain?

Interesting. My initial reaction was to write this idea off based on the hardcore realistic sensibilities of Todd and Joaquin, but I have to remember that this is the guy (Todd) who pitched a whole DC label to Warner Bros. It’s possible there are other characters he has his eye on.

Not what I’d bet on, but I see where you’re coming from.

[Leo656]

And that's fine. I just don't see the point in being emotionally invested in this stuff. Not just you, I mean people in general. I see it daily and it's frustrating. People say they're "having fun" but really all they are doing is riding a rollercoaster of "Hope/Wish/Disappointment". If you skip A and B, then you don't end up with C.

For what it's worth, I use the same logic when people try to get me to speculate on the existence of God and/or the afterlife with them. "What are you asking me NOW for? Come find me when we're dead, by then we'll have lots to talk about. Until then, it doesn't matter, and I got actual sh*t to do." :lol:

Things we have no control over, I see no point in worrying or even thinking a great deal about. That's all I'm saying. People can feel differently if they want to. I just can't help but notice that a lot of those same people spend a lot of time whining that the thing they were looking forward to didn't turn out like they wanted it to. And in my heart, I know those people would have been happier if they didn't have such high hopes or expectations in the first place, and simply took things for what they are rather than what they are not.

And there's your Moment Of Zen. :tgrin:

[AquaParade]

Yeah. I honestly feel a slave to my expectations at times. My experience with something depends as much on my expectation of it as it does the actual quality of said experience, if that makes sense.
Pretty much, anyway.

Low expectations have yielded some really surprising and awesome moments in my life. But yeah, I enjoy the build up too much and anything worth experiencing will stand on its own merits, is basically where I’m at.

[Leo656]

True story: I went on a really awesome mental health retreat a while back, and it was incredibly liberating. I highly recommend it as an experience. It's like getting your brain taken out, scrubbed clean and put back in. I think it's something every single adult should go through at one point or another.

But one of the things that stuck with me the most was the phrase, "Expectations are the first step towards disappointment." We all have expectations - in things, in people, in our relationships, etc. - and when things don't go the way they're "supposed" to go, we get pissed off, upset, depressed. To this day, whenever I get frustrated, I remember one of the counselors there saying, over and over again, "Well, if you didn't EXPECT things to turn out a certain way, you might still be frustrated, but not AS frustrated. Don't expect... Accept." Sounds corny, but it works!

As cynical as I come across in text, in Real Life I'm an incredibly "sunny" person who merely has an affection for gallows humor. I've just learned to keep my expectations low, because that way, I'm constantly surprised rather than let down. It's difficult to rewire one's brain, though. Our entire culture is about "expectations". I mean, look at websites that talk about movies, for example, with all the "Ten Things To Expect From ____ Movie" lists, and so on, getting people excited about "possibilities" while setting people up for heartbreak when those things don't come true. But it isn't healthy. Especially in things we can't control.

I mean, I "expected" Darkseid in Justice League because I was flat-out f*cking told to expect Darkseid. :lol: And it was bullsh*t! Everything those trailers promised was a lie. Heartbreaking. So now, with any movie, I just wait and see for myself. Might be good, might be bad... I'll worry about it once I get there. :)
---------------

I also heard that the story about Todd Philips pitching all the villain origin movies to WB was a lie. So who knows? That's the thing, we don't "know" anything, and everything we hear contradicts the last thing we heard, so I just can't be bothered to even care, this early in the game. Every single article about "Joker 2" has been "Updated" a dozen times with, "This was reported false, oh wait, NOW it might be true, Variety says this, while the guy who cuts Phoenix's hair says this..." :lol: It's like... whatever, man, wake me up when it happens. Until then, all smoke.

Given all the "announcements" about WB DC movies in the last 5 years - I think, like, two of them turned out to be real? - it's very obvious to me that every few weeks, WB themselves "leaks" information just to see how we react to it. 99% of their promises don't come true. None of those movies is ever coming out (and stuff that does like "Birds of Prey" is looking pretty terrible). I will save every drop of energy and emotion for the day I'm actually in the theater. Until then... yawn. :trazz:

I still read the "news" because I'm curious like everyone else, but as to actually caring... I'll care when there's something tangible to care about, y'know? :)

[Andrew NDB]

Looks like it's happening.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/brief-joker-2-wakanda-series-updates/

[Hamato Yoshi]

Barbra didn't want to do those films (except Funny Girl) early in her career but she had sgd a contract so.......Connery agreed to do 007 DAF if they also financed 2 other films which they did , Sean felt Cubby/Harry kinda cheated him and he wanted to be a 007 prod too

[Coola Yagami]

Until an actual trailer comes out that convinces me otherwise, I kinda don't want or even need a sequel. Joker was perfect as a one in done. Not everything needs a sequel.

Like I just didn't see Arthur as a criminal mastermind. All of this weird **** just kinda happened to him... but it was still a great story and it was entertaining. It's basically a man who snapped and became similar to the Joker, but I don't see Arthur planning overcomplicated death traps, robbing banks and slicing his face off.

[AquaParade]

Again, Ari Aster could direct the hell out of this. I'm dying to see what Todd Phillips will do, but mostly out of genuine curiosity. I'm not counting on him catching lightning in a bottle twice, if I'm honest, but I'll be there to see him try on day-1. Watch me change my tune as soon as the first trailer drops.

I'd be truly excited if they got Aster on board though. He has already directed some of the creepiest movies ever, and Joker deserves anything but a typical sequel. I'd love to see the sequel delve into the same territory as the recent A24 horror films. It has more in common with those than anything else, now that I think about it. They're often "horror" films, centered around characters and their psychosis, as well as family drama.

I'd want to see Aster bring just a hint, or a pinch of a supernatural element to the table. They've already provided the idea that Arthur is an unreliable narrator, so why not bring in a master of horror and suspense to take advantage of that fact? It even allows you to play with the Batman element without going overboard into that territory and becoming a Batman movie. Batman doesn't necessarily need to be real. Or at least proven to be real.

Another angle that I'd also be interested in would be seeing the sequel from another character's perspective. Wouldn't even mind if it was Jim Gordon tracking him down. Seeing the character from an outside point of view. It might be necessary with how batshit the ending to the first one is. Hardly anything makes sense when you think about it. There are gaping holes in Joker's story for sure.

[Andrew NDB]

Title revealed:

https://www.ign.com/articles/joker-2-confirmed-folie-a-deux-title-revealed?utm_source=facebook

[Andrew NDB]

Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn?

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/joker-2-lady-gaga-star-sequel-dc-joaquin-phoenix/

[Coola Yagami]

Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn?

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/joker-2-lady-gaga-star-sequel-dc-joaquin-phoenix/

Already ruined.

That trailer BETTER be good.

[AquaParade]

The idea of a sequel with Harley Quinn doesn't excite me, but after the first film, I'm still looking forward to whatever they do. Latest rumor is that it's part musical. Sounds about right, in the insane sort of way.

[Leo656]

Well that all sounds f*cking horrible. :lol:

That'd be a great way to ensure I never see it, though. Both of those things. I don't really do musicals, and I absolutely f*cking loathe Gaga. She's ugly, and her entire gimmick worked better the first time around when it was called "Madonna's Entire Career".

More and more, it feels like WB wants to do everything possible to ensure that they NEVER get another dime outta me. :lol: The laser-focused precision with which they make decisions seemingly for no reason other than to aggravate Me, and Only Me, is really quite alarming.

I don't have Siri or any of that sh*t. So I have no idea how they keep finding out things I hate and making it a point to do exactly those things. It's creepy, man.

[Andrew NDB]

Well, whatever they do with this, with or without Lady Gaga, it's still going to be more interesting than The Batman. Or The Batman 2.

I don't really have a problem with Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn. Maybe 10-15 years ago would be a little bit better... but she's kind of born to play that role. She can act and has well in the past. Plus this is made-up, nonsense Batman universe that doesn't matter, so who cares?

[AquaParade]

The Batman 2 is going to kick ass. Stoked we are getting sequels to both of these. Couldn't be happier about it, personally. I do feel for everyone who can't get on with these versions but oh well.

I think both of those films are great with a lot of room for improvement. If they can both step up their game, it's going to make for an incredible year of comic films when they release.

Lmao, watch them cast Depp in one of these to make up for Fantastic Beasts. I don't really care either way but the thought is already cracking me up.

[Andrew NDB]

I do feel for everyone who can't get on with these versions but oh well.

Why?

Lmao, watch them cast Depp in one of these to make up for Fantastic Beasts. I don't really care either way but the thought is already cracking me up.

Why would they feel the need to "make up" for anything? They don't want him in anything. Even vindicated he's too controversial now and would poison a movie's marketing campaign.

[Leo656]

Plus this is made-up, nonsense Batman universe that doesn't matter, so who cares?

Well, exactly. Why Should I Give A Sh*t? And I don't.

First one was "fine" as a one-and-done, but even on the second viewing it was like, "Yeah, wow, people are so easily amused anymore if they think this is anything more than Taxi Driver in clownface". Not a single original idea anywhere to be found, and all of its "brilliance" is in the gimmick of "Let's do a movie about a comic book character... (dramatic pause) except that we DON'T make it a 'comic book movie'! Eh? Ehhhhhh?!" It ain't "bad", but if that thing is a modern masterpiece of cinema then it only serves to illustrate how far standards have fallen, because it's completely f*cking mundane after you've already watched it once.

For all its self-importance, it doesn't even feel like it has anything to say. "Life is hard for poor people?" Yeah, we know. "Rich people can be slimy?" Yeah, we know. "Society makes life difficult for the mentally ill?" Yeah, we know. We know all of that because movies existed before This One showed up and shined a light on ALL of those things so eloquently. It all comes off like the stoner ramblings of a college-aged kid who's just had his first Sociology class and suddenly figured out that Life Isn't Fair, and he just has to tell you ALL the reasons Why That Is. It's insufferable on long car rides, it's insufferable at Denny's at 3am, and it's not a whole lot more endearing when stretched over three hours of a movie.

I probably come off like I hate it, but I actually don't. I liked it enough to buy it. It's just my natural reaction whenever things become supremely overrated simply because they exist in a time and place where everything around them is SO bad that the mundane becomes "brilliant" simply by not being as awful as everything else. And that's what "Joker" is; it's a "decent" movie that gets elevated to being "a brilliant movie" not because it actually IS that, but rather simply because most movies that come out nowadays are TRULY awful. Therefore anything NOT awful suddenly deserves an Oscar.

Also, Harley Quinn can f*ck off forever as far as I'm concerned. The oversaturation of the character in recent years has me no longer even caring about how hot she generally is. I'm just SO sick of her by now. I get that it's natural territory for a sequel to go into, so that's fine. I'm just over it.

OOOOH! OHHHH! Maybe "Harley" isn't even real! Maybe she's all just a figment of his imagination, like the "relationship" he had with the chick in the first one was! "Brilliant!" :lol:

I just saved y'all ten bucks for the sequel, that's the Shocking Third Act Plot Twist. :trazz: "Harley's just another hallucination". Would we be shocked, though? Honestly?
-----------------------

Aside from all that, though, I'm just completely bored with yet another "gritty and real" take on the Batman mythos. I'm so over all that sh*t. All I ever cared about seeing in Batman movies was Actual Comic Book Stuff. I went along with the Nolan-verse because it was the best we were ever gonna get and it works fine in its own arena, but now that comic book movies actually do Actual Comic Book Stuff on a regular basis, I'm fed up with not getting that with Batman. We got five whole minutes of it thanks to Snyder and now all anyone wants to do is go back to sucking all the fantasy out of it again. F*cking YAWN. No f*cks given about This Thing, no f*cks given about The Batman 2, no more f*cks to give AT ALL about "realistic, real-world, no fantasy, no whimsy, no-fun-at-all" Batman movies. Wake me up when they go back to doing Actual Comic Book Stuff. That's when I'll give a sh*t. People who think Batman is cool because "he's realistic", and that his world would somehow work BETTER if it were "more realistic" are completely missing the point of things.

Batman's not even a realistic character in the first place, what with his Infinite Money and God Mode cheats being constantly turned on ever since Grant Morrison got his hands on him back in the 90s. But he never was "realistic" to begin with. Which is why the never-ending push to "make it More Real" rings so jarringly false. All you get with that approach are worse-looking costumes and dumber origin stories.

There's a bit of a line most people seem to not recognize, with regard to "Being More Realistic" and "Striving For Realism" and the subtle but important distinction between those two things. With regard to super-heroes, the former is something you can attempt but the latter is just plain silly. There is nothing at all realistic about super-heroes, not even Batman. Which is why "Make everything 100% True To Life" is just boring and misguided. Conversely, "Being More Realistic" without "striving for realism" would be something like, for example, "Man of Steel" framing Superman's emergence as a First Contact story, because naturally that's what it would be. It's still not "realistic", though, because we have flying aliens shooting laser beams and spaceships that can move between folds in space/time. A Superman movie that "strives for realism" would be just f*cking awful, but "being more realistic" serves to elevate the material by bringing it out of being a simple fairy tale.

It's a bit of a nuanced point, I'll grant. Most people just see the word "Realistic" and assume it's an all-or-nothing game, but it really isn't. You can be "more realistic" and make the material more relatable to people who don't read comics, but actually "BEING Realistic" is simply not the right way to do super-heroes, because everything about them is fantasy wish-fulfillment. The "make it Real Life" angle is only pushed by people who are ashamed of the source material and wish it were "actual literature". Well, it's not.

It's whatever, if people want Batman movies with all the fun stuff taken out so it's just a guy in SWAT gear getting in back alley fistfights instead of joining a Fight Club, good for them I guess. I personally just want Actual Batman Movies. When those start happening, I'll care. Until then... yawn. All just different people trying to out-Nolan Nolan. Not new, not fun, not interesting. Not to me, anyway.

[superstaff]

Well that all sounds f*cking horrible. :lol:

That'd be a great way to ensure I never see it, though. Both of those things. I don't really do musicals, and I absolutely f*cking loathe Gaga. She's ugly, and her entire gimmick worked better the first time around when it was called "Madonna's Entire Career".

More and more, it feels like WB wants to do everything possible to ensure that they NEVER get another dime outta me. :lol: The laser-focused precision with which they make decisions seemingly for no reason other than to aggravate Me, and Only Me, is really quite alarming.


I think this applies to us both, my friend. :lol: At least you enjoyed the Snyder DCEU stuff. I've disliked most of WB's DC stuff after 2008. Most of it, but even when they do something I end up enjoying, they make sure to ruin the sequels for them.

Which leads me to...

The Batman 2 is going to kick ass. Stoked we are getting sequels to both of these. Couldn't be happier about it, personally. I do feel for everyone who can't get on with these versions but oh well.

I'm probably the only other person on TF who enjoyed The Batman, but even I'm not super excited for the sequel because, knowing WB's track record, I'm expecting a train wreck for the sequel. I'd love to be wrong just like I was wrong about The Batman being Suckfest 2022, however I don't trust Warner Bros at all. I expect The Batman 2 to star Billie Eilish as Poison Ivy and Kanye West as Mr. Freeze, along with LeBron James as Bane, and Michael Keaton dropping in for a cameo too because he's going to be in all the DC movies from now on.

[AquaParade]

Why?



Why would they feel the need to "make up" for anything? They don't want him in anything. Even vindicated he's too controversial now and would poison a movie's marketing campaign.

A. Because it sucks to not like things and the people who dislike these films....really dislike them to the point they bring them up out of nowhere.
Sort of like being a TMNT fan and being served PD films, for those people, I suppose.

B. Just seems like a WB thing to do - sway to public opinion.

[Andrew NDB]

Aside from all that, though, I'm just completely bored with yet another "gritty and real" take on the Batman mythos.

I used to want that, after Batman & Robin. And then we got it with Batman Begins. The itch was scratched. I certainly wasn't left wanting to see a doubling down on that. No, I wanted to see the larger than life stuff in the Batman mythos brought to life, but properly now. A world where it wouldn't be weird to see him wrestling with a monstrous Killer Croc or Clayface, not spray-painting his mansion and wearing an REI outfit with a $300 Amazon squirrel suit.

Snyder's "take" on Batman isn't exactly what I'd prefer to see but it's worlds closer than this sh**. And I would bet the farm even the Affleck/Johns script was more exciting and interesting than The Batman we got.

B. Just seems like a WB thing to do - sway to public opinion.

Ah. Well that's a decent enough point, then.

[AquaParade]

I'd be sick of realistic Batman too if it wasn't so well done. I don't like it for being grounded, but I'm fine with it when it looks and sounds this good, and full of emotional weight.
So I'm cool with the grounded aspect.

But I want to see the other elements represented in live action too. I don't even feel like we are lacking that though. Since Nolan, we've seen him fight Superman, other aliens, weird alternate dimension creatures. It's not like the Snyder take was grounded.

We also get to see two versions of Batman hopping between universes next year in Flash, god willing. So it's not like Reeve's Batman is holding a monopoly on the live action Batman, and keeping it all grounded.

Look, I wouldn't mind a solo Batman story where he takes on the supernatural, but it's actually been fairly balanced.

[Andrew NDB]

Look, I wouldn't mind a solo Batman story where he takes on the supernatural, but it's actually been fairly balanced.

Though if we have to make a new mini, self-contained Batman universe every time we want to see him in a different genre/atmosphere we're not really doing any balancing. It's just making different Batmans. Batman should be versatile. One Batman.

Like TMNT. Mirage TMNT. You can plug them into aliens and outer space, supernatural stuff, urban ninja violence... and it all works, and it all makes them that much more interesting.

[Sumac]

Like TMNT. Mirage TMNT. You can plug them into aliens and outer space, supernatural stuff, urban ninja violence... and it all works, and it all makes them that much more interesting.
Yet, outside of rare exceptions, no-one knows what to make of them, because, of it.

[Andrew NDB]

Yet, outside of rare exceptions, no-one knows what to make of them, because, of it.

But that's their fault.

[AquaParade]

Though if we have to make a new mini, self-contained Batman universe every time we want to see him in a different genre/atmosphere we're not really doing any balancing. It's just making different Batmans. Batman should be versatile. One Batman.

Like TMNT. Mirage TMNT. You can plug them into aliens and outer space, supernatural stuff, urban ninja violence... and it all works, and it all makes them that much more interesting.

I don't see the need to have only one Batman. I like the variety. I love that we have one version leaning into the grounded, "Year One" take on the character, and another where he is saving the earth from an alien invasion and hopping between universes. It's great.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Batman that does it all, but this allows filmmakers to lean into their strengths and also more easily creates a cohesive world.

Anyway, first Joker was awesome. Loved the thick atmosphere and the bold take. I hope they nailed a better script this time, because there is massive potential and room for improvement. Again, Harley Quinn and the music angle don't excite me, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Especially if Joaquin is agreeing to it - the man is picky.

[Andrew NDB]

A couple weeks old news, but yes, Lady Gaga is confirmed as Harley Quinn in it:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/phoenix-gaga-officially-set-for-joker-sequel/

[Andrew NDB]

First photo of Gaga as Harley:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/first-photo-lady-gaga-in-joker-folie-a-deux/

[Cowabung-Gal]

My guess is, Harley will murder Sophie Dumond (the single mom next door whom Arthur fantasized being in a relationship with) out of pure jealousy since he really can’t stop thinking about her, even as he and Harley are growing closer.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

First photo of Gaga as Harley:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/first-photo-lady-gaga-in-joker-folie-a-deux/

Yeah...this image is giving me bad vibes.

[Andrew NDB]

Is this going to be the Rob Zombie version of Harley Quinn?

[AquaParade]

To me, “Joker” still felt like a movie about the character I recognize from the comics, despite the liberties it took. Not everyone felt that way, but to me it was 100% recognizable as a Joker story.

I’m actually wondering if I’ll feel the same way about this one or if it’s going to end up feeling completely like it’s own thing by branching out into music, Gaga, and general mental illness. Could still make for a good movie, but I’m a little tepid about this one. Idk if it will hit the same for me. My hype will be determined by the trailer, I suppose.

Pic looks good though. Is it just me or does Joaquin look chunky here? I know he lost a bunch of weight for the role but maybe he put some back on for other scenes.

[Coola Yagami]

To me, “Joker” still felt like a movie about the character I recognize from the comics, despite the liberties it took. Not everyone felt that way, but to me it was 100% recognizable as a Joker story.

I’m actually wondering if I’ll feel the same way about this one or if it’s going to end up feeling completely like it’s own thing by branching out into music, Gaga, and general mental illness. Could still make for a good movie, but I’m a little tepid about this one. Idk if it will hit the same for me. My hype will be determined by the trailer, I suppose.

Pic looks good though. Is it just me or does Joaquin look chunky here? I know he lost a bunch of weight for the role but maybe he put some back on for other scenes.

In-universe, it could be Arkham is feeding him good. He would finally have a stable place with stable meals, and they wouldn't allow him to starve himself.

[AquaParade]

In-universe, it could be Arkham is feeding him good. He would finally have a stable place with stable meals, and they wouldn't allow him to starve himself.

Good guess. The other pic they showed was of him being shaved in Arkham but he looked skinny. I could be imagining the weight in this new pic or maybe there is a passage of time.

Definitely leans into the Gacy vibes even harder if he ends up putting on weight though.

[Andrew NDB]

There might have been something to a Joker 2 where the Joker embraces his influence on people and somehow believably veers into "deranged criminal mastermind." If he meets Harley Quinn along the way, sure.

Now, singing and dancing, blah blah mental illness thing in Arkham Asylum? That doesn't really pique my interest.

[Sumac]

Eh, I like idea of a musical. In fact, some of my favorite stuff in Batman 89 were Joker's musical numbers. If they Philips will strike similar feeling it will be gold.

[Andrew NDB]

Eh, I like idea of a musical. In fact, some of my favorite stuff in Batman 89 were Joker's musical numbers.

Oh, if it's stuff like that then that's fine. But if it's like the movie pauses and breaks the fourth wall to deliver musical dancing stuff that's going to be annoying.

[AquaParade]

I'm still very curious about the musical aspect. I think it could be something special, but if it robs the movie of tension in the plot or the occasional frightening scene, than I'll probably be disappointed.

But hey, I'm glad they are going big, if that's where their imagination is taking them.

[ChosenOne]

Well, Joker's best moment in Arkham Knight is a musical act, so...

[Cowabung-Gal]

wfyDp5WGuFQ

[Andrew NDB]

It wrapped.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/joker-sequel-wraps-with-new-photos/

[Autbot_Benz]

xy8aJw1vYHo

[IMJ]

On one hand this is brilliant. On the other hand we get this nonsense but we can't get a solid Affleck Batman movie.

[Andrew NDB]

For a moment in time it sounded like we were in a good place. While Matt Reeves would still make his nonsense Batman movies, we were going to get Affleck's Batman on HBO Max. The "optimistic" Cavill Superman movie. A WW3 that hopefully would have learned from 1984's failings.

[IMJ]

For a moment in time it sounded like we were in a good place. While Matt Reeves would still make his nonsense Batman movies, we were going to get Affleck's Batman on HBO Max. The "optimistic" Cavill Superman movie. A WW3 that hopefully would have learned from 1984's failings.

Stephen Amell's rant about liking actual "content" more than "announcements" in regards to James Gunn was hysterical...

If that other guy wasn't a psychopath he would still be posting here somehow going on about James Gunn's film slate announced 2-years ago now and nothing accomplished.

[tmntpower1988]

wfyDp5WGuFQ

6iSYAV2lp5c

[Andrew NDB]

Stephen Amell's rant about liking actual "content" more than "announcements" in regards to James Gunn was hysterical...

If that other guy wasn't a psychopath he would still be posting here somehow going on about James Gunn's film slate announced 2-years ago now and nothing accomplished.

"The slate! The slate! The slate!"

[BornAgain]

"The slate! The slate! The slate!"

Was that the slate where you said it was made up of “D-listers”, even though it’s Superman, Batman & Robin, Supergirl, andSwamp Thing?

Not a bad read….

https://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=65733

The thread shows you and IMJ vehemently refusing that the slate includes Batman and Robin, even though it was explicitly stated in the announcement. Lots of other crazy arguments in there as well.

[Andrew NDB]

Oh god, not this again.

No, Swamp Thing is definitely not A or B list. Or the Creature Commandos. Or Booster Gold, even though I like him. And just because Batman is featured prominently in Brave & The Bold does not make it a new Batman movie, proper.

[BornAgain]

Swamp Thing is definitely not A or B list. Or the Creature Commandos. Or Booster Gold, even though I like him.

IMO, any slate including Batman and Robin, Superman, and Green Lantern would be hard to describe a slate of “D-listers”. Brave and the Bold is a Batman movie.

The others are debatable. If you don’t read comics then those others are basically unknowns. Some have quite the legacy in the books.

I don’t see the argument for this being a D-list state though. It has Batman, Superman, Robin, and GL.

There are definitely some lesser-known characters on there, I’ll give you that. Booster Gold is pretty obscure and even I don’t know Creature Commandos. Whether that’s a good or bad thing becomes a different discussion.

[IMJ]

Was that the slate where you said it was made up of “D-listers”, even though it’s Superman, Batman & Robin, Supergirl, andSwamp Thing?

Not a bad read….

https://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=65733

The thread shows you and IMJ vehemently refusing that the slate includes Batman and Robin, even though it was explicitly stated in the announcement. Lots of other crazy arguments in there as well.

No, no, no you don't get it. There was a lot of gaslighting and word twisting going on there so we ran with it for the most part. Part of that gaslighting was the narrative that I refused that the slate included Batman, which I never did. I just argued that a Brave and the Bold movie, given the rest of the slate, was a Batman vehicle and not a "Batman movie" - could just turn out like Batman appearing in Suicide Squad, albeit a bit more than a cameo.

Basically once the discussion lost all nuance because of another clown user, we let it implode well beyond what the initial points really were. Not that I expected the sociopath we were discussing it with to see that - he just kept gong off the rails until he bugged up so badly that he needed vengeance by trying to weaponize my picture - something I'm waiting patiently to bump into you... err him someday over.

Oh god, not this again.

No, Swamp Thing is definitely not A or B list. Or the Creature Commandos. Or Booster Gold, even though I like him. And just because Batman is featured prominently in Brave & The Bold does not make it a new Batman movie, proper.

Pretty much that, but it wouldn't matter how succinctly we put it, BornAgain... errr.... AquaParade just kept on buggin' up.

JUUuusssttt Kidding, BornAgain. Just kidding. :) Or am I?

[BornAgain]

No, no, no you don't get it. There was a lot of gaslighting and word twisting going on there so we ran with it for the most part.

Basically once the discussion lost all nuance because of another clown user, we let it implode well beyond what the initial points really were. Not that I expected the sociopath we were discussing it with to see that - he just kept gong off the rails until he bugged up so badly that he needed vengeance by trying to weaponize my picture - something I'm waiting patiently to bump into you... err him someday over.



Pretty much that, but it wouldn't matter how succinctly we put it, BornAgain... errr.... AquaParade just kept on buggin' up.

JUUuusssttt Kidding, BornAgain. Just kidding. :) Or am I?

That’s a can of worms.

I’m just saying that I disagree with the implication that this is a D-list slate. Superman, Batman, Robin, GL, and a few others hold too much weight for it to be considered that imo.

And to be fair you guys are seen going off in that thread about Batman not being a part of it, which was confirmed information right off the bat. So it’s technically incorrect to argue otherwise.

It seems like part of the “D-list” opinion was driven by the misunderstanding that Batman was not featured in the slate, but I can’t really say. I just think it’s inaccurate to refer to this as a slate of D-listers. Not a strong argument imo, but it’s all subjective I suppose.

[Autbot_Benz]

_OKAwz2MsJs?si=MWrHmhkNnkUgdG2d

[ZariusTwo]

Film's ending

Arthur goes on trial, he admits his wrong-doing and says all he wants is human connection, as long as he has that, he doesn't need to be the Joker any longer, Harvey Dent is the prosecutor, Arthur's followers set off a bomb. Arthur survives and reunites with Harley, but she rejects him as he no longer wants to be the Joker. She was only ever in love with his persona

Back at the asylum, an inmate stabs Arthur and proceeds to give himself a 'glasgow smile', inspired by the man Arthur used to be. It's implied this inmate becomes the Joker we are familiar with

[Andrew NDB]

Film's ending

Arthur goes on trial, he admits his wrong-doing and says all he wants is human connection, as long as he has that, he doesn't need to be the Joker any longer, Harvey Dent is the prosecutor, Arthur's followers set off a bomb. Arthur survives and reunites with Harley, but she rejects him as he no longer wants to be the Joker. She was only ever in love with his persona

Back at the asylum, an inmate stabs Arthur and proceeds to give himself a 'glasgow smile', inspired by the man Arthur used to be. It's implied this inmate becomes the Joker we are familiar with

Huh. Interesting.

[ZariusTwo]

xfDDp7NipYk

[sdp]

I watched it. I enjoyed Joker 2 (https://miscrave.com/articles/joker/). It's better than the average superhero slop, I like how experimental it is. Sadly it doesn't quite reach its potential.
I think they should've leaned more on the musical aspect and the fantasy/reality ambiguity.

Most people didn't understand the movie. They complain about Lady gaga but she's literally meant to be an avatar of the audience.
wanting Arthur to be Joker and being disappointed when he isn't who she thought he was

[RaphaelinSTL]

Joker: Folie a Deux is baffling, bizarre and I kind of loved it? What a complete troll of a movie and one that is actively trying to get you to hate it and piss you off. I mean this in the best possible way

[Andrew NDB]

Most people didn't understand the movie. They complain about Lady gaga but she's literally meant to be an avatar of the audience.
wanting Arthur to be Joker and being disappointed when he isn't who she thought he was

This might be the only astute post I've ever seen you make on the board.

[Coola Yagami]

So... that was a movie... and a fun outing.... and the popcorn was good.

[ZariusTwo]

39% on RT.

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

[Coola Yagami]

39% on RT.

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

I mean, it's to be expected. It kinda undoes everything and goes in the complete opposite direction of where people were expecting this to go.

But in all honestly, the way Fleck was portrayed in the first film, it would have been too high of a leap to see how he went from that to the criminal mastermind we all know. It should have just been left to the imagination.

[RaphaelinSTL]

I was totally reminded of GG Allin's last performance alive when the people at the courthouse got a confused Arthur Fleck into their taxi and drove off.

It's been almost a day and I can't stop thinking about it. I'm shocked this got the green light and was released as is at the price tag it's reported as.

What a mean-spirited movie. Complete misery porn in a way that gets you lost in its despair. It's the cinematic equivalent of having a really sad wank and the only thing you have to clean yourself off of is your DC Comics blanket from when you were younger.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I read the plot. Sounds like it sucks and is a big middle finger to everyone who grew to love Arthur in the first film.

Not gonna watch it, and I'll enjoy Joker 2019 as a standalone movie like it was originally intended.

[Andrew NDB]

The best thing they could have done was make The Batman also set in the 80s (why not?) and groom this Joker as the Joker of that universe. Make a sort of "this is the grounded, noir alternate 80s DCEU." Now they're all going to be nothing movies that amount to nothing.

Also, am I to understand the general consensus is... not only does Lady Gaga not really help or elevate anything here, but actively harms it?

[Coola Yagami]

The anti-woke crowd is alleging that the powers at be didn't like the fact that 'the wrong people' loved the first movie and made it a success, so they tore everything from the first movie down in this one, almost as if punish us for sympathizing with Arthur in the first movie.

To be honest I do remember the woke crowd frothing at the mouth back in the day when the Joker was a success. Back then the woke media was almost hoping for an incel shooting or whatever so they could point at the movie to blame it on, and were upset that nothing ever happened. That's ****ing sick, wishing for the sacrifice of innocent lives just to prove a point.

Alternate take is the director purposely self-sabotaging since he was forced to make a sequel he didn't want to do for a movie he clearly intended to be a stand alone film.

[Andrew NDB]

Alternate take is the director purposely self-sabotaging since he was forced to make a sequel he didn't want to do for a movie he clearly intended to be a stand alone film.

It might seem that way but there have been several articles/interviews with the director since the first one came out about conversations he'd strike up with Joachim about ideas for a sequel. If I had to guess, the first movie was made for the critics and this one was made for him.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

The anti-woke crowd is alleging that the powers at be didn't like the fact that 'the wrong people' loved the first movie and made it a success, so they tore everything from the first movie down in this one, almost as if punish us for sympathizing with Arthur in the first movie.

I wonder if the release of the movie is meant to co-incide with the upcoming election, since the first Joker was a huge hit among anti-woke right wingers and MAGA Nationalists, so this sequel is trying to demoralise them instead.

[Coola Yagami]

It's annoying how everything has to he political to the point where if it's not, it must be for the MAGA crowd.

It reminds me of when the first Godzilla vs Kong movie made money but, you know, it was just a movie without any woke messaging or whatnot, the articles were saying things to the effect that 'movies like these make money because they cater to Trump supporters'.

Like my God. Not every ****ing thing has to be tied to Trump, wether for or against. Geez.

[IMJ]

Ten million amazing things that DC could be doing and instead they are making Joker musicals and Creature Commandos.

[Andrew NDB]

I wonder if the release of the movie is meant to co-incide with the upcoming election, since the first Joker was a huge hit among anti-woke right wingers and MAGA Nationalists

Was it, though? The first Joker was all about "eat the rich."

And so that's what happens? We meet "The Real Joker" at the end? pffft. Stupid! Isn't that exactly what that stupid Gotham show did? "This guy is the Joker! Plot twist, no, he INSPIRES the REAL Joker!"

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Was it, though? The first Joker was all about "eat the rich."

That message reasonates among poor whites who despise the liberal elites.

[Andrew NDB]

That message reasonates among poor whites who despise the liberal elites.

I thought it was 99% poor, miserable lefties who despise millionaires and billionaires?

[Coola Yagami]

So now that the weekend passed, what was the over-under?

[Cowabung-Gal]

Was it, though? The first Joker was all about "eat the rich."

My first impression was that Antifa was the crowd of angry rioting clowns. I mean, is Todd wrong, especially about the “clown” part?

[Andrew NDB]

My first impression was that Antifa was the crowd of angry rioting clowns. I mean, is Todd wrong, especially about the “clown” part?

I mean, yeah, those definitely aren't the "Proud Boys" or the NRA or something.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Glad to see this piece of trash bombing hard.

They insulted the fans and told them they were wrong for loving Arthur. And the fans fought back.

[Barkworm]

Deadline is projecting an 82 per cent drop in its second weekend. HOLY SH*T!!!

[Zulithe]

There is one clown movie should be seeing in theaters right now and it's not Joker 2. It's Terrifier 3.

zaPcin5knJk

[tmntpower1988]

There is one clown movie should be seeing in theaters right now and it's not Joker 2. It's Terrifier 3.

zaPcin5knJk

That movie was nuts, I watched it last night. That was my first seeing a Terrifier movie.

[Zulithe]

That movie was nuts, I watched it last night. That was my first seeing a Terrifier movie.
All Hallow's Eve is his first appearance. Not the best, super super low budget but still interesting.

Terrifier 1 is pretty good but it's Terrifier 2 where the series really starts to take off, it saw a huge quality boost over the first film. I recommend watching the other ones.

[tmntpower1988]

All Hallow's Eve is his first appearance. Not the best, super super low budget but still interesting.

Terrifier 1 is pretty good but it's Terrifier 2 where the series really starts to take off, it saw a huge quality boost over the first film. I recommend watching the other ones.

I was planning to, I wonder when that 'The Bloody Duo' 4K steelbook is coming out? The Zavvi site says that the release date is the 25th November but on the HMV site the release date is the 3rd February 2025?