Messages

Nicely done! Really cleans up the action and demonstrates how much better the editing should have been on this film. You know I always wondered if it would have been interesting to open the scene with the camera panning over the museum skylight then intermix with Freeze taking over the museum as Batman and Robin race to the Batmobile to get there. That way they could cut out all of the Alfred dialogue and just show them in route as Freeze attacks.

During this pandemic, it seems going into the vaults to pull out director cuts of popular films would be a no-brainer to generate income where actors are not needed. It would be interesting not only to see BF, but honestly to see if there was a different cut available for B&R. With Schumacher gone now, it likely wouldn't be considered his vision though. As much as he felt inclined to apologize for it, I gotta believe had he been given the green light to re-edit it and add footage left out, it would register entirely different. A missed opportunity.

Good points Dark Knight and I definitely felt allot of that as I watched it the first time. What I thought was ingenious by Todd Phillips is how he took the comic elements and essentially incorporated those as something you could take literally or as something completely contrived in Arthur's imagination.

Exactly. A great victory for JOKER is how it is a character study and addresses societal issues, but also maintains the character's sense of mystery by introducing the unreliable narrator component. It's a great balance that doesn't diminish the Joker's appeal, allowing them to have their cake and eat it too, in a way that doesn't feel like an unsatisfying copout.

Oh you're 100% right. I didn't think that could be done (under any pretext) and Todd Phillips pulled it off. Bro fist pump and a high five you get from me. But you saw the tight rope Phillips had to walk to get there.   So here's the question... Do you make a sequel which thereby eliminates the multi-faceted question left hanging or do you let the film reside as a stand alone?

Even though the comic nerd in me is screaming to have a sequel to see Arthur match wits with Bruce Wayne grown up as Batman, the flip side loves the freedom this film gives to be it's own animal. It can be both social commentary AND a origin without the obligatory run out of sequels that can drain it of it's originality.

Good points Dark Knight and I definitely felt allot of that as I watched it the first time. What I thought was ingenious by Todd Phillips is how he took the comic elements and essentially incorporated those as something you could take literally or as something completely contrived in Arthur's imagination.

As the film unfolds, every element that is a component of Batman's origin is presented in its raw form for Arthur to concoct as a tale for himself. His mother dressing Thomas Wayne up as this "good man" who is a "protector of the city" and the only one who can "save us". Then you have Thomas Wayne himself essentially defining good vs evil and placing the events Arthur was involved in as that of a cowardly criminal with no life. You can see how resentful he is at Wayne dressing him down without knowing his circumstances, so it sets the stage for him to build up these ideas in his head.

Then Arthur see's Bruce Wayne, who of course slides down a pole from his playset as he comes over to meet him. The attendant (or possibly the butler) intervenes keeping Arthur away and acting as if the estate has something to hide. All of these are building blocks to the Batman myth. That's why Arthur is snickering at the end when he appears to be envisioning Bruce standing at the dead bodies of his parents. The director is giving the viewer room to decide if that scene is what he's seeing or something else. But when the counselor asks him what he's thinking, he says "You wouldn't get it." Sounds like he's envisioning a man dressed like a bat.

It's a really powerful story because it truly puts you in the mind of someone who is trying to achieve balance but does not necessarily possess the tools to do this. Note his journal references about expectations of society to define "normal". Also note how he study's the comedians mannerisms on stage as opposed to his material. The same with the girl in the hallway, or the host on TV, or anyone else he bumps into. Then he writes in his journal, ' The worst part about having a mental illness, is people expect you to behave as if you don't.' It's illustrating Arthur's predicament in defining normal in a world where he has never been treated as such. He has to invent it, which is such a tragic quality in this character.

I feel so much heartache for this character throughout the film. And even when he turns violent, it feels (to your point Dark Knight) very cathartic in expression. And unfortunately its a defining moment, because he see's how different the world responds when he acts in this manner. He feels a sense of identity because he's standing up for himself. It's like a moment of rapture in which he can break free of his bonds that have imprisoned him in all of this pain and impose that feeling onto others. It's a very sad conclusion to a man who lived his entire life in quiet desperation. But its so brilliantly conveyed so you can understand it beyond the thin veil of the morality most apply to any day to day event. The pain he is now dispensing is what he wants you to know he has felt his whole life. It's a powerful statement loaded with allot of warnings about how people mistreat one another.

Was finally able to carve out time to watch this film for the first time and I've got to say it was simply brilliant. I was shocked at how confused critics seemed to be over what this film was. Its a great lesson , once again, to not dispute the findings of critics, because so many of them were just lost on the film.

I think the film gets a bad wrap for supposedly glorifying violence, when in fact it shames it. I never once felt that Arthur was a man who believed in lashing out. He was trying to conform in a world that would not have him. And everything he did to try and compensate for all the shortcomings of his life were slowly stripped away from him as the story progressed.

It was very sad, but also very real to watch him idealize people he might just have a momentary brush with either in the hallway or someone he admired from afar on television and view himself being seen in a favorable light by those people. He wanted someone to see him for how he saw himself. That scene where he fantasizes about being recognized in the television audience for taking care of his mom, then being called to the stage and told by the host, he wish he had a son like him was the foundation of that film. Arthur wanted to believe he was taking those hits because he was living for a cause greater than what his circumstances suggested.

I also liked the way the fantasies blended with his reality. Many of them were subtle because the director wanted to demonstrate how fantasy and reality can feel seamless if we do not anchor ourselves properly. But it also shows how that tool is often used, almost in a primal state, for self preservation. I felt so bad for him because he did not want to become the product of what he was at the end. But every safe space created in his life was ripped away from him. Every inch of dignity he had dreamt about, took beatings for, ultimately proved to be lies. His whole life was a lie. What he coveted was a lie. And the supposed mother he protected and cared for was in fact the author of his pain. The system that was also giving him medicine and counseling walked away.

So as all of these realities came to life, all of Arthur's fantasies began to die. The girl that he fantasized as being a supportive and loving partner, was actually a total stranger who rejected him like everyone else. And sadly the one celebrity whom he idolized and anchored so many of his rights of passage to feel like a human being, also stripped him of his dignity in a very public fashion. So much of Arthur's humanity which he fought to build up inside himself, was torn down and left in ruins. And without any support structure left to reel him back in, he reacted to all of those pressures very much like a cornered animal that had been beaten.

I cheered at how they blended the comic elements in a very subtle way. It begged the question whether Arthur had also fantasized his revenge on society and that the origin of Batman was in fact another one of his delusions. I thought they played that in a very grey area to allow the film to either be taken as a stand alone or as a literal interpretation that demands a sequel. Its such a beautiful story, I'm really on the fence about a followup. In one respect it would be fascinating to see him go up against Batman, but that would really be a tough script to write given how thoughtful this film was structured. I almost think it would be better to leave it up to the viewer as to how all that played out and leave it as is. If this film does not get best actor, best direction, and best picture from the Oscars, something is terribly wrong with that measure of excellence. Easily the best picture of the year, by a mile.

Dark Knight... I have stayed on point this entire conversation. I didn't ask you to make a self-described "confession" about Bundy. I didn't ask you to defend said interest by defining reality for us. And last I read, I didn't see anything about a personal "score sheet" I had in our discussion regarding who is "winning". All of these are manifestations born from your frustration (and insecurity) to anchor your position in this discussion.

I've been talking about a movie regarding a licensed DC character named Joker. I've stated from the START, this is a discussion about the conjecture of said movie. And I have revisited that point repeatedly. I also stated what I HOPED the movie would actually cover. I can't draw a map of the world any clearer to illustrate that point.

You've been off in the weeds on Bundy, some bizarre notion about reality, and now John Lennon, Elvis, and Scientology. BTW your fascination with Scientology is a complete contradiction to your displaced theories on reality and death, since that belief system follows the idea of nurturing an IMMORTAL SPIRIT. Say hi to Lennon for me. I can only imagine...  Now back to point.

I'm going to see this movie when it opens. If the content matches the conjecture discussed here, I will not like the film. Joker is a comic book character that, in my opinion, is not built to convey a positive message about social oppression or mental illness in the real world, since those are not his story responsibilities in a greater canvas involving Batman (stand alone tale or not). But if the story gives multiple examples of characters placed in the spin cycle of hard luck with Arthur and offers the audience a message about choices, then there might be a redeeming story to be told here. Because at the end of the day, its not what happens to you that defines you. Its how you handle it that measures your value.

Absolutely right. It is a shameful and disappointing display by Wayne in this thread. On the subject of mental health, we have Wayne giving a false diagnosis. He claims to know me better than I know myself. He won't let the Bundy topic go because he foolishly thinks he's onto a winner. He's not.

Bundy and the Joker are high performance animals and bold. I don't walk away from that, and why would I? Would I want to have a beer with them? Absolutely not. Both deserve the chair. But that doesn't change the fact they literally go out and do something. Revisiting crime scenes with police still around, escaping custody twice and brazen shoplifting. Wayne takes a leap in logic to claim I see this in admiring terms. As I said, we don't have to like what they do. But to not see the link between killing and thieving personalities is unrealistic? That makes Wayne the joke.

I like the intent of JOKER because it is a lower budget, character driven piece. At the end of the day, Wayne doesn't get JOKER and he should just spare himself the agony of watching it. He sounds like an overly anxious mother from the Batman Returns era, worrying so much he's about to pass out. He claims to understand what the film is about, but everything he posts is contrary to that statement.

This is hilarious. In your last response you wanted to redefine reality based on how long someone has been dead and now you're going to split hairs over the definition of the term 'fascination' and try to place the shame of your obsession on myself? Your examples are baseless because you want to marry a fictional character to a real life monster. You're using your fandom of the Joker to justify your position on Bundy. That's why you introduced him into this conversation. You believe the two correlate with one another because they can both commit similar crimes, thus giving merit to your "fascination" and desire to romanticize Bundy as some kind of real life "Joker".

Can we just get to the bottom-line? The Joker and Batman are not real by any stretch of the imagination. These characters are OTT images of people (symbols if you will) who run out into their worlds (not ours) and impose their will on society by saying " I am".  Its very cathartic and designed to reinforce certain values bestowed upon them to transform their society. All of these characters are based on this notion that we can change the world if we will it hard enough. So we use these characters as expressions to illustrate ideas in our society. I fully understand it is not always a black and white, good vs bad, throw down to profile basic values. People are flawed. None of that is lost on me.

But I absolutely disagree with this idea that people try to use these symbols to blur the lines between what is a controlled message in a contrived world versus reality that has far greater consequences and far more players than a two hour movie that preys on your emotions with added style points from a comic book character. No matter how you want to frame it, the Joker is NOT a poster child for misunderstood or misdiagnosed mental illness brought on by social oppression. And if we really want to be fair to the examination of these topics, then we already have to say a character like the Joker is honestly not built to carry this examination with any given seriousness. If this character did, then maybe they should make a stand alone movie about Hermey the dentist from Rudolph and entitle it " We're all Misfits".

At the end of the day this is a fictional character which the writers took and said, " Lets have him suffer through these series of events to generate a prescribed response from the audience. Then we'll have the world around this character react in a way we think bests fits the message we want to sell." Well... that's a contrivance. Whether you want to call that "art" or a "psychological study", none of it is based on real life measures. Someone has their finger on the pulse of this story and what it wants to say all the way through. And when many a reviewer says the director borrows heavily from other films, that tells me there's allot of formula assigned to this as well. So this is not a "case study" of anything. Its all make believe and falls into all the cliche's of a comic book style environment. What is troubling is some people can't separate the two.

[fascinate me]

I never claimed to be a Bundy fan. That's you putting words in my mouth. I said I found his worldview fascinating, and this is largely because such personalities are so deviant from the norm. I also said killers like him disgust and intrigue in equal measure. The term disgust is not a glowing endorsement. If you cannot remotely compare someone like Bundy to the Joker that failing is on you. It's not like I'm comparing fluffy Pikachu to Sauron here.

Being fictional or real means absolutely nothing when themes are being discussed. Bundy may as well be a fictional character now. He's been dead 30 years. The past is not real. It's just a dream. And as for wrapping myself in a blanket? I'll take the cookies (better than the words you like putting in my mouth) but warm milk isn't my thing. Make it an ice cold Coke.

Even if Joker is right in his grievance, it doesn't give him the right to murder. Yes, those killings will gratify CERTAIN members of the audience. But in the eyes of the law, the act of cold blooded murder automatically crosses him into villain territory. You really have a serious problem with this being a fictional story with a fictional villain...and frankly, you're just dribbling. That's what's really absurd here. You have closed your mind and refuse to accept a comic book film having these themes. That disqualifies you are a credible poster in this thread.

Never claimed to be a Bundy fan? Here's your statement -

"I gotta be completely honest with folks here and say killers like Ted Bundy fascinate me. The way they see the world, the way they present themselves with superficial charm and how they generally get what they want by being not just calculating, but bold. We don't have to like what they do, but people like Joker and Bundy are high performance animals."

You're not just a fan, you're damn near a groupie. And yes, you connect the two with your comparison.  Look at the admiration you give him. Perhaps we should resurrect him so you can have his autograph? And then you want to deflect your admiration of this dog by suggesting he's not real anymore because it happened in the past? REALLY? Ask the families impacted by him if it still feels real for them? Talk about being detached and unsympathetic. Ask the families in mourning regarding the events of today's date that occurred 18 years ago.

And the use of themes in a globally recognized property ARE important, especially in an arena where kids can get a hold of it. What was the theme of Bundy since you link the two? You actually believe someone who had the ability to disarm people to get them in a compromised position is something to be admired? You understand the art of communication and its intention reside on two different platforms, yes? So if we're going to go down the road of themes in film, please tell me what you surmise this film will be about and how that correlates with Tedd Bundy. I'm not the person here having the problem with understanding how film operates.

I understand this is a licensed property that originates in comic books. But what is the responsibility of Warner Bros to the demographics this will likely touch? Can we cover those themes as well? Is it just about making a buck? Is this character now just a vehicle for shock value? Should Rob Zombie have a crack at it next? Because when I hear the desire to link this to something in society, like this character and his audience should be open to that kind of exploration, what are we asking this property to represent? Those are valid questions that reach beyond the limited scope of someone who just wants to gore out the concept for shock and hide behind ignorant pop psychology references to give it false weight.

[if they're good]

This a very specious comparison. Star Wars is a story told primarily in feature film. It is immaculate inasmuch as there are not multiple iterations of the story and characters. There are no other takes on Star Wars, generally speaking. There isn't an alternative interpretation out there to choose from.

That is obviously not true of Batman, his world and his supporting characters. JOKER no more eliminates the mystery to the character by showing an origin than B89 did. On that subject, JOKER is not the final word on the character. Even those of us eagerly anticipating the film will acknowledge that much. There will be more comic book iterations of the character and adaptations of the character into other media in the future. Surely one of those will be more to your tastes. If JOKER is a creative success, it should be celebrated. If it is a creative failure, it should be dismissed. But either way, it won't poison the well on the character simply because Batman and his universe are bigger than that.

Further, your remark about Vader being stripped "of any mystery" intrigues me. I wonder if your view is similar to that insipid "the Joker shouldn't have an origin" BS which is prevalent among fans. If your critique about Vader's lack of mystery extends to JOKER as well, (A) yours is not the consensus view among fans and (B) your attitude ignores the origins which have been affixed to the character over the decades. I would sooner relate to arguments about a professed reluctance to JOKER because the origin it provides the character seems seems to deviate from the character's established origin in multiple media.

But that does not appear to be your objection.

As a general statement, I find your critiques to be spurious, not least because you have not seen the movie. And yet, you are pronouncing judgment against it anyway. I look forward to seeing the film and believe that films like this -- if they're good -- will ultimately be beneficial to the Batman mythos. However, I make no assumption about the film's quality at this time. I'm reserving judgment until I see the final product.

Put plainly, I believe I'm being fair to the film by keeping an open mind. However, I don't see very much fairness in your approach of condemning it without having seen it.

Lets start with the fact that my discussion with Dark Knight was prefaced with the statement that my reflections are based on the conjecture of the film and not the film itself, because I have not seen it. I will go see this film and if the conjecture matches the final product, then yes, no crystal ball will be needed to know my opinion about this project. And since we're in that rabbit hole of pre-subscribed opinions, be careful how much you defend this film, since you too have not seen it. That pendulum swings both ways.

In terms of critical reviews and calls for awards, I find your support of those comments nothing but gratuity thrown at something to further illustrate your bias for a pre-determined conclusion. Since when has a critic's analysis ever matched note for note with anyone here or in society as a whole? Try never? And if NOW, for the sake of this subject, all the merits SHOULD go to the critics, then who do we pick? The ones who love it or the ones who equally hate it? Or does the majority rule? Sorry, but hopping on a band wagon speaks more to the spurious nature of your comments, instead of finding suspect in mine.

And lastly, there is nothing removed about the comparison of one villain origin to another if the defense is to argue the weight of mystery. By every measure known in the literary field, less is often more if you cloak the antagonist with a shadowy past left to the imagination of the viewer. If every motivation has to be explained, that limits the scope, thereby reducing appeal to many who might have thought the villain sat on a broader canvas.

And if you want to delve into the history of the Joker, be it in film, graphic novels, or fan fiction, this film does not appear to be doing anything new based on those who have seen it, except exploit how much the Joker enjoys kicking a puppy. What is mystery inducing about being endlessly cruel when modern story telling has already covered that point in great detail regarding this character?  When do people who have a professed knowledge on this character stand up and ask for something less cliche? Is the Joker now just a modern slasher with a social message? Are we supposed to desensitize ourselves to his cruelty because he was sent to his room without supper?

At the end of the day, I find it very problematic that people can look at what is being said about this movie and feel what the antagonist does is somehow just a cathartic expression that is well served and therefore something that should be "examined". Reading comments from people who pull real life monsters into the conversation, really underscores my concern with that disconnected thinking.

'I want to like this movie', claims the user who trashes the very concept of it, automatically calling it one note and superficial. The premise that fans are only embracing the film because of critic reaction, and nothing else, is shallow and ignorant. Nobody could like the concept based on their own free will, could they?

This is also the same user who seriously argues there is no case study to be had on a fictional protagonist. That is your opinion, but it happens to be a garbage opinion. As you say, the Joker is a comic book character in a comic book world. And? Therefore these characters cannot be taken seriously under any circumstance?

If that's your thinking, you don't respect the credibility of the source material. You demean it. You clearly don't want to like the movie from the outset, and cannot accept its intent. This IS a psychologically based movie, not action based. That was my point about the throwdown in the mud, but like a lot of things, it went right over your head.

This statement coming from a confessed Tedd Bundy fan. Clearly ALLOT goes over your head when it comes to separating entertainment from something involving a real life coward who beat girls in their sleep or charmed them into his car so he could kill them. Yeah... That's something to wrap up in a blanket and watch with warm milk and cookies, yes? Let me introduce you to his victims parents or other family members and see if they respect your dribble used at their expense to VALIDATE a comic book villain.

I'm sorry, but if the expression of violence is now a consideration for sympathy regarding a "complaint" against society then the analytical aspect of this profile is utterly pointless, because it's all built on this notion that how the Joker sees it is the right way. A psychological study, as Dark Knight hopes, is NOT a skewed chain of events used to validate a pre-subscribed outcome. This is a fictional story about a fictional villain in a fictional society designed to produce a comic book character who fits the popular profile. Lets get 'Psychology Today' out of this, because there is no basis for that if people like Dark Knight want to compare Tedd Bundy to the Joker. That's absurd... and dangerous.

Lashing out to counter balance the feeling of being compromised (whether the infliction was done by words or deeds) is setting up a nonproductive message in an era where people already have intense, knee-jerk, reactions on a daily basis to anything presented to them as "wrong" on social media. Is Batman now the villain and the Joker the new anti-hero? Scary...