Batman-Online.com

Some early pics of Joaquin in the role have surfaced on the net. It appears we're getting a full on origin story that will essentially guide us through his path into crime and the macabre. At a glance it looks like it has potential depending on how disciplined they are in the treatment. I like using BVS as a cautionary example of how these films read when the treatment tries too hard to cater to a social seriousness that collapses on itself with the concept.

If the Joker movie becomes a deep study, leaning on social justification for his maniac and insane behaviors, I think you tread into territory that borders on both unintentional camp and a neglect for the comic book foundation. These stories need to keep him in a surreal environment that justifies the birth of his comic character and not something more inline with Charles Manson. Yes, we can have social themes interwoven in this tale like most comic movies possess. But both the writer and director need to know when to turn the lecture off and bring out the costumes. This is a comic book villain. There has to be an entertainment factor that invites the audience in to watch these films. So in my eyes balance in the treatment will be key here.

Not interested in this movie whatsoever. Although, I do like the idea that they're exploring his origin like in B89, in spite of the naysayers who wrongfully believe "Joker doesn't have a backstory".

Makeup screen test / the teaser to the teaser trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxJ8aiSbkDg

I really don't know what to make of this film. It looks like an attempt to capitalise on the legacy of Ledger's Joker, similar to how the 2004 Catwoman movie was spiritually indebted to Pfeiffer's incarnation (coincidentally, Frances Conroy features in both Catwoman '04 and Joker '19). But I'm intrigued by the tone of this preview. The look he gives at the end when his smile fades is genuinely disconcerting.


It'll be interesting to see how closely the finished makeup resembles this test footage. Presumably the teardrop design is a nod to Pagliacci.


I'm generally not in favour of all these spinoffs centred around supporting characters from the Batman and Superman mythologies, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. If nothing else, this one sounds more interesting than the Joker & Harley movie starring Leto. The fact it's coming out in October 2019 indicates the postproduction period will be shorter than most modern CBMs, which hopefully means less overblown CG imagery and more practical effects work. I'm also hoping it will be rated R. I sense De Niro's involvement is meant to inspire confidence amongst film buffs. But let's be honest – when was the last time De Niro appeared in a truly great film?

Joker '19 might be good, or it might be another Catwoman '04. Like I say, I really don't know what to make of it.

What I do know is that the Joker's real name in this film is Arthur Fleck.

Mr. A Fleck.

A-Fleck.

Affleck!

Yeah, this Garfield Minus Garfield thing is getting tired.

Still, I'll give WB some leeway on this since they're obviously trying to find a direction for the (or a) Batman franchise. As they do so, they're more or less following my original suggestion of experimenting with different depictions of characters to figure out which one works best.

Of course, I suggested that approach for the main hero characters rather than their supporting casts and/or villains. So hmm.

But I like the 70's'ish New Hollywood vibe I've gotten from the photos and that teaser. De Niro aside, this movie looks like it could be Taxi Driver in clown makeup. That... could be kind of awesome, actually.

Oh, one other thing. That wilting smile bit there? One reason why I never objected to Joaquin Phoenix in the role is because the guy has always seemed a little nuts to me. Even in his more normal roles, the guy always come off like he had a screw loose. My first exposure to him was in the 80's Superboy TV show and even when I was a kid, he seemed like a psycho to me. Eight year old me wouldn't have been comfortable in a room by myself with that kid.

And in the intervening thirty years, precisely nothing has changed.

If I could buy anybody as the Joker, yeah, Phoenix is somewhere in the top five. The wilting smile is a big reason why.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 22 Sep  2018, 02:56My first exposure to him was in the 80's Superboy TV show and even when I was a kid, he seemed like a psycho to me. Eight year old me wouldn't have been comfortable in a room by myself with that kid.

I'd completely forgotten he was in that.


Phoenix is a little short for the role (so were Nicholson and Leto), but he's clearly lost a lot of weight to achieve a suitably lanky frame. Overall he's a solid pick for the Joker.

Here are some new set pics.

Great pics, thanks SN.

I must say I'm kind of getting jazzed for this movie. It's a low budget thing (in today's estimation of what "low budget" means), it's a period piece and it looks to be incredibly character-driven. From the sounds of it, Phoenix is doing the movie for love of the game. He wants to make a FILM. Same seems to be true of Phillips, the director. And...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bt0slFQVI8

... the 80's setting instantly gives the movie a bunch of extra grit and texture it might lack otherwise.

This is starting to look pretty cool, y'all.

The make-up Phoenix is wearing only vindicates my lack of interest in this film. That looks sh*thouse. It's just a return to that facepaint crap, only this time he resembles more of a clown instead of that edgy Glasgow Smile garbage. I'm getting really tired of Hollywood trying to reinvent the character over the years. The only film appearance that came close to resembling the character is Nicholson's make-up and costume in B89, and even then, I have to admit that the surgically fixed permanent smile was a deviation to the comics.

Thomas Wayne will be a key character in this. Originally it was thought he would be played by Alec Baldwin but then he pulled out because "scheduling conflicts". Brett Cullen has been cast instead. The thing I thought was ridiculous was this description of Bruce's father in this movie:

Quote
Joker intends to portray Thomas Wayne as a Donald Trump-like character, and they'll have more in common then just being businessmen. In Joker, Thomas Wayne is running for a prominent political position in Gotham.

Source: https://screenrant.com/joker-movie-thomas-wayne-gotham-mayor/

Now, I'll acknowledge that maybe this is a rumour and isn't true at all. It's possible that misinformation got out because as soon as The Hollywood Reporter announced the news, they probably assumed Baldwin would play a Trump parody, because that is exactly what he does on SNL. But then again, it wouldn't surprise me because Hollywood loves to spread their political propaganda in their movies, especially given the fact the entire industry has gone nuts over Trump over the last couple of years. For all we know, it will probably portray Thomas as some sort of heartless conservative politician responsible for making the Joker what he is. I don't really care because I don't have a dog in this fight over politics, but I'm not too fond of the possible idea of Bruce's father being portrayed in a less than flattering light.

For those of you looking forward to this, good on you. I do hope you enjoy it. But for me, the more I hear from this film, it sounds like a wannabe Scorsese crime film slapped with a Joker title on it. No thank you. I'm out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNVwtDVIyMg&t=0s&list=FL2E_KOhE1_wJT8fltjHkXsA&index=2

My greatest concern with a standalone Joker film is whether they can construct a narrative that holds the viewers interest without any great payoff at the end (except the obvious approach of Batman). As interesting as his origin is, there's a decidedly anti-climatic quality to it without Batman trading wits with him in this cat and mouse chase. The old saying that you can't root for a hero without a great villain seems to still be in play here (only in reverse). How do we embrace the Joker if the only end game is to see him deliver revenge on those who contributed to his origin? It seems painfully predictable if not derivative of what has already been told in both movie and television (Gotham). To use a Star Wars analogy, it feels a bit like hearing Disney wanting to make a Boba Fett movie to which I ask, "Why?"

I just don't get the point of this movie. At first, I was down for an Elseworld movie, but the more info, and the overall look for The Joker, I just don't get it. So this movie doesn't even have Batman(Thomas Wayne is still alive), as this is just a Joker origin movie. Ok, but then they give him the name Arthur Fleck. Ok, and then his Joker uses facepaint, that doesn't even look like The Joker. So I just have to ask, what's the point of doing a Joker movie, if it has little to no ties to The Joker? Batman isn't in it, Arthur Fleck is a made up character that has nothing to do with The Joker, and then they make "The Joker" look nothing like The Joker. I don't get it? The only thing tying it to Batman, is that this is based in Gotham City, and Thomas Wayne is running for mayor.

And as far as the descriptions go, I don't know how I feel about the overall themes they're putting into place. So Thomas Wayne is described as a Trump-like billionaire playboy who is running for mayor. People are carrying signs that call him a fascist, so they're protesting him, cause they hate him. The Joker seems to have a vendetta against him, and his followers have attacked him on the subway. So it looks like they're making The Joker out to be a good guy, who is standing up to the "fascist" Trump-like Mayor, Thomas Wayne. A little too on the nose there, but a weird way of making The Joker stand up against the "fascist" Right Wing guy running for mayor. I dunno...

And the weirder thing, is that I'm seeing people who I've personally seen get nitpicky with things in the DCEU, but are totally onboard for this. One second, they're complaining cause Superman's costume isn't the right shade of blue, or that he doesn't smile enough, but give them a Joker movie that has no Batman, and that looks nothing like The Joker, and they're all onboard. I don't get it?

I actually had an open mind about this film at some point early on. But after hearing the details and seeing the set pictures, I well and truly lost interest. From what I see, it's a love-letter to disruptive Antifa thugs who love socialism, hate capitalism and see the enforcement of laws that are already on the books as fascism. The face paint and the name Arthur Fleck says it all to me. This guy loosely resembles the comic character, but he's not the comic character. It's trying to be an 80s-era crime film/character study first and foremost. Anything they 'reveal' here about Arthur doesn't have any meaning or relevance. As I see Silver Nemesis post, it's basically a legacy film. This isn't even a spinoff. It's its own thing.

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 23 Sep  2018, 17:17
I just don't get the point of this movie. At first, I was down for an Elseworld movie, but the more info, and the overall look for The Joker, I just don't get it. So this movie doesn't even have Batman(Thomas Wayne is still alive), as this is just a Joker origin movie. Ok, but then they give him the name Arthur Fleck. Ok, and then his Joker uses facepaint, that doesn't even look like The Joker. So I just have to ask, what's the point of doing a Joker movie, if it has little to no ties to The Joker? Batman isn't in it, Arthur Fleck is a made up character that has nothing to do with The Joker, and then they make "The Joker" look nothing like The Joker. I don't get it? The only thing tying it to Batman, is that this is based in Gotham City, and Thomas Wayne is running for mayor.

And as far as the descriptions go, I don't know how I feel about the overall themes they're putting into place. So Thomas Wayne is described as a Trump-like billionaire playboy who is running for mayor. People are carrying signs that call him a fascist, so they're protesting him, cause they hate him. The Joker seems to have a vendetta against him, and his followers have attacked him on the subway. So it looks like they're making The Joker out to be a good guy, who is standing up to the "fascist" Trump-like Mayor, Thomas Wayne. A little too on the nose there, but a weird way of making The Joker stand up against the "fascist" Right Wing guy running for mayor. I dunno...

And the weirder thing, is that I'm seeing people who I've personally seen get nitpicky with things in the DCEU, but are totally onboard for this. One second, they're complaining cause Superman's costume isn't the right shade of blue, or that he doesn't smile enough, but give them a Joker movie that has no Batman, and that looks nothing like The Joker, and they're all onboard. I don't get it?

I get all that. I'm waiting to see the final product (or at least get more information about the movie) before commenting on the possible political stuff going on there. It wouldn't be a major shock if that's the direction the movies goes. But I'll wait and see.

The fact paint is easier for me to accept post-Ledger. Besides, the movie has to do something to set itself apart from Leto's Joker. Plus, the Pagliacci thing has direct relevance to the Joker. The Pagliacci-esque design of the Joker makeup isn't an accident.

In the final analysis, all I need from this movie is for it to be an interesting diversion until WB finds its way on Batman. I'm guessing the DCEU as we knew it will be wound down sooner or later and maybe WB will go for more standalone or anthology types of stuff that Marvel can't compete with.

And who knows? This Joker film might prove that comic book movies don't need $300+ million budgets to be good. Sometimes simply have good characters and a good story can be enough. This movie is budgeted at $55 million. For that type of money, I'm guessing WB is letting Phillips do whatever he wants.

This could be a very positive thing.

Look closely at the map and you'll see several familiar names: Snyder, McKean, Nolan, Prince, Englehart, Jack, Rogers, Kane, and – best of all – Otisburg.

And here are some more pics of Phoenix in his clown getup.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dnu5fDWX4AANAiY.jpg)

"Wanye"?

Seriously? Nobody noticed that?

But maybe it's an intentional part of the movie.

The map is interesting too. Too many names associated with Batman comics or else taken directly from Batman comics to be a coincidence. Somebody involved with this production is mining the comics for rich details.

People are losing their $h!t over this movie and I just don't see what the problem is. This looks pretty solid to me so far.

I'm kinda split on this one. I want to like this, cause I'm tired of "shared universes" and am more than willing to give anthology concepts a try for the sakes of different approaches/flavors/broad in ideas (Hey, it worked for the millennium Toho era in Godzilla movies!), but given other people's misgivings, warnings, and the sheer lack of good faith from WB casting and descriptions (Alex Baldwin as a cheesy Trump-like Thomas Wayne, or Wanye as they put it? OK?!? I mean, we know the guy has "Trump" stamped on his forehead for awhile now, but this doesn't exactly distill confidence), does cause some definite concern that have merit.

Given from what I've seen, they're clearly trying to evoke Ledger's Joker since it's the version that's the bestest evar! ::)  Concerning the look of this Joker, I much more prefer the bleached white look from toxic chemicals over him simply wearing clown makeup, or "war paint" but ... it's a little too "generic circus clown" for my tastes.

However, for the most part, I blame that on Warner Bros. more than anything. Cause, as we all have grown accustomed to, it's obvious that the very first thing a studio does when they sit down to make these things is ask, "How can we make it different this time?" (which I personally really wish they would STOP doing). Honestly, the Joker isn't a particularly difficult character to translate, but for whatever reason, Warners appear to have a difficult time doing so ever since 1989. Actually, I don't even think they particularly care about accuracy at this point.

No problems on the tone of the tease for the teaser. I actually liked how that was put together with the song and how it was shot.

As a aside; the mere fact that they cast Joaquin Phoenix, tells me that this is more of a "for the critics" movie, and/or trying to instill good faith, than it is anything else. It's definitely not trying to aim for that arbitrary BILLION number you "have" to hit with these things now, cause otherwise the internet will just tell you that you screwed up and shouldn't have bothered. As Phoenix isn't the guy you put in a lead role if you want a billion dollars, he's the guy you cast when you want people who hate these kinds of movies to talk about them like more than overblown MCU cartoons.

If anything, it's clear as day that the Jack Nicholson Joker is the closest cinematic version to the modern comic book Joker, and that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.

Add me to the list of people that are intrigued by this film. Not supportive, exactly. But intrigued.

In principle, I hate the idea of a Batman movie without Batman. I'm also strongly opposed to heavy-handed political agendas that could alienate 50% of the fan base. And I agree with what others have said about the film being unnecessary. But even so... something about this project has my attention. It may well end up being terrible, but colors makes an interesting point about the smaller budget indicating a more focused, character-driven alternative to all the overblown FX-driven CBMs we've been inundated with lately. Fewer cooks in the kitchen can only be a good thing. And as The Joker says, it's nice to have a break from the shared universe trend with a film that can stand on its own merits without piggybacking off something bigger. The end result might just surprise us.

It's difficult to gauge the tone they're going for at this point. There is a visual resemblance to Ledger's Joker, but I get the feeling this might be a more comedic interpretation of the character than suggested at face value. Todd Phillips has worked almost exclusively in the comedy genre until now (as had Burton in 1989), and the filmmakers have cited The King of Comedy (1982) as one of their primary cinematic influences. While The King of Comedy deals with dark, obsessive themes, it's also one of Scorsese's funniest movies. Then there are things like the misspelling of 'Wanye' on the campaign poster and the inclusion of Otisburg on the railway map. I might be wrong, but all of these clues point to this being a black comedy rather than a straight-faced crime drama à la Nolan. I could be way off the mark about this, and it's really too early to tell. But I'd like to learn more about the film before I write it off completely.

Interesting video, and worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E3BqEaBqYA

Some more footage has appeared online.


Here's an open question for everyone on the site. If you had to choose between this film or the Leto Joker & Harley movie, which would you be more interested in seeing? I'm fairly confident most of us would answer this question with: "Neither, I just want a good Batman film!" But for argument's sake, supposing you have to choose one. Which would it be and why? If you like the idea of a Joker spinoff, would one be preferable to the other? If you don't like the idea of a Joker spinoff, might one be a lesser evil than the other?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 28 Sep  2018, 22:48Here's an open question for everyone on the site. If you had to choose between this film or the Leto Joker & Harley movie, which would you be more interested in seeing? I'm fairly confident most of us would answer this question with: "Neither, I just want a good Batman film!" But for argument's sake, supposing you have to choose one. Which would it be and why? If you like the idea of a Joker spinoff, would one be preferable to the other? If you don't like the idea of a Joker spinoff, might one be a lesser evil than the other?

The Phoenix Joker origin movie.

That would not have been my answer two weeks ago. But it is my answer now.

The reason for this is because I've gotten a clearer sense of what Phillips is up to with The Joker. I've been on the record for a long time now saying that big tentpole releases with mega-budgets isn't the only way to skin this particular cat. Films with a more off-beat tone and smaller budgets could be just what the doctor ordered for DC characters.

The Phillips Joker movie satisfies nearly every request I've been making for a long while now. The only divergence (and, admittedly, it's a big one) is that this is a JOKER movie as opposed to a Batman movie.

But maybe that's small potatoes. Maybe what we need to do is establish that small budget features with an emphasis on character and style combined with a director with an actual VISION for the film can work. Then, perhaps, we can start expanding our thoughts to the more marquee characters.

All in all, this Joaquin Phoenix movie just looks more interesting to me than anything I've heard about the Harley & Joker film.

Disclaimer: I have nothing against Leto's Joker, except maybe that the Suicide Squad movie didn't do his performance full justice. But Leto's Joker is inextricably linked to the DCEU and I do not believe that's necessarily positive anymore. Further, I can't help thinking that this Joker/Harley movie is mostly going to be a Harley-centric affair with Leto consigned to more of a supporting role. He'll be there to enable her to be Harley rather than to be the Joker. (A) I'm already starting to get a bit fed up with Harley. I love her as much as the next guy but c'mon people, she's not THAT interesting. And (B) I think Leto deserves something bigger by now.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 28 Sep  2018, 23:55Disclaimer: I have nothing against Leto's Joker, except maybe that the Suicide Squad movie didn't do his performance full justice. But Leto's Joker is inextricably linked to the DCEU and I do not believe that's necessarily positive anymore. Further, I can't help thinking that this Joker/Harley movie is mostly going to be a Harley-centric affair with Leto consigned to more of a supporting role. He'll be there to enable her to be Harley rather than to be the Joker. (A) I'm already starting to get a bit fed up with Harley. I love her as much as the next guy but c'mon people, she's not THAT interesting. And (B) I think Leto deserves something bigger by now.

My main issue with the DCEU Joker is the lack of a clear, cohesive set of ideas underpinning his characterisation. This is less a criticism of Leto himself than the way the studio has handled the character. With the earlier screen Jokers, there was always a clear concept behind each iteration. Romero was the clown prankster. Nicholson was the homicidal artist. Ledger was the nihilistic terrorist. Their visual appearance told us something about their personality and philosophy: Romero had the distracting looks of a comedic showman who wants to draw attention to himself; Nicholson was a sharply-dressed narcissist whose post-surgical risus sardonicus reflected his morbid sense of humour and fascination with aesthetics; Ledger had the look of an unhygienic masochist who used self mutilation to illustrate his postmodernist views on the innate corruptibility of the human condition.


I can also see how each of these was derived from a different era of the comics. Romero was mostly the Silver Age Joker mixed with elements of the Golden Age version, minus his earliest appearances when he was a coldblooded killer. Nicholson was basically Steve Englehart's irrational Bronze Age Joker mixed with the Silver Age prankster version, visually patterned after the Dick Sprang and Brian Bolland designs. Ledger was a mixture of the original 1940 Joker with Grant Morrison's Modern Age version, and visually indebted to Dave McKean and Lee Bermejo's art work.

But with Leto, I'm still not sure what he's meant to be or what his appearance is meant to say about him. I can see how they took influence from Azzarello's Joker, the New 52 version and the All Star incarnation, but the end result just isn't very cohesive IMO. The previous Jokers functioned as antagonists to Batman, but Leto's Joker primarily exists to complement Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn. The DCEU initially presented him as a twisted villain, but now they're trying to realign him as a quirky antihero in his own movie. His relationship with Harley was at first disturbing and abusive, but now it looks like Warner Bros is trying to turn them into a loveable power couple. The murder of Robin was meant to be the dramatic launch pad for the DCEU Joker's rivalry with Batman, but they never followed up on that plotline in a meaningful way. Is he meant to be funny, scary, sympathetic or loathsome? I really can't tell. I guess what I'm saying is I can't see the angle on this Joker; the hook that's supposed to make him interesting and distinguish him from every other version.


With the earlier Jokers, I can see how the filmmakers hit their targets dead centre. But with Leto's Joker, I honestly don't even know what target they were aiming at in the first place. Or does the target keep changing? It's like they threw a ton of half-baked ideas into the mix in the hopes the resultant mishmash would yield something of interest. When what they should have done was to take just two or three of those ideas and develop them properly. In the case of the DCEU, they obviously wanted to focus more on Harley and have the Joker serve as her partner. So perhaps this version should have been a dashing, funny and romantic take on the character; more akin to the DCAU Joker than to Nicholson or Ledger's versions. In which case they should have done away with the grill and the tattoos, played up the humour, and downplayed the more disturbing aspects of the Joker/Harley relationship. That way his appearance and characterisation would have been carefully crafted to suit the role they needed him to play.

Leto's a fine actor and they might still redeem this version of the Joker if they proceed with a clearer sense of direction from now on. But he's already started off on the wrong foot, whereas Romero, Nicholson and Ledger all hit the ground running. With the new Phoenix Joker, it already looks as though they have a much more focused idea of what they want him to be. The biggest drawback is the lack of a Batman for him to fight. But if Affleck is indeed leaving the DCEU, then Leto's version won't have a nemesis to do battle with either. Perhaps if Phoenix's Joker proves popular enough, Warner Bros might go ahead and introduce a new Batman in the sequel. At any rate, I think the Phoenix Joker film has more potential than the Leto movie.

It's possible that the DCEU Joker may be permanently handicapped by not having a Batman against which to define himself. I hadn't considered that angle before but the Romero, Nicholson and Ledger Jokers all had Batmen against whom to match wits. Batman having such a clear sense of purpose in each of those iterations helped give definition to those versions of the Joker. The same arguably holds true for Conroy vs. Hamill when you think about it.

As you say, the DCEU Joker was introduced as a character to help define Harley. I suppose that makes sense on its own but the price for getting there is... well, let's face it. Leto's Joker probably isn't even remotely close to what Snyder had in mind when he envisioned a desecrated Robin uniform in Affleck's Batcave.

In any case, obviously I have no idea what'll happen with Phoenix's Joker. But considering goings on with the DCEU and Affleck, I won't be surprised if Phillips inserts Batman in some form into his movie, probably at the end. A flash-forward? But anyway, for now it seems like Phoenix's Joker will be defined over and against Thomas Wayne. That's not Batman but it's still a rival who can serve effectively the same narrative purpose.

If reports are to be believed, then this movie may have given Affleck second thoughts about quitting the cowl.

Quote"He is back in shape not only for his health but he has a new-found love on doing Batman at least one more time again. He feels he isn't finished with what he wants to do with the character. There has been talk about replacing him, but he is now seeing what he might lose and really wants to play the character again. Especially seeing what Joaquin Phoenix is doing with the Joker character," a source close to the actor/director tells HollywoodLife.com EXCLUSIVELY.

https://hollywoodlife.com/2018/10/02/ben-affleck-wants-to-play-batman-again-working-out-new-body/

Fandom makes us all continuity wonks. But I'm willing to overlook the continuity implications of mixing the DCEU Batman with this standalone Joker if it resuscitates Affleck's stint as Batman.

I can't shake the idea that this Phillips Joker movie is something more in line with Affleck's natural preferences anyway. It isn't a bad match to combine the best of the DCEU (ie, Affleck) with where it looks like this Joker film is headed.

I think it's more likely either 1, the Joker movie is a stand-alone spin-off, or 2, it's going to be in the same universe as Reeves' series with a new Batman. I'd like Affleck back in the role, but for whatever reason I'm just not that optimistic.

More footage.


At this rate we'll soon have the entire movie.

Still not seeing anything I don't like. This has a ton of potential.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  6 Oct  2018, 21:32
If reports are to be believed, then this movie may have given Affleck second thoughts about quitting the cowl.

Quote"He is back in shape not only for his health but he has a new-found love on doing Batman at least one more time again. He feels he isn't finished with what he wants to do with the character. There has been talk about replacing him, but he is now seeing what he might lose and really wants to play the character again. Especially seeing what Joaquin Phoenix is doing with the Joker character," a source close to the actor/director tells HollywoodLife.com EXCLUSIVELY.

https://hollywoodlife.com/2018/10/02/ben-affleck-wants-to-play-batman-again-working-out-new-body/

If this is actually the case, and factors into Affleck staying aboard as Batman, then intentional or not, I'll give this movie props on that alone.

A familiar car has been sighted on set.

Hmm. Well, okay then.

That raises an entire universe of new questions...

Initial thoughts:

Could be a cutesy easter egg in the background.

Or ...

Since this Thomas Wayne/Wanye is described as a cheesy 1980's businessman, is it possible this movie is taking place sometime around Halloween, or at the very least, during a socialite costume party for the elites? ala Max Shreck's party in Batman Returns.

Seems like a way to have a "Batman" in the movie, but not the Bruce Wayne Batman, rather a Thomas Wayne "Bat-Man". Who's going to one-up everyone at a costume party and arrive in his own Batmobile just to be more extravagant than anyone else.

A Thomas Wayne Batman harkens back to a version decades prior to the more-known Flashpoint version, though I doubt, from what we're left to go off of his description, this Thomas Batman, if that's the case, will be considered anything heroic.

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/5/56/Detective_Comics_235.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20081218151835)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 17 Oct  2018, 22:02
A familiar car has been sighted on set.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V62RSRqpe20

What's with the flat black paint job?

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 23 Sep  2018, 17:17
And the weirder thing, is that I'm seeing people who I've personally seen get nitpicky with things in the DCEU, but are totally onboard for this. One second, they're complaining cause Superman's costume isn't the right shade of blue, or that he doesn't smile enough, but give them a Joker movie that has no Batman, and that looks nothing like The Joker, and they're all onboard. I don't get it?

Once again, this just reminds me that people can't think for themselves. This video sums up this attitude perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKpQgEyjNdM

If the DCEU had the Joker sporting a Glasgow smile scar and telling people different stories over how he got it, and spoke in pretentious dialogue about the hopelessness of human nature, that would've been mocked for being too edgy and dark, and people would've complained about how unfunny, miserable and nonsensical the Joker was. But because it's Nolan, it gets a pass - because the critics liked it. Seriously, if the NPC meme goes beyond the mockery of SJWs in terms of making of fun of those who engage in groupthink, then I'd say that's exactly what these pop culture followers. A bunch of trite, empty-headed NPCs.

I predict that despite some people's grievances of how this movie looks (myself included), this movie will get critically acclaimed. That will amuse me because the same people who incorrectly say "Joker has no backstory" and used that to criticise Nicholson's Joker for years, will to have to revise their criteria when they praise Phoenix in the role.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 24 Nov  2018, 02:58

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 23 Sep  2018, 17:17
And the weirder thing, is that I'm seeing people who I've personally seen get nitpicky with things in the DCEU, but are totally onboard for this. One second, they're complaining cause Superman's costume isn't the right shade of blue, or that he doesn't smile enough, but give them a Joker movie that has no Batman, and that looks nothing like The Joker, and they're all onboard. I don't get it?

Once again, this just reminds me that people can't think for themselves. This video sums up this attitude perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKpQgEyjNdM

If the DCEU had the Joker sporting a Glasgow smile scar and telling people different stories over how he got it, and spoke in pretentious dialogue about the hopelessness of human nature, that would've been mocked for being too edgy and dark, and people would've complained about how unfunny, miserable and nonsensical the Joker was. But because it's Nolan, it gets a pass - because the critics liked it. Seriously, if the NPC meme goes beyond the mockery of SJWs in terms of making of fun of those who engage in groupthink, then I'd say that's exactly what these pop culture followers. A bunch of trite, empty-headed NPCs.

I predict that despite some people's grievances of how this movie looks (myself included), this movie will get critically acclaimed. That will amuse me because the same people who incorrectly say "Joker has no backstory" and used that to criticise Nicholson's Joker for years, will to have to revise their criteria when they praise Phoenix in the role.

I think some people have certain expectations about certain things. The Joker in BTAS had a backstory, but I don't see people don't complain about that.

Lex Luthor in Smallville I think had very little in common in backstory with his comic version, but I've seen a lot of the perception that that Lex is the best live action adaption.

I don't see many complaints about Joker having an origin in B89 recently.

Not to mention, and this is my opinion, villains, like Joker, has leeway in backstory, where superhero characters origins more or less are the building blocks of the character.

But people can dislike non-comic accurate versions and think something is good.

I think it's not about darkness, but about whether someone thinks it's good or bad and the type of darkness for some. Joker only talks about people being bad and doesn't really try to really be, what I think, is pretentious.

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 23 Sep  2018, 17:17And the weirder thing, is that I'm seeing people who I've personally seen get nitpicky with things in the DCEU, but are totally onboard for this. One second, they're complaining cause Superman's costume isn't the right shade of blue, or that he doesn't smile enough, but give them a Joker movie that has no Batman, and that looks nothing like The Joker, and they're all onboard. I don't get it?

As far as Phoenix's Joker goes, I think there's not much question what people are generally in fandom expecting from it: Not comic accurate.

I think that wasn't the case with other things, where the expectation was something more actively comic accurate. Even then complaining about how something looks or if a character smiles enough I think doesn't matter really to someone if they like the whole product.

Here's the first official poster.


Director Todd Philips has confirmed the trailer will be released tomorrow.

YES! Can't wait!

And here it is.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  3 Apr  2019, 13:24
And here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t433PEQGErc

I think this has become my most anticipated comic book film of the year.

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Thu,  4 Apr  2019, 00:33

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  3 Apr  2019, 13:24
And here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t433PEQGErc

I think this has become my most anticipated comic book film of the year.

That makes three of us (because I count twice).

I have underlying issues which I have expressed previously, and I'll wait to see how those develop (mainly how overt their messaging is, what side they take, and the conclusions they make).

But I did like that trailer. If I ever wrote a script it would involve a regular human who is thrust into an extraordinary situation, such as Neo from the Matrix or Billy in Shazam. The hero's journey is rewarding to witness, and most of the time I want their final form to be delayed. The entertainment is in their trials and tribulations. That is the same thing that Joker is seeking to accomplish.

Instead of the hero's journey it's the wounded man's journey. Someone who over the course of the film becomes increasingly damaged before morphing into his final form. The power of cinema should be in the performances and the storytelling.

In recent times that has been lost amongst the tide of computer imagery.

Underlying issues I may have could be tolerated when I consider the wealth of what is on offer here. Leto was watered down to the point of being a forgettable footnote. Phoenix may be a one and done deal, but he already grabs my attention a lot more. The Joker as a character should be emotionally powerful and attention grabbing. And I add 'a reflection of the times', which is interesting considering this film is set in the 80s. This trailer has made the required impact with the public, based on what I've seen in the trailer's aftermath.

Leto's issue was that he wasn't given the floor to shine on his own two feet. He was depicted as the supporting act for Harley. Phoenix will not have that problem given he has a solo film all to himself. There's no reason why he can't put a stamp on this role in the same way Nicholson or Ledger did.

Back to my 'underlying issues': if this film takes the view that it's not necessarily that capitalism is bad, but it CAN be viewed that way, (it IS viewed by that way by some) the film could be palatable for me. Maybe it's not a love letter to Antifa, but rather showing how people find power and relevance in shared suffering and shared beliefs, which is still a true statement and relevant for today. This is being sold as a cautionary tale after all. But then again, maybe the tale is to treat others with care, because you don't know who you are really dealing with, or what they'll become. 

In any case, the performance and descent into madness is the main attraction here. I'm interested.

And finally, I have to say the trailer depicts Gotham in a solid way, with trash on the street and such.

This could be the first time we really see Alan Moore's Joker in live action. Batman '89 and The Dark Knight were both influenced by The Killing Joke, but Nicholson and Ledger's Jokers had very different personalities from Moore's interpretation. Batman '89 borrowed a couple of scenes and a lot of imagery from TKJ, but personality-wise Nicholson's character was closer to the Silver Age or Steve Englehart versions. TKJ heavily influenced the central themes of The Dark Knight and even the Joker's motivation and psychological profile to an extent, but ultimately the personality of Ledger's interpretation was much closer to that of the Grant Morrison or original 1940 versions. 

Moore wanted his readers to pity the Joker, so he presented him as a sad, pathetic loser whose deranged cruelty was a reflection of the misery that others had inflicted on him and his loved ones. The new movie looks like it's angling for a similar degree of pathos. Personally, I was never a fan of Moore's take on the character and I've never felt sorry for the Joker. I prefer Miller's idea that he's a demonic, almost supernatural force of evil, similar to Bullseye. But considering Nicholson and Ledger's Jokers were already pretty close to Miller's take, I'm open to seeing a new version that leans towards Moore's characterisation.

At any rate, this was a good trailer. The cinematography's impressive and Phoenix's performance looks creepy and compelling. The film might still be a disaster, and I share other people's reservations about the underlying idea behind the project. But right now, it looks promising. I'm on board.

Just one thing – the IMDb lists De Niro's talk show host character as 'Murray Franklin'. They missed a trick by not calling him David Endocrine.

Agree. They're definitely going for the beaten down man route, who is feeling down on himself while also being neglected by society. It also looks like we're going to get some stand up comedy from Fleck as well, which will probably include him being booed and laughed off the stage.

We've had the mobster (Nicholson) and the mysterious terrorist (Ledger). Taking a Killing Joke approach seems logical - there's lots of material to work with there, and a lot of it is unused. It's pretty much perfect for a character study, because the actor can tap into the depths of depression and desperation.

Notice we see Fleck walking up the stairs, and later walking down the stairs as the Joker? Symbolic of a descent into madness.

"I used to think that my life was a tragedy, but now I realize...it's a comedy."

The Joker as a character usually has snappy, memorable dialogue and this also fits the bill. Really does neatly capture what he's all about. I liked that line as soon as I heard it.

Just rewatched the trailer to savor the mood and atmosphere of it. When news of this movie broke, I didn't see much of a point in a Joker movie without Batman. But the trailer puts it all in better focus. This is the story of a man who's abused by people, by society, by his peers, by everything and everyone. I gather that his micro-story of descending into madness plays into the macro-story of attracting followers to protest The System. Introducing Batman into that equation would detract from Fleck's story, I think. It creates too much of a Good Guy vs. Bad Guy paradigm. It simplifies the equation in ways which I don't think would necessarily be appropriate for this material. The Joker is the motif being used here but it could just as easily be anything else. The issue isn't the Joker so much as it's Fleck.

Mind you,you could say those exact same words using them as a criticism if you wanted. And I can't rationally argue against you.

Between this and movies like split, the trend for cinema these days seems to be heading in the direction of developing origin stories even for supervillains. Since comic book movies are now becoming a completely inescapable reality, this approach works for me. It gives us a new and fresh angle rather than yet another Batman vs. Joker movie. I love those kinds of movies but we've seen them. This Phillips/Phoenix movie is something new and original. Maybe it'll work and maybe it'll be awful. But it's different and that automatically makes it worth investigating.

I'd rather Joker be what it is and fail than fit in with the conveyor belt of pap and succeed, tbh.

Plus, come on, how many times have I ever seen a movie with Joaquin Phoenix in it and came out thinking "Man, that was a real piece of garbage"? Never. So the odds are already in this movie's favor.

I get the idea of calling DeNiro's character David Endocrine but I think Phillips is shooting for more of a "world outside your window" approach rather than the parody that Endocrine was intended to be. It would've been good fan service but I think (or at least I want to believe) that Phillips has his eye on a very different prize here.

In the end, the movie's budget is a relatively paltry $55 million. On that basis, there's virtually no way it can fail. It'll be marketed as a $55 million picture, to be sure, but the amount of interest this movie is attracting tells me its box office will be a lot higher than the $140'ish million it needs to turn a profit. In today's market, I don't see very many ways for Joker to flop.

I'm a little late to the party on this. But...

https://screenrant.com/dc-dceu-joker-movie-dark-black

QuoteDC's non-DCEU movie label will kick off with the Joaquin Phoenix Joker movie and could end up being called DC Dark or DC Black, according to a new report. The idea behind starting up a DC film sub-franchise is that it will allow room for directors to come in and make one-off DC movies that aren't beholden to the continuity of the larger DC cinematic universe. Much like DC's Elseworlds imprint does for the company's comic book division, DC Dark/Black would (in theory) open the door to more experimenting with the DC movie brand and its characters.

DC technically has six Joker movies in some stage of development right now, but the Phoenix-led film about the Clown Prince of Crime is the only one that falls under the non-DCEU banner. The Hangover trilogy and War Dogs director Todd Phillips is calling the shots on the film, which is also being produced by none other than Martin Scorsese and cowritten by Oscar-nominee Scott Silver of 8 Mile and The Fighter fame. In addition to prestigious creatives, Phillips' Joker solo film will have a much lower budget than most comic book adaptations nowadays, according to the latest report on the project and other going-ons at DC.

RELATED: THE BATMAN SCRIPT FOCUSES ON YOUNGER BATMAN
In a sweeping update on what's happening at DC Films right now, THR reports that Phoenix and Phillips' Joker movie will launch a new label that could be branded "DC Dark", "DC Black", or something else along those lines. The "Dark" or "Black" aspect of the label could be a reference to how the Joker film is expected to be a gritty crime drama/thriller in the vein of Scorsese's own 1970s classics like Taxi Driver. Separate reports support the idea, claiming the Joker movie takes place in the '80s and draws inspiration from The Killing Joke - Alan Moore's infamously macabre comic book story about the villain's humble beginnings as a failed comedian.

"DC Dark/Black" could further indicate that the plan is for this label to cover some of the developing movies that focus on DC villains - those that didn't make their screen debut in Suicide Squad, anyway. In addition to the Joker origin movie, that could include the Lobo solo film that is currently in the works. Lobo writer Jason Fuchs has expressed a desire to capture the spirit of the intergalactic bounty hunter in comic book form, suggesting his movie will be an anarchic and possibly R-rated romp that's closer in tone to Deadpool than the rest of the DCEU. Michael Bay was reported to be circling a $200 million take on Lobo earlier this year, so it's possible the film is now being rewritten and scaled down to fit the leaner budget template that "DC Dark/Black" is going for.

Interestingly enough, DC appears to be responding to the complaints about the DCEU being "too dark" by splitting its films up into two sub-franchises. The DCEU is already on its way to a brighter and more colorful tomorrow, thanks to upcoming films like Aquaman and especially Shazam!. Meanwhile, "DC Dark/Black" can embrace a darker and more adult tone than DCEU films like Man of Steel, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Suicide Squad were able to, since its movies won't be beholden to a PG-13 rating, by the sound of it. If that's the case, then it sounds like a smart way for Warner Bros. and DC to move forward from here.

We will bring you more details on The Joker and DC's new movie label as they become available.

This looks like a variation on the recommendation I made of creating movies which are intended to stay separate from each other. The article itself notes the kinder, gentler direction the DCEU is taking these days so this anthology sub-franchise is a good way of keeping things fresh and interesting.

My thoughts, based on the trailer, is that the movie is very conscious of what it's doing.

The primary theme of the trailer is "put on a happy face", which leads me to believe that this is going to be a movie about depression and the damage that comes from trying to cover it up rather than truthfully addressing it. We get scenes of a painfully thin Arthur, dancing and bathing his mother, cut to another scene of Arthur forcing himself to smile (when it's evident he's anything but happy) as he talks to the therapist, another scene of Arthur in Arkham, but he's just riding in an elevator where someone else is tied down to a stretcher and convulsing/thrashing. We get a voiceover about how his mother told him it was his purpose to make other people happy which seems to be why he became a clown, we see him forcing himself to smile in the mirror, pushing that little boy's face into a smile, his notepad has a joke about mental illness while the song playing over it all ("smile, though your heart is aching..), etc.

My takeaway from all this is that this Joker's problem isn't that he's mentally ill, it's that his method of dealing with it--laughing at it, forcing a smile, and focusing on making other people happy even if he's absolutely miserable. Resulting in both outcomes being severely ineffective and profoundly destructive to himself and others. The Taxi Driver comparisons and motifs are pretty obvious here, but while Taxi Driver was focused upon an angry alienated young man spiraling into delusion, JOKER seems to be setting up a more specific point about the choice to ignore personal issues/difficulties in favor of keeping up a positive exterior image.

Which I honestly think is a pretty interesting angle to take here, if that does prove to be the case. A Batman-less Joker movie certainly lends itself to be much more of a character study that goes beyond a lazy enigma backstory.

I'm interested. Just the mere fact that this looks like a worthwhile attempt to make a movie rather than yet another MCU Saturday morning CGI comedy serial is enough to get my attention these days.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  5 Apr  2019, 04:35
The primary theme of the trailer is "put on a happy face", which leads me to believe that this is going to be a movie about depression and the damage that comes from trying to cover it up rather than truthfully addressing it.

Good point. It's clear he changes his mindset completely given he starts to view his life as a comedy and not a tragedy. Case in point being assaulted on the train, and continuing to laugh while on the ground. My prediction is that his mother (not a wife) dies near the third act and he is sent over the edge, with the film ending with the Wayne murder sequence. His decision to smile NO MATTER WHAT comes from his mother, after all.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  4 Apr  2019, 23:40I get the idea of calling DeNiro's character David Endocrine but I think Phillips is shooting for more of a "world outside your window" approach rather than the parody that Endocrine was intended to be. It would've been good fan service but I think (or at least I want to believe) that Phillips has his eye on a very different prize here.

You're right. The fact they're avoiding the obvious fan service approach is really a good sign.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  5 Apr  2019, 00:35This looks like a variation on the recommendation I made of creating movies which are intended to stay separate from each other. The article itself notes the kinder, gentler direction the DCEU is taking these days so this anthology sub-franchise is a good way of keeping things fresh and interesting.

Maybe we'll finally get those live-action Gotham by Gaslight and Red Son movies we've been hungering for.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  5 Apr  2019, 04:35I'm interested. Just the mere fact that this looks like a worthwhile attempt to make a movie rather than yet another MCU Saturday morning CGI comedy serial is enough to get my attention these days.

Same here. I don't begrudge other people enjoying those films. Especially children. But with the majority of superhero movies presently heading down the same increasingly homogenised path, it's nice to see a film that's moving in its own direction. Often a fascinating and unique train wreck (e.g. David Lynch's Dune, which I love) is more interesting than a successful film that plays it safe and doesn't deviate from the winning formula. Now I'm not saying this new Joker flick is going to be a train wreck. But even if it is, it might still make for a unique and interesting experience.

I enjoy a good action sequence as much as anybody, but I feel most are lazy, mind numbing (especially the MCU) and even time wasting. Unless there's some unique hook, the majority of action sequences are obligatory and drag too long. Most plots and dialogue seem to only be about justifying the avalanche of action to come. Shazam, for example, could've still easily kept me entertained without that final battle, or even if it was cut in half. Batman Returns wasn't exactly an action fest. What I'm saying, is if you strip the action away from these MCU films, what meat do they exactly have on their bones? The psychologies of Batman and the Joker have long interested people, and their personalities are strong enough to stand on their own without one punch even being thrown. Something that strives to be different from the typical studio formula should be welcomed.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2F2yvtdfq.jpg&hash=42617d01f2893487d438b14a5485bc57e6dfdf7b)

^ That picture is almost perfect. Almost. It's just missing one thing...

Watching the trailer again, I noticed the Joker is smoking a cigarette when he appears on the talk show.


He's still smoking the cigarette at the moment he steps through the curtain.


He was also carrying a cigarette when he stepped through the curtain onto Endocrine's show in The Dark Knight Returns and continued smoking it throughout the interview.


Now I'm starting to suspect that this will be the film's finale. Just as The King of Comedy ends with Pupkin appearing on Langford's show and performing his stand-up routine, so this might end with the Joker appearing on Murray Franklin's show and delivering his own performance that culminates in an act of murder.

Could very well be the ending, or near the end at least. I'm hoping the host isn't just whacked, but the entire audience as well. But I may be hoping for too much. I think it'd be a statement by Fleckjoker that he is the biggest star in Gotham, especially when it concerns comedy. And those who laughed at the host's jokes had poor taste. No different to Nicholson Joker's hostile takeover of Grissom's gang, or Ledger taking down the mob.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  6 Apr  2019, 18:17
^ That picture is almost perfect. Almost. It's just missing one thing...

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjIyMDg2NTY4OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDcxODU4OTE@._V1_.jpg)

I know, it's a shame Romero is not featured on that collage because he's the most entertaining of the lot.

Here's a fun Friends video featuring our live action Jokers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptUlAEFX3I4

The trailer blew me away. I haven't been this excited for a movie since Batman Begins. I had a good feeling about it when I heard the Phoenix was involved but a little worried about the choice of director. This trailer has me really excited for what's to come. The tone is perfect. It's everything I could have hoped for.

Now I'm worried because the film can't possibly be as good as the trailer, can it?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  7 Apr  2019, 00:37I think it'd be a statement by Fleckjoker that he is the biggest star in Gotham, especially when it concerns comedy. And those who laughed at the host's jokes had poor taste. No different to Nicholson Joker's hostile takeover of Grissom's gang, or Ledger taking down the mob.

Another example would be Ledger's Joker killing the Batman imposter and sending the snuff tape to the press to be televised. I can see Fleck taking advantage of his moment in the sun to make a similar statement.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  7 Apr  2019, 01:17

Here's a fun Friends video featuring our live action Jokers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptUlAEFX3I4

My favourite episode was 'The One Where They Poison the Reservoir'. That contains the classic scene where Monica introduces the Jokers to her new boyfriend--


--only for Jack's Joker to recognise him as the kid whose parents he murdered decades earlier. Pure comedy gold. :D

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Sun,  7 Apr  2019, 15:00I haven't been this excited for a movie since Batman Begins.

Both films denote the start of a new era for big screen Batman adaptations. Let's hope this one turns out as well as the Nolan era did.

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Sun,  7 Apr  2019, 15:00
The trailer blew me away. I haven't been this excited for a movie since Batman Begins. I had a good feeling about it when I heard the Phoenix was involved but a little worried about the choice of director. This trailer has me really excited for what's to come. The tone is perfect. It's everything I could have hoped for.

Now I'm worried because the film can't possibly be as good as the trailer, can it?

I wasn't chomping at the bit for Batman Begins. I saw it on opening day out of tradition but it wasn't a big deal for me at the time.

In other words, I'm far more excited about Joker than I have been about any new Batman-related movie in quite some time. There's pretty much nothing about Joker that doesn't push my fan buttons right now.

I think The Joker is going to kill young Bruce at the end of the movie.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  7 Apr  2019, 17:36

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Sun,  7 Apr  2019, 15:00
The trailer blew me away. I haven't been this excited for a movie since Batman Begins. I had a good feeling about it when I heard the Phoenix was involved but a little worried about the choice of director. This trailer has me really excited for what's to come. The tone is perfect. It's everything I could have hoped for.

Now I'm worried because the film can't possibly be as good as the trailer, can it?

I wasn't chomping at the bit for Batman Begins. I saw it on opening day out of tradition but it wasn't a big deal for me at the time.

In other words, I'm far more excited about Joker than I have been about any new Batman-related movie in quite some time. There's pretty much nothing about Joker that doesn't push my fan buttons right now.

I'm pretty jaded and burnt out on comic book movies and it frustrates me that in this modern era nothing has really excited me, particularly with regards to Superman, Batman and Spiderman.
This Joker trailer has me feeling excited to visit the cinema again. It speaks to the fan I am today rather than the fan I was when i was 15 as other comic book movies being produced do.

Quote from: Travesty on Sun,  7 Apr  2019, 18:22
I think The Joker is going to kill young Bruce at the end of the movie.

Interesting theory. Keeping Thomas Wayne alive to become an alternate universe Batman.

A B66 Batmobile was spotted on set...

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Mon,  8 Apr  2019, 09:09I'm pretty jaded and burnt out on comic book movies and it frustrates me that in this modern era nothing has really excited me, particularly with regards to Superman, Batman and Spiderman.

You're going to fit in just fine around here, bro.

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Mon,  8 Apr  2019, 09:09This Joker trailer has me feeling excited to visit the cinema again. It speaks to the fan I am today rather than the fan I was when i was 15 as other comic book movies being produced do.

I'm starting to think that 99% of my investment in this movie comes down to Joaquin Phoenix. I want to see what he does with the character. I don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that my enthusiasm for this film would be at least 50% lower if anybody else was headlining the movie.

Separately, this movie could be a proof of concept that low budget, character-driven features about DC properties will attract viewers who are interested in something a little different. Obviously Joker doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars it can use on CGI to distract audiences from a weak story or bad acting.

In a way, Phillips and Phoenix are both performing without a net in this film. If the story sucks or if the characters aren't convincing, there's no hiding that.

For that reason alone, people should give this movie a lot of respect.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  8 Apr  2019, 20:58

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Mon,  8 Apr  2019, 09:09I'm pretty jaded and burnt out on comic book movies and it frustrates me that in this modern era nothing has really excited me, particularly with regards to Superman, Batman and Spiderman.

You're going to fit in just fine around here, bro.

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Mon,  8 Apr  2019, 09:09This Joker trailer has me feeling excited to visit the cinema again. It speaks to the fan I am today rather than the fan I was when i was 15 as other comic book movies being produced do.

I'm starting to think that 99% of my investment in this movie comes down to Joaquin Phoenix. I want to see what he does with the character. I don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that my enthusiasm for this film would be at least 50% lower if anybody else was headlining the movie.

Separately, this movie could be a proof of concept that low budget, character-driven features about DC properties will attract viewers who are interested in something a little different. Obviously Joker doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars it can use on CGI to distract audiences from a weak story or bad acting.

In a way, Phillips and Phoenix are both performing without a net in this film. If the story sucks or if the characters aren't convincing, there's no hiding that.

For that reason alone, people should give this movie a lot of respect.

Absolutely. As soon as i heard the Phoenix was attached to the project i became interested in a way I wouldn't have it it were any other actor. You can't get Phoenix to sign up to a trilogy of films without reading the scripts, you can't get him to commit to sharing the screen in some kind of shared universe. Phoenix is a guy for whom fame and money are secondary considerations. It's all about the work, the character, the story. His name being attached is selling this movie the way Nicholson sold Batman, but to a slightly divergent audience. Nicholson was more mainstream, he appealed across all demographics, Phoenix appeals to the film fan first and the comic book movie fan second.

Joker '19-style trailers starring previous Jokers.

Nicholson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ynkXlwdRU

Ledger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4JJb--pGuk

Now we just need Romero.

Todd Philips has confirmed the film will be R-rated. He also shared the following image on Instagram captioned "Finishing touches".

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 16 Jun  2019, 19:42
Todd Philips has confirmed the film will be R-rated. He also shared the following image on Instagram captioned "Finishing touches".

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9MrM5AWkAA6JUO.jpg)

I took the "finishing touches" remark as a bit of a double entendre. Yes, there's the literal idea of Fleck putting the finishing touches on his Joker makeup.

But there's also the IRL angle of Phillips putting the finishing touches on the movie as we speak. I imagine the film will be ready for preview screenings soon.

I watched Taxi Driver and The King Of Comedy a few days ago. I'd like to believe that puts me in a better headspace to get into whatever Phillips has in mind for this movie. I may be the lone voice in the wilderness on this one but I'm SERIOUSLY stoked for this movie. Nothing about it looks like anything but awesome with a side of epic thrown in.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 17 Jun  2019, 02:05
I may be the lone voice in the wilderness on this one but I'm SERIOUSLY stoked for this movie. Nothing about it looks like anything but awesome with a side of epic thrown in.

I'm stoked too. Phoenix gives me a lot of hope it's going to be worthwhile. Character driven dramas are more powerful than big budget special effects, and in this day and age that should be encouraged. The trailer struck the right tone with the music and the voiceover work. I think we're going to get something special.

Anything to break up the formulaic monotony gets automatic points.

I'm seeing a bit of pushback from comic book reading snobs.
To their way of thinking only the comics can reinvent a character or add to the mythology of these characters.
Of course they wilfully ignore the fact that many of the now iconic mainstays originated on radio shows, Serials, cartoons, and movies.

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Mon, 17 Jun  2019, 21:25
I'm seeing a bit of pushback from comic book reading snobs.
To their way of thinking only the comics can reinvent a character or add to the mythology of these characters.
Of course they wilfully ignore the fact that many of the now iconic mainstays originated on radio shows, Serials, cartoons, and movies.

*thinks of the majority of DC/Marvel superhero related movies made*

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

I would be more excited for this, if Todd Phillips wasn't the director. I'm just not a fan of his. The best movie he made, was The Hangover, and I find that movie to be pretty bad on repeated viewings. His last movie, War Dogs, was a bad Scorsese rip off, and it looks like The Joker will be another.

So who knows, we'll see. Maybe it'll turn out fine? But as of now, I'm just not that excited from the leaks I read, the trailer, and of course, Todd Phillips directing.

Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 18 Jun  2019, 15:43
I would be more excited for this, if Todd Phillips wasn't the director. I'm just not a fan of his. The best movie he made, was The Hangover, and I find that movie to be pretty bad on repeated viewings. His last movie, War Dogs, was a bad Scorsese rip off, and it looks like The Joker will be another.

So who knows, we'll see. Maybe it'll turn out fine? But as of now, I'm just not that excited from the leaks I read, the trailer, and of course, Todd Phillips directing.

The Scorsese thing seems kind of obvious from the trailer, it's true. Still, I'll overlook that if it means that WB is becoming more open to mixing these characters into other genres rather than keeping them into what has become narrow and confining parameters of the purely superhero genre. Nolan had one foot in spy thrillers at times, Snyder dabbled with operatic/Wagner epicness in BVS but Joker looks like it truly is setting out to be a crime film.

I applaud this decision, not least because I rather adore Taxi Driver.

Everything about this film appeals to me except the director, who seems to be mostly known for frat boy comedies, like the annoying and sophomoric Hangover series.

That said, if Peter 'Dumb and Dumber' Farrelly can make a Best Picture Oscar-winning film, Green Book, maybe there's a chance for Todd Phillips to graduate to more sophisticated filmmaking.

I actually liked War Dogs more than I thought I would ....

I mean, sure, the Scorsese influence was obvious, but that doesn't bother me. Similar to watching a Brian De Palma movie (Dressed to Kill and Body DOuble come to mind), and being fully aware of Alfred Hitchcock's influence. Might be irritating to some, but it's never bothered me. Not even a little bit.

I've seen that Empire cover story and photo making the rounds. Cool photo. But I think I'll skip the cover story for the time being. I want to go into Joker knowing nothing more than I do right now. I fear I may already know too much, in fact.

But, again, nothing I've seen about this movie so far has me nervous.

The Empire article came out, and there's some quotes from Todd Phillips in there. This was obvious, but here it is:

Quote from: Todd PhillipsWe didn't follow anything from the comic-books, which people are gonna be mad about. We just wrote our own version of where a guy like Joker might come from. That's what was interesting to me. We're not even doing Joker, but the story of becoming Joker. It's about this man.

Quote from: Travesty on Mon,  8 Jul  2019, 15:35
The Empire article came out, and there's some quotes from Todd Phillips in there. This was obvious, but here it is:

Quote from: Todd PhillipsWe didn't follow anything from the comic-books, which people are gonna be mad about. We just wrote our own version of where a guy like Joker might come from. That's what was interesting to me. We're not even doing Joker, but the story of becoming Joker. It's about this man.

Nerds are raging about this comment but I'm cool with it. The comics deviate and reinvent these characters constantly.
For some strange reason nerds rage when a film, book or cartoon does the same.

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Tue,  9 Jul  2019, 08:35

Quote from: Travesty on Mon,  8 Jul  2019, 15:35
The Empire article came out, and there's some quotes from Todd Phillips in there. This was obvious, but here it is:

Quote from: Todd PhillipsWe didn't follow anything from the comic-books, which people are gonna be mad about. We just wrote our own version of where a guy like Joker might come from. That's what was interesting to me. We're not even doing Joker, but the story of becoming Joker. It's about this man.

Nerds are raging about this comment but I'm cool with it. The comics deviate and reinvent these characters constantly.
For some strange reason nerds rage when a film, book or cartoon does the same.

You're right. Way I see it, there will be comic references, but the movie will be completely free in the way it uses those references. The core 'Joker' theme will remain no matter what route they take: a beaten down man having a mental breakdown and embracing a life of comedy and crime.

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Tue,  9 Jul  2019, 08:35
Nerds are raging about this comment but I'm cool with it. The comics deviate and reinvent these characters constantly.
For some strange reason nerds rage when a film, book or cartoon does the same.

Haha! Yeah, one would think after all the reboots, and especially after all the DTV DC animated movies over the years, with all their different interpretations/continuities, would have lessened the hurt feelings on deviation from the main source material.

I mean, think of it, we've had a animated movie where Superman is the biological son of General Zod, where Jim Gordon is Jack the Ripper, live action films where Spider-Man who finds Tony Stark more inspiring than his Uncle Ben could ever hope to be, a Nick Fury who loses his eye to a alien cat of all things, ect  .....

And they are pissing and moaning about deviation?!?!?

Haha!

Final trailer:

Bummer, it's just Joaquin's regular voice. I thought he was going to transform into a completely different persona when he had the makeup on. It's just Arthur Fleck with makeup on. And it looks like he can go in and out of being The Joker. We see him walking around as Arthur, as he's happy that people are dressed up as The Joker. And that's Joker-ish, in the sense that he would like it, but not so much of him going in and out of the persona like Batman can with Bruce Wayne and Batman. But I guess this has little to do with the comics, so whatever.

So I dunno, we'll see. I'm still skeptical of this movie.

After watching The King of Comedy a few weeks ago, and now seeing this trailer, I can definitely see the influence that film has on Joker.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDEeMV2WwAIPOLD?format=jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDEfIUYXsAEMmGt?format=jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDEcOYTXoAIl2QT?format=jpg)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 28 Aug  2019, 16:16
Final trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAGVQLHvwOY

One teaser and two trailers. So far, I still haven't seen anything I don't like.

I'm really getting excited for this film.

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 28 Aug  2019, 16:53
Bummer, it's just Joaquin's regular voice. I thought he was going to transform into a completely different persona when he had the makeup on. It's just Arthur Fleck with makeup on. And it looks like he can go in and out of being The Joker. We see him walking around as Arthur, as he's happy that people are dressed up as The Joker. And that's Joker-ish, in the sense that he would like it, but not so much of him going in and out of the persona like Batman can with Bruce Wayne and Batman. But I guess this has little to do with the comics, so whatever.

So I dunno, we'll see. I'm still skeptical of this movie.

The thrust of the film seems to be that the Joker is not a transformation so much as a state of mind. It's all about Arthur's perspective on his own life. It's not him that changes; it's his perception of himself and his world that shifts (or so I gather).

On that basis, I think it makes sense for him to use his normal voice while wearing the makeup.

Ledger was good, but overhyped. It means his performance has been placed on an impossibly high pedestal that some think cannot be competed with. That's not Ledger's fault considering the circumstances. But here's my prediction: Phoenix is going to make Ledger look tame. JOKER will be more personal, more intense and more graphic. JOKER will be a movie that makes people uncomfortable in ways Ledger's Joker could only dream about.

This isn't a mainstream blockbuster like TDK, even though people will walk in with that expectation. It's a man who laughs because it's an uncontrollable illness, and his life is a constant misery. That automatically gives an edge to Phoenix.

Phoenix is going to have more time to shine. We'll be told this is a bad thing because the Joker is *always* meant to be a mysterious cameo character, apparently. But that's a load of bull. More screen time means more content to enjoy. More time to connect with a character and their plight. More content being a bad thing is peak stupidity, and peak jealousy. Ledger is good, and Phoenix will be also. But I feel like this is going to be a huge step up and will knock audiences off their feet.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2019-08-27/joker-todd-phillips-joaquin-phoenix

Phillips lays out his agenda a little bit with JOKER in this article. No real spoilers or anything so it's a safe item to read to get an idea of the tone and style that Phillips is aiming for.

Look here, boys and girls. I'm on the record from way back for being a bit tired of the MCU formula. It's a virtual conveyor belt of product. It really sounds to me like Phillips had a higher ambition and for that reason alone JOKER already has my respect.

I have no idea if the movie will turn out to be anything special. Maybe, maybe not. But at a minimum, I appreciate Phillips wanting to do something different and a bit more original with his film.

It would be hypocritical of me to do anything but be a cheerleader for this film.

Quote'Calm down with the label — how about you do one movie?'

That approach alone automatically makes this film something that is clearly non-traditional, rather than the typical route of thinking we have grown accustomed to when it comes to these kind of properties. And for that, I applaud them. As it's very much a breathe of fresh air at this stage.

Joker is clearly a film brought to life out of both passion and creativity, and certainly looks quite engaging going off the trailers. Now, do I continue to remain suspicious about this being something of a Hollywood political "message" movie? Sure. Especially so when it comes to Thomas Wayne and his portrayal. We'll have to see just how pervasive and heavy handed it is.

As for the peanut gallery crying foul cause this movie explores the Joker's backstory ... wanna bet these same clods would also go on to name "The Killing Joke", to which this film is clearly taking some influence from, as a favorite Joker comic book story?

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 29 Aug  2019, 22:16
As for the peanut gallery crying foul cause this movie explores the Joker's backstory ... wanna bet these same clods would also go on to name "The Killing Joke", to which this film is clearly taking some influence from, as a favorite Joker comic book story?

Indeed. The Killing Joke gives us a lengthy depiction of the character pre-transformation. I have no reason to doubt what that comic shows is his origin, being a failed comedian who wears a red hood and gets bleached. They go to a lot of trouble depicting something important for no reason? If that's what some people want to believe, go right ahead. The multiple choice comment IN MY OPINION is what gives justification for OTHER DEPICTIONS in OTHER BATMAN MEDIA. The Killing Joke being one, B89 being another, and so on. And that includes the Phoenix movie. Seeing the human behind the costume is what makes Phoenix's incarnation so intriguing, instead of just being dread and nihilism incarnated for a brief number of scenes.

The first reviews are in following the premiere at the Venice Film Festival: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/joker_2019/

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 31 Aug  2019, 20:05
The first reviews are in following the premiere at the Venice Film Festival: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/joker_2019/

Positive reactions there which will please colors. I've seen hypothetical talk about a sequel by the director, and people hoping this becomes a Pattinson prequel. I find the latter request to be out of reach. FleckJoker would likely be too old to face up against RoBat considering Bruce is a child as shown by the trailers.

I don't think I want this to become a franchise. I think I prefer it if this is a onetime, standalone sort of thing. Not everything needs to get milked dry. Still, the enthusiasm for a hypothetical sequel tells me a lot about how much people care. I see that as a positive thing.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  1 Sep  2019, 00:24
I don't think I want this to become a franchise. I think I prefer it if this is a onetime, standalone sort of thing. Not everything needs to get milked dry. Still, the enthusiasm for a hypothetical sequel tells me a lot about how much people care. I see that as a positive thing.

Agreed. I think the rise and fall arc means it's a solo film and a solo film only. That style of arc is precisely how an actor like Phoenix sinks his teeth into a role and shows his range. These type of performances are what people remember, much like Michelle's Selina starting out as a shy secretary, becoming an apartment trasher and finally a skin tight vinyl dominatrix. I don't know how a Joker sequel could justify itself without becoming another mainstream hero/villain piece. The focus of this film is his psychology. And the events of this film are the main event. A sequel would represent a plateau.

So let me guess this straight: the same loudmouth critics who have condemned the darkness of movies like MOS and BvS, and their vitriol inspired Warner Butchers to completely reshoot SS and JL, are heaping praise on this sh*t for being "dark, brooding and disturbing"? Some of which going so far to say the Joker-in-name-only character is "sympathetic", despite how psychotic he becomes? GET f***ED. Once again, these hypocritical critics are seriously sick in the head.

This movie looks like pretentious, unoriginal garbage. What, is Hollywood REALLY that bankrupt for creativity? If they're not regurgitating the same formula, like most MCU movies nowadays, they're mimicking better movies from the past with a gimmick.

There's no point for me bitching about this any further, because I won't ever watch this piece of sh*t. But I'm sure the masses will eat it up.

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/3XiQswSmbjBiU/giphy.gif)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  1 Sep  2019, 01:30
There's no point for me bitching about this any further

You're right about that.

'The Joker without Batman doesn't make sense'.

I don't completely agree with the premise of that statement in the context of JOKER. The Killing Joke shows the character was beaten down psychologically well before he fell into the vat of chemicals. As it stands in the current day of the film, Phoenix's source of angst in this film seems to be Bruce's father and what he stands for.

In the long term, I think it's more likely Phoenix inspires young Bruce to eventually become Batman, inverting the relationship between the two characters. The same boxes will be ticked but in different ways.

Oh and colors, one small thing: when you bring me out, can you introduce me as Dark Knight?

And the "critic" poster.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDqbEJNUwAAWkES.jpg)

All indications are that this will be something more than simply yet another example of aping off of the MCU formula which we've have had in droves for years now.

In either case, I will likely see this opening weekend (if not opening Thurs/Fri). Though I continue to keep my expectations in check, especially so in how the joker, as a character, is handled as a protagonist, rather than a antagonist in a film. Hell, I'll be pleased if this might conceivably stand beside Fox's 2017 LOGAN. Another great film that was more grounded, and more focused on characterization/it's own self contained story, rather than CGI and "shared universe" gimmicks.

Its difficult for me to draw any fair conclusions on this until I actually see the film. That being said, I certainly have opinions on the suggestions regarding this being a stand alone project. If this is to be nothing more than a origin story wrapped in social commentary, what is the intention for the audience? Deconstructing villains is not a new approach in the age of cinema. And it goes without saying this exploration often devalues the villain when we're handed an explanation far less interesting than what we could personally imagine. God knows we've had some classic villains destroyed with shallow depictions of "good people, filled with good intentions, steered in bad directions by others with less noble pursuits." It's a bit of a tired formula. So when I see a film that promises to take me "inside the mind of the Joker", history has taught me not to invest too much on that promise.

Hopefully this is the launch of something interesting to bring in the new Batman and not another shallow rambling from Hollywood about the shortcomings of society, (which they exploit to generate revenue). There's nothing more disingenuous than someone virtue signalling while picking your pocket.

JOKER has elements of the comics, but its true grounding lies in Taxi Driver and those types of films. And guess what? Those were one and done outings as well. By that same logic, why should the audience invest themselves in a story that doesn't progress into sequels? Villain deconstruction is not a new concept and it doesn't have to be. In 2019, how many new concepts can there be? All we ask for is a good film with good performances, and by all accounts Phoenix just doesn't bring home the bacon, but a truck full of tacos. There is a way to give Phoenix's incarnation heavy screen time as well retain a sense of mysteriousness. And based on the plot details I've read, that's been achieved. Looking forward to seeing that play out.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  8 Sep  2019, 08:30
JOKER has elements of the comics, but its true grounding lies in Taxi Driver and those types of films. And guess what? Those were one and done outings as well. By that same logic, why should the audience invest themselves in a story that doesn't progress into sequels? Villain deconstruction is not a new concept and it doesn't have to be. In 2019, how many new concepts can there be? All we ask for is a good film with good performances, and by all accounts Phoenix just doesn't bring home the bacon, but a truck full of tacos. There is a way to give Phoenix's incarnation heavy screen time as well retain a sense of mysteriousness. And based on the plot details I've read, that's been achieved. Looking forward to seeing that play out.

I can understand where JOKER might not be everybody's brand of vodka. But the film truly does look like a labor of love for everybody involved. This is most certainly not a drive-thru McMovie. Phillips and his cast and crew seem to be going out of their way to be different. A low budget, done-in-one solo Joker film is not the path of least resistance in today's market.

I think that is precisely what attracts fans like you and me to this film, if I'm being honest. For us, JOKER's originality is not a bug; it's a feature. I see JOKER as good counter-programming to the marvelous competition's output done in a way which has always separated DC from Marvel. When push comes to shove, DC Comics has always been willing to take greater creative risks than Marvel Comics.

I'm glad that those same types of risks are being taken by WB now.

The negative one and done commentary ignores the fact Nicholson and Ledger are precisely that. Phoenix will also have one appearance, but guess what? He'll end up having more screen time than both put together. So it really is a moot point.

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. They disgust and intrigue in equal measure. JOKER is bringing that same type of morbidly curious energy, so much so that I've seen genuine fears the movie is almost too effectively real and could become a radicalization tool for people who see themselves as being in Arthur's position. That's high praise. It's a commentary on the true power of cinema which is rarely captured. It's why Tarantino enjoys using violence in his films. It elicits an emotional response and allows a director to control an audience.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  8 Sep  2019, 14:33
The negative one and done commentary ignores the fact Nicholson and Ledger are precisely that. Phoenix will also have one appearance, but guess what? He'll end up having more screen time than both put together. So it really is a moot point

There is nothing "ignored" because the Nicholas and Ledger Jokers were staged against Batman AS INTENDED. This movie wants to step outside that box and give the audience a one note origin story. My response to that is why do it at all if the suggestion is not to go any further?  Would you have preferred Nolan stop at Batman Begins? Do you build the world's fastest car and decide not to equip it with wheels? If the argument is, "This is for the art of it", then what is the statement? And please don't tell me it's to romanticize Tedd Bundy.

I laughed out loud recently when I read how people were outraged at the idealized ending for Tarantino's current film, " Once upon a time in Hollywood". Somewhere along the way people forgot to read the title or understand this was NOT a biography on the Manson family. IT IS FICTION. I'm finding myself reacting the same way to those who want to embrace this project because a critic called it a "masterpiece". And then we have the reaction in Venice to this film as well. Is Venice now the beacon of truth in art or can we just apply a tad bit of transparency and understand all of this is well crafted MARKETING to influence opening weekend that is just under a month away? Funny how that works...

The Joker is a comic book character in a comic book world. All of the sprinkles of social allegory (that most movies carry anyway) will never get me to consider this interpretation as a serious study of mental illness or class warfare as conceptualized by Joaquin Phoenix.  I see with better eyes than that and understand what is commercial and what is window dressing to make a buck. If you had one of these disorders would you enjoy seeing it portrayed by a fictional homicidal villain? Might set you back a bit. But the responsibility of that is for another discussion. All of that being said, my reaction is to the conjecture of this film. I'm hoping to like this movie, but I don't have to guess at my disappointment if they do not marry it to a Batman film to give it completion. There is no case study to be had on a fictional antagonist, nor is there a payoff if the fictional protagonist is never intended to share center stage with him.

So there's 3 leaked scenes floating on YT right now. I'm sure they'll get taken down soon. Two of them are of Joker killing, and it's pretty violent. This is definitely a hard R.

Edit: and they've all been taken down. That was extremely fast.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon,  9 Sep  2019, 12:56

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  8 Sep  2019, 14:33
The negative one and done commentary ignores the fact Nicholson and Ledger are precisely that. Phoenix will also have one appearance, but guess what? He'll end up having more screen time than both put together. So it really is a moot point

There is nothing "ignored" because the Nicholas and Ledger Jokers were staged against Batman AS INTENDED. This movie wants to step outside that box and give the audience a one note origin story. My response to that is why do it at all if the suggestion is not to go any further?  Would you have preferred Nolan stop at Batman Begins? Do you build the world's fastest car and decide not to equip it with wheels? If the argument is, "This is for the art of it", then what is the statement? And please don't tell me it's to romanticize Tedd Bundy.

I laughed out loud recently when I read how people were outraged at the idealized ending for Tarantino's current film, " Once upon a time in Hollywood". Somewhere along the way people forgot to read the title or understand this was NOT a biography on the Manson family. IT IS FICTION. I'm finding myself reacting the same way to those who want to embrace this project because a critic called it a "masterpiece". And then we have the reaction in Venice to this film as well. Is Venice now the beacon of truth in art or can we just apply a tad bit of transparency and understand all of this is well crafted MARKETING to influence opening weekend that is just under a month away? Funny how that works...

The Joker is a comic book character in a comic book world. All of the sprinkles of social allegory (that most movies carry anyway) will never get me to consider this interpretation as a serious study of mental illness or class warfare as conceptualized by Joaquin Phoenix.  I see with better eyes than that and understand what is commercial and what is window dressing to make a buck. If you had one of these disorders would you enjoy seeing it portrayed by a fictional homicidal villain? Might set you back a bit. But the responsibility of that is for another discussion. All of that being said, my reaction is to the conjecture of this film. I'm hoping to like this movie, but I don't have to guess at my disappointment if they do not marry it to a Batman film to give it completion. There is no case study to be had on a fictional antagonist, nor is there a payoff if the fictional protagonist is never intended to share center stage with him.

Jack Napier killed young Bruce's parents in B89, long before they met again as adults. At that point Napier didn't have green hair or bleached skin, but he was already a homicidal nut who made an everlasting impact on a young boy. Fleck could do the same but instead he's already wearing the clown gear. If B89 was a strict Napier origin story and ended with the Wayne murders, Bruce was still going to become Batman.

We don't need Batman to appear for Phoenix to be considered 'legitimate'. I think it's best to approach JOKER as something that includes 'Joker' themes, but exists as its own thing, which I find allows a mysterious disconnection from the other Joker actors while still embodying their spirit. 'It's not exactly the same as the comics or even the other films, therefore it's invalid' is dead end thinking. JOKER is a bit like The Shining – some things align but others don't.

I embraced the stripped down, character focus well before the glowing reviews came out. In this film, the impact Fleck has on others is there, but the main focus is Fleck's own mental evolution, or devolution – that point is a matter of perspective. His change of personality is largely dependent on the way society treats him, or how he perceives society treating him. Becoming a costumed killer represents the end of HIS arc, as he's certainly not going back to his Arthur days. This is him now. That is the sense of completion with the story they're telling.

Throwing down with Batman in a mudhole with copious CGI isn't what this film is about. Nor should any hypothetical sequels be that way inclined. If you're not on board with that concept it seems you won't be enjoying this 'one note origin story'.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 10 Sep  2019, 10:53

We don't need Batman to appear for Phoenix to be considered 'legitimate'. I think it's best to approach JOKER as something that includes 'Joker' themes, but exists as its own thing, which I find allows a mysterious disconnection from the other Joker actors while still embodying their spirit. 'It's not exactly the same as the comics or even the other films, therefore it's invalid' is dead end thinking. JOKER is a bit like The Shining – some things align but others don't.

I embraced the stripped down, character focus well before the glowing reviews came out. In this film, the impact Fleck has on others is there, but the main focus is Fleck's own mental evolution, or devolution – that point is a matter of perspective. His change of personality is largely dependent on the way society treats him, or how he perceives society treating him. Becoming a costumed killer represents the end of HIS arc, as he's certainly not going back to his Arthur days. This is him now. That is the sense of completion with the story they're telling.

Throwing down with Batman in a mudhole with copious CGI isn't what this film is about. Nor should any hypothetical sequels be that way inclined. If you're not on board with that concept it seems you won't be enjoying this 'one note origin story'.

Again... what is the purpose of a character study for a fictional villain when history tells us it always diminishes their appeal? We had three films in Star Wars that explained the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker. At least  there was an endgame to all of it. We saw how that would play out in the other three "chapters". But in retrospect, it did nothing to enhance the villain because it stripped him of any mystery and actually made him more one dimensional. One of the 20 century's great sci-fi monsters was reduced to a whiny, immature brat. So much for that character study.

So now the thinking is we need to see why the Joker is disconnected from reason? My hunch (and hope) is this so-called "origin" is actually going to demonstrate that he is the author of his own madness and that  environmental issues are more a narrative that he purposely embellishes to justify his compulsions for violence (Very much in the same way Ledger's Joker changed the story of his scars). The LAST thing we need is a story using armchair reasoning to bail out a fascinating character like this as a 'byproduct of society'. What an unoriginal and completely pandering message that would be to the new "victim" generation.

The counter narrative in these stories, namely Batman, shows an identically scarred mind coming at the same issues from a different perspective. Its the battle of the wits (and ideology) that make Batman and Joker the premiere showcase. Not some "slug fest in the mud" as you demean it to be. I'm sorry if I find those possibilities far more challenging and intriguing as a character study than a superficial profile on the Joker that hides behind medical disorders as the commercial "hidden novel" (and crutch) for selling Hollywood's skewed view of "morality". Respect the source material instead of using it as a platform for personal agendas.

'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.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 10 Sep  2019, 13:10Again... what is the purpose of a character study for a fictional villain when history tells us it always diminishes their appeal? We had three films in Star Wars that explained the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker. At least  there was an endgame to all of it. We saw how that would play out in the other three "chapters". But in retrospect, it did nothing to enhance the villain because it stripped him of any mystery and actually made him more one dimensional. One of the 20 century's great sci-fi monsters was reduced to a whiny, immature brat. So much for that character study.

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.

I kinda get the feeling that some are more than eager to refute whatever it is this movie is saying - if anything at all - for the possibility that it might be against their own personal positions. None of us here have seen this movie yet, and from the reviews I've read (out of curiosity, and to amuse myself in just by how much some of them tend to cannibalize each other's reviews), have gone both ways. However, what is fairly consistent, is that they are highly galvanizing. It's not the typical "critic" review stating that the movie is simply "Ok", or another comic book popcorn flick. It's either JOKER is a complete waste of a movie, or it's an absolute masterpiece of filmmaking art.

Even before Phoenix arrived we had a sea of Jokers to choose from, all with their own histories.

The Killing Joke and B89 have been so prevalent in DC media over the decades that the idea the character can't have an origin story goes against known fact.

Jack Napier was a completely new name for Nicholson's take, and Arthur Fleck is a completely new name for Phoenix's take. JOKER will outright show Fleck's rise and fall, just as B89 spelled out exactly who Napier is with a three tiered progression. We saw Jack as a young man killing the Waynes, as a Grissom heavy and finally as the Joker.

Napier was set up over a woman - and he killed his boss because of it. There is no sense of mystery in Nicholson's origins, but do I dislike him because of that? Nope. I only find him more fascinating in the way he contrasts to his earlier personas.

I don't forsee Phoenix's Joker being funny in the way we've come to expect, but rather someone choosing to embrace bad luck, pain and suffering in the tradition of 'can you believe it?'. Instead of crying, he's choosing the laugh. The Killing Joke could serve as a general guide, specifically "Do you know what triggered the last World War? An argument over how many telegraph poles Germany owed its war debt creditors! Telegraph poles!"

There's also an aspect of owning bullies that I think will gratify certain members of the audience. The trailers show a well-intentioned man being mocked on television, assaulted on a train and bashed on the street. When the tables are turned, the fun becomes self-satisfaction in claiming revenge – the joke's on you. Instead of being a meek victim like before, I'm going to roar like a lion and get the final say.

A pile of dead bodies means nothing to a nihilist, and because of that, they don't mind if more pile up. They care even less if those bodies are their oppressors, or people who align with their oppressors.

The Joker can be presented as a transparent character to the audience, but to the society that made him he's an enigma. To them, he just represents a philosophy of anarchy and death.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 10 Sep  2019, 13:35
'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...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 10 Sep  2019, 19:49
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.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 11 Sep  2019, 12:12

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 10 Sep  2019, 13:35
'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...

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.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 11 Sep  2019, 14:22

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.

I dunno, just because someone is fascinated with something, doesn't mean they're a "fan" of that thing in particular. I'm an atheist, but I'm fascinated with religion, so I read as much as I can on a variety of religions. It doesn't mean I'm a "fan" of certain religions, or that I'm even religious, it just means it peaks my interest. I also have a friend who can't stop reading UFO cases and conspiracy theories, and he's a huge skeptic who doesn't believe in any of it. He just finds that area of study interesting, so he reads up on it constantly.

I think both the pearl clutching social justice warriors and the alt-right edge-lords all need to simmer down, and think more reasonably about what is ultimately a piece of art/entertainment, instead of pushing their own political agendas.

Artists do have some responsibility to the world at large, in terms of how their art affects the minds of the most vulnerable and impressionable individuals, but much greater responsibility lies on the shoulders of our law-makers, our law officials and our medical services.

Moreover, as we saw with the Beatles' Helter Skelter, and in the UK the powerful and compassionate BBC TV drama 'Three Girls', which concerned the grooming and abuse of young girls in Rochdale, England, even the most innocuous and ostensibly inoffensive works of art can be seized on and distorted by sickos to justify their messed-up world view and actions.  Thus, it's hard to know where to draw the line outside snuff films, hardcore porn, and the most violent 'video nasties' in terms of what might detrimentally affect a film audience.

I personally welcome this film, but I also hope it will be appraised in a certain context that acknowledges the issues it explores.  I also hope it is an exploration rather than an endorsement of the type of nihilistic world view The Joker represents.  One can sympathise and understand the mindset of troubled people like Arthur Fleck without supporting and defending their actions.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 11 Sep  2019, 13:27
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.

Rereading my post, I'm at a loss to understand where the critical reaction to this movie is coming from.

But since we're on the subject anyway, Titanic has an RT score of 89%. Clearly they enjoyed the film and considering the movie's success, I'd say general audiences did as well. The same general statements can be made of The Dark Knight (94%), The Godfather (98%), The Aviator (86%), Back To The Future (96%), etc etc etc.

My point is that there are instances where critical reception and public opinion align rather nicely with each other. At a minimum, the rave reviews JOKER has earned indicates that critics are more open-minded about the film than they were for most of Snyder's DCEU films. I don't assign any particular value or importance to the fact that critics have greeted JOKER warmly.

Frankly, a great deal of my enthusiasm for JOKER stems from the film's influences by Scorsese's Taxi Driver and King Of Comedy, both of which I enjoy and both of which are sort of obvious sources of inspiration for this character.

In the end, the most anybody can say is that I'm willing to hear Phillips out. There's nothing wrong with that, as I'm sure you would agree.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 11 Sep  2019, 20:16the pearl clutching social justice warriors and the alt-right edge-lords

You just can't let up, can you? Other members are clearly going to pains to ignore the semi-political controversies this film has been subjected to but that's somehow not good enough for you, is it?

Quote

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 11 Sep  2019, 20:16the pearl clutching social justice warriors and the alt-right edge-lords

You just can't let up, can you? Other members are clearly going to pains to ignore the semi-political controversies this film has been subjected to but that's somehow not good enough for you, is it?

This is a bizarre attack bearing in mind that my comment was a response to a dispute that is already occurring on this board, and one I was attempting to diffuse by taking a centrist, non-partisan position that condemned both some of this film's most ardent critics and some of its most ardent champions.

In fact, I was arguing against political factions, both on the left and the right, politicising this film.  Please stop attacking me for doing the one thing I am in fact fighting against.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 11 Sep  2019, 21:59

Quote

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 11 Sep  2019, 20:16the pearl clutching social justice warriors and the alt-right edge-lords

You just can't let up, can you? Other members are clearly going to pains to ignore the semi-political controversies this film has been subjected to but that's somehow not good enough for you, is it?

This is a bizarre attack bearing in mind that my comment was a response to a dispute that is already occurring on this board, and one I was attempting to diffuse by taking a centrist, non-partisan position that condemned both some of this film's most ardent critics and some of its most ardent champions.

In fact, I was arguing against political factions, both on the left and the right, politicising this film.  Please stop attacking me for doing the one thing I am in fact fighting against.

Unless I've missed something, there hasn't been a specifically political opinion made with respect to the movie by a member of this board in this thread.

I can't speak for anybody else but I at least am not involved in a "dispute" in this thread, least of all a political one. My posts have been made to express my opinion and the posts directed at me seem similarly designed to express that member's opinion. Wayne and TDK may be involved in a "dispute" (that's for them to determine) but what I've read of their posts lacks any obvious political connection.

In fact, the only one mentioning political factions in any capacity in this thread is you, afaik.

Nobody could've predicted that.

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 11 Sep  2019, 17:39
I dunno, just because someone is fascinated with something, doesn't mean they're a "fan" of that thing in particular. I'm an atheist, but I'm fascinated with religion, so I read as much as I can on a variety of religions. It doesn't mean I'm a "fan" of certain religions, or that I'm even religious, it just means it peaks my interest. I also have a friend who can't stop reading UFO cases and conspiracy theories, and he's a huge skeptic who doesn't believe in any of it. He just finds that area of study interesting, so he reads up on it constantly.

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.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 11 Sep  2019, 22:31

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.

The thing with boneheads such as yourself is the inability to accept the truth that is being told, either because of outright stupidity or a stubborn refusal to back away from a failed argument. I don't have any shame whatsoever in saying I find Bundy fascinating, nor am I trying to place any shame blame onto you. So that comment is way off the mark, which once again shows your poor judgement.

I also find L. Ron Hubbard and the tactics of Scientology extremely fascinating, along with Robert Mugabe – a man who remained in power for three decades, going from champion to hated tyrant. Absolutely fascinating. I know these individuals are bad eggs and I don't see them as heroes. To claim fascination equals love is simply not true and goes beyond reaching. And yet you cling on to that interpretation like a distressed pig wearing a dunce hat. The term romanticize is all you – I have not spoken in those terms whatsoever, and yet it all gets ignored to push your sour grapes narrative.

I also have a keen interest in John Lennon and Elvis Presley, among others. I know about all these people inside out, and I'm fascinated by who they really were, warts and all. Humanity is three dimensional and it's good to have a perspective on all of its aspects.

You say I seek to redefine reality because I correctly state the past doesn't exist whatsoever in the current day. This is another prime example of a bonehead refusing to accept reality himself. The past is dead, gone, finished and unalterable. That is not up for debate, that is a stone cold fact. The future also only exists in our minds because it has not yet happened. There is only the present. If you find that troubling, you really are a lost cause – and need to evaluate what reality actually is.

So in summary, we have a mind reader who fumes at the accepted reality of time, and calls a movie he has not yet seen one note – but in the same breath pretends he wants to give it a chance. Keep digging that hole, because you have exposed yourself for all to see on this forum. You offer nothing of value and everything you type can safely be dismissed. The depth of your analysis amounts to saying Batman and the Joker are not real.

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.

I know people who consider themselves "World War II fans". Something about that war and that specific period of history really captures their interest for some reason. They're not weird, bloodthirsty savages. They simply enjoy studying the topic and the personalities involved with it.

Other people I know have a similar interest in Jack The Ripper. They're not murderers themselves and they don't admire murderers. But something about the Jack The Ripper case intrigues them.

And TDK has a fascination with Ted Bundy. He was a good looking, charismatic man who should've been so much more than he ultimately became. He could've been whatever he wanted to be. And in the end... well, we all know. It's not like TDK is somehow odd or different in that regard. Millions of people share a similar interest in the Ted Bundy case. I should imagine that their interest in the case is no reflection of their character (or their sympathies). It's simply a case that intrigues them.

I honestly don't understand why that should be a controversial subject. We're all here because we have a passion for Batman. And, frankly, following the Ted Bundy case can be adduced from a Batman fandom rather easily, I think. I see a fair amount of connective tissue there. If Batman was a real guy (or if Bundy was a fictional character), it's not a stretch to think that Batman would eventually have some type of showdown with Bundy.

In fact, I think an interest in true crime in general could reconcile itself rather easily with an interest in JOKER as a film.

tl;dr- I think Wayne is making a big deal out of nothing with TDK's "fascination" comment.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 13 Sep  2019, 14:57
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...

Wayne, I am being honest with you here. Wires must have been crossed somewhere along the line, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am not a devout follower of Scientology. I know it is a scam. Thetans are not real. Past lives are garbage and lots of material was literally dreamed up on acid trips. These concepts are the brainchild of a struggling science fiction author who created a pyramid scheme religion to make money. A man who turned life failures into perceived successes by lying to brainwashed sheep. I've read numerous books about Hubbard, and I could recommend a few if you were interested. What I'm trying to say here, is just because I am interested in Scientology, Bundy, Mugabe and these types does not make me disciples of their doctrine. I'm not a fan of them, and I know what they're about. They haven't converted me because I'm wise to their act. I merely have an interest in these types of personalities. I can't be any more clearer than that. My Lennon and Elvis passion is not just because of their music, which I love, but the rose tinted portrayal they've had since death. They're much deeper than that, and that's what I like discovering. Truth behind myth.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 13 Sep  2019, 14:57
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.

Very well. That's your right. We'll see how the film plays for you. You never know, you may end up liking it.

On an aside, it seems like JOKER is projected to be a box office smash, for opening day/weekend at least. Let's see if that eventuates, and if the film has legs for repeat business.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEThFpDUYAACEDb.jpg)

Went poking around on Twitter and found the above poster. It's not an official poster. It's a fan work by an artist called Jack C. Gregory.

https://twitter.com/JackGregoryArt/status/1172068422970068993

The struggle we go through every day as humans is what appeals to me the most thematically. Case in point Peter Parker, especially in Spider-Man 2, being romantically crushed. My favorite genre or mood is the depressed man, or the functioning depressed man getting through his days and somehow finding the inner strength to go on despite that inner pain. Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head (BJ Thomas), Happy Together (The Turtles), Strange Things (Randy Newman)...those types of upbeat but sad songs set against montages connect to me more than anything. What could be...what SHOULD BE, but isn't.

This film takes that quiet suffering and takes it boiling point, with the wounded man deciding to lash out, rather than bear the brunt. From what I gather, JOKER also has these musical montage scenes, which seems appropriate. A lot of people these days are living lonely lives, wanting to make connections but failing to do so. That leads to frustration and a sense of being unfulfilled, which can basically drive people insane, as the same old cycle isn't going to be broken. Fleck feels invisible, and when he's noticed, he's mocked. Madness/revenge is therefore his emergency exit and coping mechanism.

Assorted collection of images:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.collider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F09%2Fjoaquin-phoenix-joker-movie-image-2.jpeg&hash=298ed839d850e09ea87de050a9853a130a380a1b)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.collider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F09%2Fjoaquin-phoenix-joker.jpeg&hash=476bb67594b1807ac724cf4ab520e3ff7d13ec52)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.collider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F09%2Fjoker-joaquin-phoenix-movie-image.jpeg&hash=e1ef3850487165aef7693f56a4b3252562863c91)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.collider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F09%2Fjoker-robert-de-niro.jpeg&hash=1abaa1facfcd1ee058baa8b80576d1131a809596)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 19 Sep  2019, 21:23

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EE10yCZU8AAW8HP.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EE10yCXVUAAWsE3.jpg)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.collider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F09%2Fjoker-poster.jpg&hash=eb22a42ae1310d9c3775c599539511b331af691e)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.collider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F09%2Fjoker-poster-luke-butland.jpg&hash=4fb5d7df8afd9e11621cbd5ac36019e73331c166)

Are those official?

Amazing work either way.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 19 Sep  2019, 21:23

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EE10yCZU8AAW8HP.jpg)

This is the pick of the bunch for me because of the symbolism it provides. Arthur's face is washing away, rather than the Joker face paint. It suggests Arthur has been the mask and the clown persona is his true self. I really think JOKER is only going to strengthen my fascination with the character.

So this is the only review I've listened to about the movie, and they go over it pretty well. No spoilers at all, but they brought up a few things I was hoping wouldn't happen: they say it's one of the most political movies they've seen, and they also think the worst part about this, is that it's tied to the Batman universe, cause it doesn't need to be. They both liked it, but found it highly disturbing and political.

So, I dunno, I'm still going to see it when it comes out, but those were my biggest worries about it. So I guess I'll just have to wait and see for myself what I think of it, but at least I know going in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=p3GL6eKRGI0

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 21 Sep  2019, 03:27
So this is the only review I've listened to about the movie, and they go over it pretty well. No spoilers at all, but they brought up a few things I was hoping wouldn't happen: they say it's one of the most political movies they've seen, and they also think the worst part about this, is that it's tied to the Batman universe, cause it doesn't need to be. They both liked it, but found it highly disturbing and political.

So, I dunno, I'm still going to see it when it comes out, but those were my biggest worries about it. So I guess I'll just have to wait and see for myself what I think of it, but at least I know going in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=p3GL6eKRGI0

There are several philosophical viewpoints to take with this movie (and I have one of my own), but I fail to see how a Joker movie being connected to a Batman universe could be labelled as an unnecessary negative. I am more informed about JOKER than just one review, and in terms of politics, I'm pretty comfortable with the route they've taken - but a viewing of the final cut will be the true assessment. I'm not as worried as I had been.

As for the disturbing commentary, I don't see the problem because that excites me the most. I'm hoping for hyper realism to the point if feels like a documentary, shocking people to the core. It's time for F bombs and blood, showing the full potential of the cinematic character, well elevated above what Nicholson or Ledger presented. Instead of cutting away in a typical B89/TDK style blockbuster, show us the knife going in and the bullet nearly blowing the head off. I think that should be the whole point of the movie. This is the format for that experience, because we're not really going to see it anywhere else outside the comics. We laugh at chattering teeth and long barrelled guns, but gore and tragedy is the true soul of the character.

More posters:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFJwW1nW4AINDhw.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFGRby4UwAEUmOx.jpg)

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 21 Sep  2019, 06:35
As for the disturbing commentary, I don't see the problem because that excites me the most. I'm hoping for hyper realism to the point if feels like a documentary, shocking people to the core. It's time for F bombs and blood, showing the full potential of the cinematic character, well elevated above what Nicholson or Ledger presented. Instead of cutting away in a typical B89/TDK style blockbuster, show us the knife going in and the bullet nearly blowing the head off. I think that should be the whole point of the movie. This is the format for that experience, because we're not really going to see it anywhere else outside the comics. We laugh at chattering teeth and long barrelled guns, but gore and tragedy is the true soul of the character.

I rather like this. And it is true that we've never seen the Joker reach his full potential outside of comics. JOKER is a chance to see the character undiluted. All thrilla, no filla.

Honestly, JOKER sounds more and more legit all the time. And I'm not just saying that because the bloom is coming off the rose with THE BATMAN.

I got my tickets for Thursday.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 24 Sep  2019, 19:22
Honestly, JOKER sounds more and more legit all the time. And I'm not just saying that because the bloom is coming off the rose with THE BATMAN.

You may be Wright about that. We'll see.

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 25 Sep  2019, 04:18
I got my tickets for Thursday.

Excellent. Looking forward to hear your thoughts. My real as possible documentary style desire seems to be eventuating. Concerns have been raised about violence occurring during screenings. Phoenix has walked out during an interview when the question of violence/inspiring others was raised. Some may see this as bad publicity, but I don't.

This only creates a big, bad mystique and that is a very rare thing to capture. The idea this film is the equivalent of an Ouija Board summoning pure evil through the screen. This movie already has the audience on edge before they sit down to watch it, and the content itself will shock the world by all accounts. We could be looking at lighting in a bottle here, all the ingredients are there.

Something I think JOKER could spark in the minds of people is if the character was ever truly funny, or at least in the traditional sense. Killing Joke had him as a failed comedian, but did he ever make the transition from being a loser on the stage to an accomplished comic? I think it's more about him having more confidence and energy in the way he pursues the joke he understands. The facepaint contradicts the real man underneath because without the hurt Napier and Fleck endured beforehand, the Joker cannot exist.

AaAaand another Joker poster:

(https://i.postimg.cc/K8h0Vp9s/joker-ver11-xlg.jpg)

A clip: JOKER Arthur Goes Out On Date Trailer NEW (2019) Joaquin Phoenix DC Superhero Movie HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2By4CKf-Piw

FYI, I haven't actually watched the clip. I pulled up the video long enough to snag the URL and then quickly closed the window. I want to see the movie all at once. The teasers and trailers have whetted my appetite for this film well enough. I don't want to see parts of the movie out of context before I watch the whole thing for the first time.

But if you're interested in a clip, well, here you go.

Water Tower Records has released a track from the film score. I rather enjoy it, I must say. No idea about anything else from the score but this piece is great.

Joker - Call Me Joker - Hildur Guðnadóttir (Official Soundtrack)
https://youtu.be/gSwbYHJYskM

I just got out of the theater, and I absolutely loved this movie. It's the best DC movie since BB. I liked it more than MOS and BvS. It worked for me on so many levels.

The only gripes is that I'm still not feeling the makeup, and I absolutely hate one song choice that Todd Phillips used in Joker's first reveal. *SPOILERS* During The Joker's first full reveal, Todd Phillips put the dumb 'Hey Song' during the entire scene, and it was such a dumb song that took me out of the moment. I don't know what he was thinking there. *SPOILER*

In brief, I expect to be incommunicado for about a week or so. Maybe I'll get a chance to see the movie during that time.

That's what I'm hoping.

I have also seen the movie and I echo Trav's comments, however I differ on the subject of music selection. I am getting my thoughts down and will elaborate at a later date. Needless to say this is a powerhouse of a movie. Go see it.

Seen it, loved it. I agree with the sentiment that it's one of the very best. IMO, best live action DC movie in 10 years (since 2009's Watchmen).

The movie has a lot to digest, special mention should go to the doom-laden score by Hildur Guðnadóttir. Her work for this and Chernobyl are two of the best scores of 2019.

Saw the movie while I was incommunicado. Largely, it was everything I hoped for. Some minor quibbles here and there but nothing to worry about. I was on the same wavelength with Phillips literally from the first frame until the last frame, for the most part.

Of course, Walnut-Sized Bladder Syndrome struck. So I made a run for the men's room during Fleck's comedy club set because I figured I could kind of guess how that scene would play out. And it seems that I was right. While I was in there, some other guy watching the movie on a break broke The Guy Code and struck up a conversation with me.

"Man, I sure hope something happens soon. Because this thing is really dragging itself out." This was after that business on the subway with the three Wayne Enterprises execs shown in the trailers. So I officially have no idea wtf that guy was even talking about, the weirdo. But it does indicate that the slowburn thing that Phillips was experimenting with isn't for everybody. In the end, that's really none of my business. All I can say on that is I ate the pacing of the film up with a spoon.

If you're a fan of Taxi Driver and The King Of Comedy, odds are you understand the connections (and intentional disconnections) JOKER has with those films. For the first time in a long time, I have a comic book movie that I can genuinely respect.

Hildur Guðnadóttir may very well become an unindicted co-conspirator in this thing. And that would be a real shame. Because even though I have no idea how to pronounce her name, her contribution cannot be overemphasized. This would be a different movie (and I'd say a lesser movie) without her score.

Cinematic perfection? Maybe not. But people didn't talk about Infinity War, per sé; they talked about what Infinity War would lead to in Captain Marvel; and what Captain Marvel would lead to in Endgame; and what Endgame would lead to in Far From Home.

But right now, people are talking about JOKER, the film, the characters, the acting, what the film means, how it should be interpreted, the dichotomy (real or perceived) between authorial intent vs. audience reaction, race issues, sex-relations, class-oriented strife, mental health awareness, etc etc etc.

I'll take one JOKER over a million Endgames any day of the week, thx.

Colors, colors, colors...

People leaving to use the facilities while a movie is playing has always perplexed me. I know my vowels and I manage my bowels. I can't imagine missing out on footage of something I've been busting to see for months or years. But anyway, good to know you enjoyed the parts you saw. And absolutely, one JOKER beats out the avalanche of generic throwaways that don't challenge the audience in any meaningful way.

I will say I'm still not sure where to rank Phoenix because he really is his own thing. Fantastic performance though. I wrote this review/analysis shortly after the film came out and I still stand by what I put down. One of DC's better films, and while I'm still more Batman focused in terms of my fandom, the Joker is equally great.

https://www.batman-online.com/features/2019/10/5/joker-2019-spoiler-review

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 13 Oct  2019, 07:31
https://www.batman-online.com/features/2019/10/5/joker-2019-spoiler-review

Good summary/review.

Here's my belated thoughts on the film. Was intending to put it out sooner, but you know how it is.




REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS


You know, being someone who purposely chose not to get overly hyped and boot lick this movie prior to it's release, in large part to story concerns and initial casting choices, I have to say I walked out absolutely enjoying the hell out of this film! Sure, People are overrating it from both ends, but overall, yeah, it's a good movie. And one that's truly a breath of fresh air in an era that has molded audiences to typically expect a "comic book film" to be riddled with CGI. I left this movie just feeling way more chilled out and relaxed than when I went in,  because Id watched some good acting and direction for once.

The performances, the cinematography, the score, the song choices .... All were top form. Especially Phoenix himself. That guy put on a brilliant, captivating performance, and as a consequence, all other characters are just scenery around him. Phoenix deserves an Oscar. Period.

I decided over a year ago, to not go into this as a Joker TM movie, but rather a Joker Elseworlds movie, and I'm glad I did. I had no expectations going into this film, and I was rather mixed on how they were going about this movie, but I always kind of trusted that whether I liked the film or not, that it would at least be a solid film due to the people and passion behind it, and I honestly think they nailed it in terms of what they were going for. Leading up to the film's release, it was pretty much understood that this is a different type of "comic book" movie. Yet, in this film, there are elements lifted directly from some of the most famous Joker moments in comic books. It takes liberties, sure (don't they all?), but it is also reverent to the source material at times. That's what a great adaption does. I can't get on with the notion that this is a "Joker movie in name only". As this film was made by a group of artists who used the Batman comics as inspiration to tell THEIR own story. And that is why it succeeds. This doesn't need to connect to any prior continuity, nor does it really require a sequel. The film tells it's story, and that's it. Done. Leave it be.

As they say in show business; the best thing any performer can do is leave the audience wanting more.

From the beginning we understand that this incarnation of the Joker, Arthur Fleck, is mentally ill. He isn't an inspirational hero or anti-hero. He is a man in need of understanding but the tragedy is that there is no possible world in which he would get the understanding that he needs. In alot of ways, I found this to be an excellent critique of the mental health care provided by faulty government. Now, Arthur's medical condition, which can either be PBA (Psuedobulbar Affect), or PLC (Pathological Laughter and Crying) contributes to his depression and unfortunate inability to be happy, or live any sort of "normal" life. The tic can be terribly tiring and extremely depressing. Imagine being unable to stop laughing inappropriately, unable to stop even when laughing increasingly becomes physically painful. (btw, in both conditions, the cause is damage to the brain). I found that the film did a good job in actually portraying how crippling mental illness is in reality. I have to say that this film probably one of the more profound portrayals of mental illness I've seen in a mainstream movie in a long time.

Getting back to the film, this tic is only but one of the things that make this particular incarnation of the Joker stand out. As per usual in the comics, we are under the assumption that it's just the Joker laughing maniacally, but now you see him suffering with it. He spends the whole movie trying hard to explain his condition but everyone thinks he's mocking them.  All of Arthur's life, he's constantly sought social acceptance by trying to adhear to comedy in other' people's eyes. It's not until he realized that humor is subjective, and that began the road to self-acceptance. As a consequence, it doesn't matter if others don't find him funny. In the end, it only matters is that Arthur finds it funny. The end exemplifies this notion as he tells the psychiatrist she wouldn't get the joke. Because no one ever did.

What makes the movie so compelling is that while it's not difficult to sympathize with Arthur for his unfortunate luck, his mental problems only make us instinctively cautious of him. Clearly, he's not well, and the movie does not sugarcoat that fact. As we also are privy to the fact that Arthur suffers from some pretty heavy delusions brought on from his psychosis. Delusions that not only make the viewer question what is reality, and what is not, but also gives credence to another fact that Arthur is an unreliable narrator. Similar to other character's like Travis Bickle, Rupert Pupkin, Patrick Bateman, ect. This also extends out to his mother, Penny, who is conveyed as suffering from "percieved" delusions as well.

The unreliable Narrator element in the film, is practically stated really early on, and by the end,  it could be theorized that all the best and worst things that happen to him in the movie could be pared away as part of this delusion, and so all we're left with is his actions. While he is responding to a system that failed him, he is obviously writing his own story according to what he, Arthur Fleck, ideally wants his story to be.

I think one of the best quotes from the film is the line of; "The worst part of having a mental illness is people expect you to act as if you don't." This line really highlights just how much pain Arthur is in. Which is further emphasized when he essentially loses his very identity when he sees his mother's file at Arkham. When that curtain opens and he steps out as Joker, that's it, he is done being a doormat and trying to control himself for a world that doesn't even acknowledge his existence. He follows his urges and mayhem ensues. The desperate way he tries to stop his laughing is bleak, and you know instantly that when he eventually decides to surrender to his laughter, rather than withstand it, the Joker will truly be born. The scene near the end where young Bruce Wayne stood there looking at the body of his dead parents while the Joker was being celebrated by the citizens of Gotham on the same night sent chills to my spine. Symbolically, in this tale, the Joker and Batman were born on the same night.

As far as any negatives go, the film comes across overly derivative of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy., but I kinda knew that going in. So no surprise there. It's an homage to Taxi Driver and King Of Comedy kinda like how The Devils Rejects is to Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (as in, change a few names and it's no longer an "homage" but almost a complete remake), but at least they took everything they "borrowed" and made it into a compelling film of its own. Also, I wasn't a big fan of Thomas Wayne's portrayal in this, as he's very much incorporated as a stand-in for this film, but ultimately found this representation of Thomas Wayne more tolerable than I probably otherwise would have due to viewing this as a one off elseworlds Joker tale.


Overall a positive experience. It should be clear that it's going full genre film, the 70's era Warner Brothers logo is even used in the opening. The film is very much an urban-decay drama, as locations are dilapidated, covered in graffiti, grime and bad wiring. The Black Comedy is VERY black, like when the dwarf guy couldn't escape because the door lock was too high for him: That's black comedy gold! And Arthur simply getting up, kissing him on the forehead, and letting him go, yes, that's quintessential Joker right there. Also, Joker dancing on the Murray show like he owns the place and kissing the old woman. Hilarious! Course, lighter moments like Arthur walking right into a glass door after telling off police detectives work as well. My favorite aspect of this Joker, wasn't his laugh or his facial expressions; it was his ungainly stork run, arms and legs akimbo as he legs it down a street or an alleyway.

That run of his practically deserves to be chased by a terrifying caped shadow.

I liked it. The movie isn't a 10/10 for me, but my rating may go up depending on how subsequent viewings hold up. It's a very slow-burn psychological thriller, but again, that's refreshing to me. The film feels very alive and potent. Part of me wishes that DC would pivot hard in this direction and just make more challenging movies that Disney's MCU would never even consider making.

8/10 and yes, would recommend.

Trust The Joker himself to write the most comprehensive analysis of the film. Bravo.

My funny fiends, here's how I see things. Romero is the most fun in terms of giving a pure clown experience. He's all about the joke and prankish plots. So much enjoyment is to be had with this version, and I think he's the most classical. But in terms of a performance and a transformation, Phoenix is my man. I'm willing to go as far as labelling him my favorite live action DC villain. It feels odd calling him a villain actually, but I will for the purpose of this discussion.

Having the laugh being a medical condition gave the character a different slant, and it's something that satisfied the comic trope while adding an extra layer of pity. The fact he was smoking all the time, ala TDK Returns Joker, also gave an added sense of rumination. I like that we finally saw the character so thin, too. That's how he's meant to be, or at least how I like him to be, ala the Arkham games. I also dug how Phoenix gave Arthur a restless energy such as moving his legs while seated. He's nervous and excited all at once.

Funky fools here know I dig musical montages. That's Life during his green hair dye flinging was demented bliss. Smile during his date hit the spot. Rock and Roll Part 2 worked a charm for me. I've been listening to it non stop since the movie. He's going down the stairs with carefree swagger instead of trudging up. Even though he will embody evil, it's liberating to see him confident and free. He's no longer prey but the hunter.

At least two deleted scenes exist, and I'm hoping we see them on the Blu-ray. Arthur getting thrown down the steps after meeting Thomas, and attending the funeral of Penny.Particularly hoping we see the latter, as Phoenix has a smug smile and he's in a nice Jokery suit and tie. All in all, it's a movie that only gets better the more you think about it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 14 Oct  2019, 12:57
Trust The Joker himself to write the most comprehensive analysis of the film. Bravo.

My funny fiends, here's how I see things. Romero is the most fun in terms of giving a pure clown experience. He's all about the joke and prankish plots. So much enjoyment is to be had with this version, and I think he's the most classical. But in terms of a performance and a transformation, Phoenix is my man. I'm willing to go as far as labelling him my favorite live action DC villain. It feels odd calling him a villain actually, but I will for the purpose of this discussion.

Having the laugh being a medical condition gave the character a different slant, and it's something that satisfied the comic trope while adding an extra layer of pity. The fact he was smoking all the time, ala TDK Returns Joker, also gave an added sense of rumination. I like that we finally saw the character so thin, too. That's how he's meant to be, or at least how I like him to be, ala the Arkham games. I also dug how Phoenix gave Arthur a restless energy such as moving his legs while seated. He's nervous and excited all at once.

Funky fools here know I dig musical montages. That's Life during his green hair dye flinging was demented bliss. Smile during his date hit the spot. Rock and Roll Part 2 worked a charm for me. I've been listening to it non stop since the movie. He's going down the stairs with carefree swagger instead of trudging up. Even though he will embody evil, it's liberating to see him confident and free. He's no longer prey but the hunter.

At least two deleted scenes exist, and I'm hoping we see them on the Blu-ray. Arthur getting thrown down the steps after meeting Thomas, and attending the funeral of Penny.Particularly hoping we see the latter, as Phoenix has a smug smile and he's in a nice Jokery suit and tie. All in all, it's a movie that only gets better the more you think about it.

The Rock & Roll Part 2 thing threw me, I'll admit. The trailer used some other music for that sequence and I had half-expected that the movie would either use that same music or else it would be something pretty similar. I wasn't prepared for that song.

I guess I can see the connection. But for Americans, or at least for me personally, that song is forever associated with cheesy pro-sports interludes that it's a bit challenging to recontextualize it for JOKER.

Still, it's worth it anyway because of how some critics have lost their minds over the usage of that song in the movie. The same hacks who covered up for Harvey Weinstein for years have suddenly found religion when it comes to sex offenders.

And I suppose that the celebratory usage the song always has in sports settings could apply to Joker's sense of triumph as he prances down the stairs. So hmm.

The only real quibble I have with the film, frankly, is goings on with the Waynes just before credits roll. It felt tacked on, like Phillips got a note from some WB nitwit demanding that this iteration of the Joker somehow be more clearly separated from Batman's eventual nemesis. For me, that's not really part of the movie. It doesn't belong and it isn't appropriate.

The movie has been out for a while now. So are we allowed to going into spoiler territory?

I beg to differ. The final scene with the Waynes is integral as it shows Arthur's final words to Murray have resonated. Arthur has become their leader, which is exemplified by his stand atop the police car. He is their messenger, no longer being ignored. As for Rock and Roll Vol 2, all that glitters isn't gold. The guy is a disgusting creep but the fact it's an instrumental he won't receive royalties off (rights were sold in the 1990s) makes it palatable to me. The song fits the celebratory, sports dance off mood. It's the only real time we see Arthur without a care in the world, so I think it fits.

It's been confirmed that Gary Glitter won't receive royalties for his song, so once again the outrage directed at this film over its inclusion seems like contrived pearl-clutching.

I agree with TDK on this one.  The song fits Arthur's mood at this particular moment, and it would be a shame if Warner Bros is compelled to change the song for home entertainment release.  If that's the case, perhaps the same thing should be done to other films, like The Full Monty, which also use Gary Glitter's music.

And just to be 100% clear, I utterly loathe the man, and echo TDK's words about him being a 'disgusting creep'.  I don't even particularly like his music (and that was before I even knew what a monster he was), but 'Rock and Roll Vol 2' does fit this moment well and I don't see how its inclusion can do any harm (seeing as Glitter isn't going to profit from it).

As a final point, having finally seen Joker, I do have some misgivings about the film on a purely artistic level, however, I must stress that a lot of the media/social media outrage directed at this film is extremely misconceived.  I'm not going to get into politics here, for fear of offending anyone, but this is clearly not a right-wing film (on the contrary).  Apart from an arguably cheap gag at a dwarf's expense, there is nothing here that should conceivably offend so-called SJWs, and my only real issues with the film is its unbearably and consistently grim tone (there's next to no levity here, which is particularly egregious for a film called Joker) and the sense that a lot of the film's themes were better dealt with in The King of Comedy and Taxi Driver.  Still, a good, and important film, and the ending is particularly chilling and powerful (everything from Arthur's appearance on Murray Franklin's show onwards).  Plus, I rather like how it handled the Wayne Family, including their murder; who ever thought that a filmmaker could still find a way to make Bruce Wayne's origin story interesting?

Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam and now JOKER. In fact, people who seem like they're smarter than me are predicting that JOKER will cross $600 million worldwide within the next 48 hours. DC characters on film are officially on a winning streak now. Here's hoping we've rounded a corner. I don't think it's deniable anymore.

So now, the obvious question: sequel?

Honestly, I kind of oppose the principle of a sequel. This flick was meant to be a done-in-one proposition. Creating a sequel necessarily requires clarifying the murky ending of the movie and I don't think I want that. I don't think that would benefit the film. Would it be great to see another outing with Phoenix back in the makeup? Sure. But there's a magic to JOKER that I can't imagine a sequel will ever recapture.

There's a time and a place to put the dice down and make a different bet on something else. Now is that time.

I've been thinking about where a sequel could go. I wouldn't want to see Batman to appear, and Phillips is with me on that. The charm of this movie is the fact Arthur is the main attraction where we follow his struggle. A sequel would have to be done carefully because it could confirm or deny theories and interpretations the original presented in the form of Arthur's hallucinations. Keeping JOKER as one film ensures that mystery is preserved. 

For other people, they think everything after Arthur getting inside the fridge is a dream. Others ask if Arthur has been locked up the whole time. I don't think it goes that far, to be honest. I think the general story is true but with Arthur's mental embellishments.

I'm of the view Arthur was arrested straight after the Murray incident, and driven via police car to jail without incident. Think about it – how do police arrest someone standing in the middle of a screaming mob like that? It would be possible, of course, but would require heavy work. But in any case, I think it's another best case scenario delusion of him being admired. He hallucinated having a girlfriend who thought he was funny. He dreamt about Murray being sympathetic and being a father figure.

But what if I was told to write a JOKER sequel? I'd start with Arthur locked up, which continues immediately after the original but also doesn't negate other theories. I'd have a number of years passing, but nothing major. Say, somewhere around 1985-87.  I'd have a lot focused in jail with his routine, interviews and the like. Harley being a psychologist he takes interest in, with a number of his own delusions playing out (taking place inside jail and outside) ala the original would work.

Perhaps he has been medicated and his overall behavior changes, and eventually he is released (a leap in logic, but it happens in the comics) but isn't being happy about it. Harley has given home hope, and jail is home. He doesn't fit in anywhere else.

I'm not convinced a sequel will happen anyway. The FREEZE talk is not bad idea if they want to continue villain studies. He would be an obvious choice. Heart of Ice is one of, if not the, best B:TAS episodes. The character has the necessary tragic elements they would be looking for. I don't think it would have the same cultural impact as JOKER, but it could have similar acclaim.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 16 Oct  2019, 19:50
It's been confirmed that Gary Glitter won't receive royalties for his song, so once again the outrage directed at this film over its inclusion seems like contrived pearl-clutching.

I just hate the song's inclusion for how played out it is here in America. I honestly didn't know who Gary Glitter was, or the controversy surrounding him, I just know that song from every-single basketball, football, baseball, and hockey game I've attended since I was 3-4 years old. You've also heard it in numerous amounts of tv shows and movies. It's just a played out song. And I didn't think it fit the scene. It literally took me out. It's the same problem I had with Captian Marvel when the No Doubt song came on sporadically during a fight scene: it just doesn't fit. It made me roll my eyes by how cheesy it made the scene. Same thing with Joker. It just took me out completely. Again, my problems aren't with Gary Glitter, it's with the song in particular. If there was no controversy with Gary Glitter, I would still have the same reaction to it.

That's fair enough Travesty.

Personally, the song worked for me in the context of the scene (although it helped that I knew the song was featured in the film, going into the screening), and I also assume that its ubiquity as a sports stadium staple is the point.  Arthur is feeling victorious at this point, so it would make sense for him to have the song playing in his head.  But I appreciate if you didn't care for its inclusion on an artistic level.

Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 17 Oct  2019, 15:47I just hate the song's inclusion for how played out it is here in America. I honestly didn't know who Gary Glitter was, or the controversy surrounding him, I just know that song from every-single basketball, football, baseball, and hockey game I've attended since I was 3-4 years old. You've also heard it in numerous amounts of tv shows and movies. It's just a played out song. And I didn't think it fit the scene. It literally took me out.

I can see that. Especially the played out part. It's sort of a novelty song so it never had much staying power in the first place. But being played at bazillions of sporting events really tanked it. Ruined whatever redeeming qualities the song might've had otherwise.

Oddly enough, that's a big part of why I think it works for me. The usage of that song at that moment expresses Arthur fully embracing everything that being the Joker means. In particular, murder.

It's an intentional subversion of the song's identity. In the modern musical lexicon, the song has come to embody triumphal athletic achievements. And that repurposing of the song is precisely why it works. Another song that also might've worked is "Walking On Sunshine". A bright, happy, poppy, way overplayed song that wears its chipper joy on its sleeve. Using that to express Arthur's full acceptance of his psychosis, tendency towards murder and the meaninglessness of his life would've been just about as powerful.

Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 17 Oct  2019, 15:47It's the same problem I had with Captian Marvel when the No Doubt song came on sporadically during a fight scene: it just doesn't fit. It made me roll my eyes by how cheesy it made the scene.

Never saw Captain Marvel so I had no idea what you were talking about here. Pretty sure I knew which song was included in the movie though.

And... yep. Man, talk about try-hard. That song would've taken anybody out of the movie. Captain Marvel, what a joke...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 17 Oct  2019, 19:58It's an intentional subversion of the song's identity. In the modern musical lexicon, the song has come to embody triumphal athletic achievements. And that repurposing of the song is precisely why it works. Another song that also might've worked is "Walking On Sunshine". A bright, happy, poppy, way overplayed song that wears its chipper joy on its sleeve. Using that to express Arthur's full acceptance of his psychosis, tendency towards murder and the meaninglessness of his life would've been just about as powerful.

For some reason I assumed 'Walking on Sunshine' was a late 80s song, in which case it would probably be too late for Joker (assuming Joker is set in the early 80s), but I just checked and I see it was first released in 1983.  So, yeah, that would have been a very good alternative track for this scene.

As an aside, does anyone know if there is a precise year for when this film is set?  Am I right in understanding that it is set in the early 1980s?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 14 Oct  2019, 12:57
Trust The Joker himself to write the most comprehensive analysis of the film. Bravo.

Thanks for the kind words, TDK. This is a character that's near and dear to my cold black heart. Though you are more consistent in giving worthwhile write up reviews for sure.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 17 Oct  2019, 03:10
For other people, they think everything after Arthur getting inside the fridge is a dream. Others ask if Arthur has been locked up the whole time. I don't think it goes that far, to be honest. I think the general story is true but with Arthur's mental embellishments.

I'm of the view Arthur was arrested straight after the Murray incident, and driven via police car to jail without incident. Think about it – how do police arrest someone standing in the middle of a screaming mob like that? It would be possible, of course, but would require heavy work. But in any case, I think it's another best case scenario delusion of him being admired. He hallucinated having a girlfriend who thought he was funny. He dreamt about Murray being sympathetic and being a father figure.

There's a real argument that this is indeed the case. I dig the notion that this Joker fully embracing who he is, while simultaneously young Bruce Wayne witnesses his parents being gunned down following a viewing of, "Zorro, The Gay Blade", but yeah, the whole celebatory scene is questionable.

QuoteBut what if I was told to write a JOKER sequel? I'd start with Arthur locked up, which continues immediately after the original but also doesn't negate other theories. I'd have a number of years passing, but nothing major. Say, somewhere around 1985-87.  I'd have a lot focused in jail with his routine, interviews and the like. Harley being a psychologist he takes interest in, with a number of his own delusions playing out (taking place inside jail and outside) ala the original would work.

Perhaps he has been medicated and his overall behavior changes, and eventually he is released (a leap in logic, but it happens in the comics) but isn't being happy about it. Harley has given home hope, and jail is home. He doesn't fit in anywhere else.

I'm not convinced a sequel will happen anyway. The FREEZE talk is not bad idea if they want to continue villain studies. He would be an obvious choice. Heart of Ice is one of, if not the, best B:TAS episodes. The character has the necessary tragic elements they would be looking for. I don't think it would have the same cultural impact as JOKER, but it could have similar acclaim.

Could be interesting. A sequel would be tricky. I am not fully opposed to it, but don't really think it's required. It's like the longer this film is left alone  to be a one off, the more the film may have potential to be admired. In part to it's restraint in choosing not to expand upon it with parts 2,3,4 ect.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 17 Oct  2019, 20:30
For some reason I assumed 'Walking on Sunshine' was a late 80s song, in which case it would probably be too late for Joker (assuming Joker is set in the early 80s), but I just checked and I see it was first released in 1983.  So, yeah, that would have been a very good alternative track for this scene.

As an aside, does anyone know if there is a precise year for when this film is set?  Am I right in understanding that it is set in the early 1980s?

I don't know. Every time I hear "Walking on Sunshine", i instantly think of Patrick Bateman walking to his office at Pierce and Pierce.

Precise year seems vague in the film itself, but I keep hearing 1981.

Coincidentally, the Zorro movie the Waynes are seen exiting from, came out in 1981.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 18 Oct  2019, 03:51I don't know. Every time I hear "Walking on Sunshine", i instantly think of Patrick Bateman walking to his office at Pierce and Pierce.

Precise year seems vague in the film itself, but I keep hearing 1981.

Coincidentally, the Zorro movie the Waynes are seen exiting from, came out in 1981.

Well remembered!

So, too early for 'Walking on Sunshine' then.

As an aside, although there is very little humour in the film, what humour does exist is deliciously crafty and subversive.  The choice of 'Zorro - The Gay Blade', a poorly-received and, in hindsight, somewhat homophobic Zorro spoof starring the perennially cheesy b-lister George Hamilton, as the Zorro movie Bruce Wayne watches before his parents are gunned down before him, feels perfect for this particularly subversive 'Batman' film (i.e. one in which Thomas Wayne is no longer a philanthropic doctor, but an entitled and supercilious CEO).

As another aside, I can't help thinking that this version of the Wayne family is not too far from what we might have got from Daniel 'Batman Returns' Waters had he penned Batman '89 (albeit with extra lashings of subversive humour).  It kind of fits the cynical and misanthropic view of the world, its 'victims' included, Waters particularly displayed in Heathers.

This is a rather fawning video... made by somebody who didn't especially care for the film. He explains why the movie doesn't work for him before explaining why we need many more films just like it. I rather admire his candor. He's speaking from a place of enthusiasm, if not quite affection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMdJeDaN_A

There's a lot of discussion that goes around a campfire, and water coolers for that matter. But campfires are a better format for deep conversation, and word around the campfire is that the end scene with Arthur could actually be a significant flash forward.

The premise? Batman exists and Arthur has potentially been sent back to the slammer. It dawns on Arthur that Bruce was born the same night as him, and apparently a version of the script entertains this theory. Arthur's hair is also greyer - I'll have to check that again. Arthur says the interviewer wouldn't get the joke for the precise reason it's a personal bond between hero and villain.

In any case, I get the feeling Arthur is indeed thinking about young Bruce given we again see the footage of him standing before his dead parents during that monologue. I think "some people get their kicks stomping on a dream" is a big hint. I feel he enjoys the fact he made Bruce broken hearted like him. People used to kick him when he was down, but now he does it to others. And as he told Murray, he enjoys it now, and even finds it funny.

If this film was not called JOKER, I'd definitely call it THAT'S LIFE. The song is featured throughout, and Arthur was going to utter it himself before the Murray show transmission gets cut. The themes of the song are just about perfect. Someone who regularly feels down and out but musters the strength to keep going. But that enthusiasm has a limit given he's willing to roll himself up in a big ball and die.

The swearing in JOKER felt natural to me, and appropriate for the vibe of the film. When someone is that depressed that's how they talk. It rolls off the tongue given the frustrated internal thoughts we have on a regular basis. The original "I'm Batman" introduction in 1989 was meant to have a F bomb, but I'm glad it was omitted. But nonetheless, JOKER feels like it has that early B89 mindset and instead runs with it. I find that somewhat interesting.

JOKER is officially set during 1981. I think it plays nicely given the world back then was much lower tech than today. If you shot someone you'd most likely get away with it. The early 80s didn't have the surveillance state or advanced forensics we have today. It was largely based on eye witnesses. I think that aspect is important for this film because it heightens the grittiness and threat level of just one revolver.

One last thing: the use of Rock and Roll Vol 2. It's perfect because it's a celebration. I really think this will become an iconic scene in movie history akin to the Rocky steps in Philadelphia. Instead of running up, grooving down. The instrumental shows a man who has NOTHING left to lose. He's stronger, more confident and no longer cares.

Here's a great piece about how the average joe might find it easier to identify with the Joker over Batman:

https://www.cbr.com/easier-to-identify-joker-batman/ (https://www.cbr.com/easier-to-identify-joker-batman/)

QuoteIs It Easier to Identify With the Joker Today Than With Batman?

by Renaldo Matadeen

Todd Phillips' Joker attracted a high level of scrutiny before it even came out. Folks expected Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur Fleck to be sadistic, chaotic and overly violent, but instead we got an introverted mental health patient who only broke bad when he felt society didn't care for and then abandoned people like him anymore.

It's not a Joker raising hell for the fun of it. Instead, we've got someone meant to inspire sympathy -- outside of his murder spree. An Arthur Fleck we could even find ourselves rooting for under certain circumstances. With that in mind, it's worth thinking about whether or not it's easier to identify with this iteration of Joker in today's society over Batman. A question with a pretty simple answer: Yes. Not because anarchy should be endorsed but simply because, generally, we want symbols to stand up against the corruption the one percent partakes in.

This theme drives the film as we witness how capitalism exploits the lower-class so that the elite can feed off the fat of the land, draining society to the point the impoverished are left fighting for scraps. Arthur notices all this over decades, which is why, bit-by-bit, his sanity erodes. When he spews his final speech to Robert DeNiro's Murray Franklin, he makes it clear society looks down and spits on the downtrodden, not giving a damn about whether they live or die, as they're merely tools to make the rich even wealthier.

This incredibly relatable to our real world, where businessmen become billionaires while students remain in debt. Not to mention systems such as health care, insurance and education continue to work against the lower to middle class. This impacts on Arthur as he can't afford to look after a deranged mother, not to mention state funding gets cut for the mental health program he's enrolled in, once more proving when Thomas Wayne and his ilk go on TV talking about campaigns to be mayor, it's patronizing and nothing meaningful.

It's the kind of hardship a lot of people live with in the real world today, with so many crooked politicians doing the same and pitting the poor against the rich the way Thomas did. Hearing him calling common people "clowns" because he assumed one of them killed three bankers mirrors what so many businessmen think of the rest of us -- folks who'll probably never come close to that kind of money.

To them, they're not even the one percent, they're kings and queens in castles and ivory towers in gated communities like Wayne Manor, protected and taken care of, whose kids will enjoy Ivy League schools, all while benefitting off the backs of hardworking citizens. And again, Arthur's disenchanted; saddened to the point he admits he doesn't feel like "Happy" (his childhood nickname when he was innocent and didn't know better) anymore.

Admittedly, it's easier to side with someone who shows so much empathy and compassion for his fellow citizens but we'll never condone him using violence to express this frustration. Still, there's a reason Gotham connects with him and rises up in the Joker riots to celebrate him -- they see a rebel who fought the system and, in their eyes, won.

By doing so, Arthur is indeed the antithesis to Batman, who while representing a human ideal, comes from a place of privilege.

He didn't have to struggle or endure decades of servitude and grime like Arthur did. Now, we're not calling Bruce Wayne spoiled but he became his symbol of justice purely thanks to his extreme wealth, again something few of us, or Arthur, could experience. And in today's fractured world, where we see the male ego and toxic masculinity shouting at the top of the mountain, one has to wonder if powerful men like Bruce really are doing what they should with their money.

Thomas certainly didn't, merely paying lip service to charitable acts -- running media and propaganda sessions to hype his own political aspirations, reminding us they've got the means to fix society the civil way, they just choose not to. Arthur didn't have these tools and so, he has to force a way through, which is where the Joker comes in, not as a symbol of justice, but as one against injustice.

There's a stark difference there because he's not entitled, he doesn't come from a dynasty (though the film plays with this idea) and in terms of legacy, he's all alone. Most of us can relate to that, carving our path in the world without having anything or anyone like a Thomas, Alfred or Lucius Fox to hand us anything.

Sure, the Dark Knight works to make the world a better place at huge personal cost but without these tools, Arthur could only use the only instrument he knew: rage. And he always made it clear, he was "one bad day" away from snapping.

When we're in rush hour, on the clock, watching bosses racking up bonuses and buying mansions and yachts, we too often grow incensed, but it's about coping and overcoming peacefully. Don't do something you'll regret like Arthur, but still connect with his message of how society's forgotten ones remain just that: forgotten in the dark. That's why we identify with him more, he's one of us, as opposed to some philanthropist on a podium playing games in the public eye to sooth his inner narcissist.

I don't know how common this is. But JOKER has retaken the #1 spot at the box office this weekend. It was briefly dethroned last weekend by Maleficent but since then Maleficent has fallen off. So even though JOKER has lost 438 theaters since it opened, its legs combined with Maleficent's fast dropoff means JOKER has retaken the lead.

I'm no expert on advertising. But that's one hell of a marketing pitch for TV spots this week.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/2019W43/?ref_=bo_rl_table_5

Currently, the worldwide box office figures are sitting at a projected $849,083,522. It's a cinch that JOKER clears $900 million worldwide. People who seem like they know a lot more about this stuff than I do also think there's a chance the film could make its final landing within striking distance of $1 billion. Idk how that's possible, especially without a release in China. If JOKER somehow finagles a Chinese release, that's ball game. $1 billion without question.

But even without getting released in China, the movie could come very close to $1 billion. So I guess we'll see.

At this point, it seems like a mathematical certainty that JOKER will hit $1 billion.

Total honesty here. I never thought it would even come close to this. Before the movie opened, I figured they'd be lucky to hit $400 million worldwide. Obviously we're way beyond that now.

The biggest surprise of all at this point isn't that the movie will likely hit $1 billion. It's that the movie will probably hit that number without a release in China.

The sequel talk seems like it's more serious now. Part of me wants to see where things might go. But a different part thinks JOKER is best left as a one-off thing. There's nothing we can do about this but I don't think a sequel will improve much on what we've already seen. So hmm...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 Nov  2019, 03:24
The biggest surprise of all at this point isn't that the movie will likely hit $1 billion. It's that the movie will probably hit that number without a release in China.

That's the best part.

JOKER is absolutely one of my top ten films. Once I got on board with the concept I thought I'd like it, but not this much. It's a film that really clings to your soul and reflects the times. Arthur trudging up those f***ing stairs every day really connects with me.

This music video is nicely done. I like how it juxtaposes Arthur's misery with the joyous Rock & Roll Part 2. That music is his underlying revenge and salvation. When you watch this video you realize how just about every scene is near perfect and instantly iconic.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bW-OLcZ4tGY

Home video release is set for December 17. I already pre-ordered the movie so I'll be there with bells on.

The stair thing is probably the best element of the film. He trudges miserably up the stairs at least twice in the film. Each time, he's leaving one hell to enter into another hell. His lumbering gait perfectly symbolizes his own despair.

When he descends the stairs, a direction usually associated with darkness and loss, he dances gleefully. He is embracing the darkness which is what allows him to perpetuate it for the remainder of the film's runtime.

There's so much awesome going on there and zero bad. I couldn't be happier with this movie.

JOKER is *the* anti bullying story. The lesson is to be careful who you treat like garbage. You don't know who you're dealing with. As Arthur tells Murray before he puts a hole in his head, "they think that we'll just sit there and take it, like good little boys. That we won't werewolf and go wild."

Think of all the aggressive harassment, labelling, bias and doxxing going on at the moment. It's ripe material for civil war. Yet the daily prodding goes on. "Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?" Amen, Arthur, Amen.

My favorite scene happens to be Arthur in the lounge room, preparing for his entry onto the talk show stage. He's longer burdened by his mother and that apartment is his. There's something so Jokery about that to me. He's on his own and the showman is emerging, perfecting his art.

The awkward failure of the comedy club is fading away. But he still has nerves due to grappling with the idea of suicide. When he goes on the show he retains elements of that rehearsed confidence. Once he decides to kill Murray and not himself, he's truly unchained. Every little scene pushes the ball forward psychologically.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 Nov  2019, 05:11
Home video release is set for December 17.

Movie takes place in the year I was born, and the physical media release is on my birthday?

I am absolutely loving this!

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 14 Nov  2019, 01:13

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 Nov  2019, 05:11
Home video release is set for December 17.

Movie takes place in the year I was born, and the physical media release is on my birthday?

I am absolutely loving this!

Happy birthday, TJ.

Joker was released on Digital HD today. My iTunes preorder is ready to go. Later tonight, I'm making a big bucket of buttery popcorn with butter and rewatching the film.

Quote from: thecolorsblendHappy birthday, TJ.

Joker was released on Digital HD today. My iTunes preorder is ready to go. Later tonight, I'm making a big bucket of buttery popcorn with butter and rewatching the film.

Thank you, Colors.  :)

Astounding. Simply magnificent. I knew I adored the film. But tonight is the second time I've seen it. And man, does this bad boy hold up on the second viewing or what? For whatever reason, it's a lot easier to unwind and just ENJOY Phoenix's performance the second time around.

If you only ever saw it the one time, you'll want to watch it again. This was no flash in the pan success. JOKER has authentic merit going for it, if you ask me.

Happy Birthday, Joker.

Yes indeed, this movie is something really special. I've found people who see it initially don't know how to properly digest it, given the nihilistic tone it has. They'll say "good, but not great." But as the film soaks into their soul, they come to see just how incredible it is as a work of art.

And that's how I view it.

I'm a proud fan of villains and antiheroes because I find them a lot more interesting and relatable. Life is all about self esteem, and the darker aspects of that intrigue me. Depression hurts so much because it's a real, raw emotion that reveals real truth. Phoenix and Phillips give us a masterclass of torment that reveals a truth so many people are feeling right now.

If someone asked me how I felt at any particular time, I'd probably say "you'd rather not know." If they really pushed me I'd say "if I could hit [insert name here] on the head as hard as I could with a sledgehammer I would." To which they'd freak out. But I'm talking strictly about how I'm FEELING. Phoenix has that irritable, angry angst ebbing in him too.

I use that feeling as motivation. Life for me is all about 'you're either serious or you're not.' I can't stress this enough: life is a mental game and real strength is how you deal with rejection, disappointment or a change in circumstances. It is absolutely EVERYTHING. In life you WILL be tested and you WILL have doubts, but it's how you respond that shows your true character. I believe it comes down to knowing yourself and loving yourself, because then nothing can touch your self-esteem. Don't see ego as a negative thing – it's something extremely valuable to tap into when you need motivation or self-support.

I have no shame in saying narcissism has driven me to get this far and on the straight and narrow, in the past and now. I walk around and see a lot of overweight zombies glued to their phones. I'm not going to join them. If you eat well and exercise you are ahead of the majority of people. But you just need to do it REGULARLY. Again, mental toughness is the key. Unmotivated people want quick fixes like taking a pill. They give something a go for a couple of days, but don't see the results they want, thus they give up. And thus they stay where they are. There are no shortcuts.

A depression as deep as Arthur's is very easy to embrace given the daily grind and disappointments we face. Feeling empty and without true purpose does stoke suicidal thoughts. People give up and retreat from life. JOKER captured something important that speaks to me.

I just bought this, so I'll watch later tonight. I thought I had to wait until Jan, because I wanted the physical disc, but if you buy over at VUDU, you can buy the psychical, and it lets you stream the digital right away, and they ship you the disc when it releases in Jan. I just found out about that. Very cool on VUDU.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 18 Dec  2019, 13:51
Happy Birthday, Joker.

Thank you, TDK!  :)

For those buying physical, has anyone made up their mind on which version they are going to pick up?

Reg:
(https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/dvdtalk.com-vbulletin/195x249/254136_large_8dd5002ab30b3e3aee37c17a8e7a430d36e59681.jpg)
Best Buy Steelbook:
(https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/dvdtalk.com-vbulletin/584x345/6372534_sa_0aa5fe82fc1158a26a656864fcda68400421580e.jpg)
UK Steelbook
(https://shop.warnerbros.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/b3b166914d87ce343d4dc5ec5117b502/j/o/joker_imax_3d_bd_sb_outer_packshot-0.jpg)
4K:
(https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/dvdtalk.com-vbulletin/800x1086/11320_tn_2d15b886c56aaa4ea5792f177fd430f309ce29c8.jpg)

I'll probably go with the Best Buy Steelbook.

There are certain cherished films that I will only watch once per year, if even that. These are the mandatory classics.

Lord Of The Rings is one example. I only watch those movies once per year. It's okay to do less than once per year but never more than that.

JOKER is in that same class as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to ever become accustomed to it or able to predict it. I want it to be a surprise every time.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Dec  2019, 16:37
JOKER is in that same class as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to ever become accustomed to it or able to predict it. I want it to be a surprise every time.

JOKER is the type of film I'd want to make. A narrow focus rather than many plot threads allows a much greater connection, and I believe that's why JOKER resonated so strongly with people. We're not following Rey, Poe, Finn, Kylo, Palpatine, Luke and their quests across quadruple planets with several tasks underway at any one time. We're following just Arthur.

I view Arthur much the same as Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two Face. They are characters with grudges that only go so far, specific to the films they appear in.

Arthur only killed people who wronged him, and that's also the case with Eckhart, although he allowed the coin to decide their ultimate fate. Once Arthur killed Murray he effectively reached the end of the line in his personal crusade. Eckhart reached the same conclusion with Gordon's family. Which makes a sequel with either difficult to plot.

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.

Good you've seen the film and enjoyed it.

I ultimately see JOKER as a tale of salvation, confidence and letting the past die. A tale of a man taking charge of his life. He ends the film in prison, but what would someone call his Gotham City existence? Was he just meant to stay on the ground as the boots stomped down day after day? Nobody in their right mind would want to keep enduring that. Arthur takes his self loathing and channels it where it belongs. When he decided to FIGHT BACK, Arthur started to have a greater sense of purpose. He saw his life was a lie. He came to accept that and constructed something new in its place.

Yes, the guy isn't the model of perfect mental health, but nonetheless, monotonous drab days started to feel exciting for him for a change. He acts without the baggage of emotion - he just does what he feels needs to be done, such as having pillow talk with his delusional kook of a 'mother' one last time. Killing the Wall Streeters was a shock to his system initially, but it made him much more comfortable with killing by the film's end. Generally speaking, Arthur himself isn't shamed by the taking of life. He's delighted the police who trailed him on the subway were kicked by angry mobs this time and not him.

When Murray's brains are splattered on the wall Arthur doesn't react with remorse. He's absolutely satisfied in a cathartic way. The "how do you like them apples?" glare Phoenix gives the corpse before his laugh sells his sentiment perfectly. He puts himself first for a change, seeing that he does deserve better treatment. He's not going to be given it, so he takes it without negotiating.

"It's better to live one day as a lion than a thousand years as a sheep."

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.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon,  6 Jan  2020, 18:09
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.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  6 Jan  2020, 18:31

Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon,  6 Jan  2020, 18:09
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.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon,  6 Jan  2020, 19:48
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?

I posted something about that at the bottom of this thread's page 15.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon,  6 Jan  2020, 19:48Oh 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?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  7 Jan  2020, 16:57I posted something about that at the bottom of this thread's page 15.

Same. Which went a little something like this...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 17 Oct  2019, 00:27
Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam and now JOKER. In fact, people who seem like they're smarter than me are predicting that JOKER will cross $600 million worldwide within the next 48 hours. DC characters on film are officially on a winning streak now. Here's hoping we've rounded a corner. I don't think it's deniable anymore.

So now, the obvious question: sequel?

Honestly, I kind of oppose the principle of a sequel. This flick was meant to be a done-in-one proposition. Creating a sequel necessarily requires clarifying the murky ending of the movie and I don't think I want that. I don't think that would benefit the film. Would it be great to see another outing with Phoenix back in the makeup? Sure. But there's a magic to JOKER that I can't imagine a sequel will ever recapture.

There's a time and a place to put the dice down and make a different bet on something else. Now is that time.

Dear diary...

A small moment but one that speaks to me in a huge way - Arthur taking the old photograph of Penny, looking at it with blank disdain, screwing it up and then flicking it away with eyes closed. I live for this coldheartedness. Anything superfluous should be ELIMINATED from your life, and you should feel NOTHING. And if you do feel something, it should be a dark entity that tells you "why the Hell did you put up with that?"

I'm a minimalist and don't want anything. I don't eat breakfast or lunch - only have a minor dinner, work out and don't crave food. When something is gone you don't miss it. I'm happy with what I have, while the zombies waste money on endless coffee and can't stop eating.

People worry about meaningless nonsense, but I remain dead inside and keep an emotional disconnect, especially when at work and people go for that small talk. I'm just not bothered about things because I know it doesn't matter either way. When life gets tough the most competent man slows down while the others become a mess of nerves.

The ultimate statement of liberation from Arthur is: "I don't believe in any of that. I don't believe in anything."

I believe there are three superpowers in the modern age. They are:

1. Not being easily embarrassed.
2. Not caring what other people think.
3. Being able manage, control, and break addictions.

One of the biggest reminders anyone can be given is the concept of FREE WILL. People need to think for themselves. If you don't do it, others will do it for you. And why do they do this? The weak fear offending and want to be people pleasers. Just tell these critics "yeah okay" and do what you want anyway. Please yourself, because it's you going home at the end of the day, and these slobs are nowhere to be seen.

My hair is medium length. I go back to work in two or so weeks and about a day ago I made a decision. I'm not going to get it cut to satisfy other people, because I like it this length and always have. It makes me happy, so I'm keeping it. If I didn't have a job I absolutely wouldn't cut it. Screw it.

I was listening to the song Drops of Jupiter that came on the radio randomly and this lyric was an inspirational reminder: "Plain ol' Jane, told a story about a man who is too afraid to fly so he never did land."

You just gotta do it. We can't wait any longer.

Cinema Wins finally gave JOKER the treatment. So much so, in fact, that two parts were needed to cover everything.

I noticed some stuff but totally missed other stuff. I guarantee you'll find new material in at least one of these videos.

-- Part 01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBkHr8lPQrA

-- Part 02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prD7j0nRExE

EDIT- Oh, and there was a preview released a few months ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55ztzMoLqOs

I've said it before, but for me, this is the best scene in the film.

I don't think I've ever seen such a perfect encapsulation of the human experience in such a short space of time. He starts out trying to smile and have confidence, but it fades away and his underlying depression and doubt comes to the fore. His suicidal thoughts and rehearsed death comforts his tortured mind.

It's always an emergency exit option for him.

But it's his fork in the road when he appears on the show. I simply love the upbeat 'That's Life' ending the scene, juxtaposed with the morbid image of a rehearsed suicide. The audience cheering also gives it another element of poignancy. Pulling the camera back to just show his body on the couch tells me how alone Arthur feels. The outside world is cruel, but it's still there and keeps on "spinning around" with or without him.

I love how they focused on Arthur's suicidal thoughts, as that's the core of the Joker to me. Someone who laughs when he faces certain death, such as when Batman throws him off a building. Someone who gets hit by a car, dusts himself off and keeps running without much care for his safety. There's always that depressive element under the surface, which Nicholson's Joker alludes to in B89.

He'll keep living for the joke, but if he dies, so be it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5YAUbEtL4Y

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  2 Feb  2020, 00:44
I've said it before, but for me, this is the best scene in the film.

I don't think I've ever seen such a perfect encapsulation of the human experience in such a short space of time. He starts out trying to smile and have confidence, but it fades away and his underlying depression and doubt comes to the fore. His suicidal thoughts and rehearsed death comforts his tortured mind.

It's always an emergency exit option for him.

But it's his fork in the road when he appears on the show. I simply love the upbeat 'That's Life' ending the scene, juxtaposed with the morbid image of a rehearsed suicide. The audience cheering also gives it another element of poignancy. Pulling the camera back to just show his body on the couch tells me how alone Arthur feels. The outside world is cruel, but it's still there and keeps on "spinning around" with or without him.

I love how they focused on Arthur's suicidal thoughts, as that's the core of the Joker to me. Someone who laughs when he faces certain death, such as when Batman throws him off a building. Someone who gets hit by a car, dusts himself off and keeps running without much care for his safety. There's always that depressive element under the surface, which Nicholson's Joker alludes to in B89.

He'll keep living for the joke, but if he dies, so be it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5YAUbEtL4Y

One thing that JOKER has done for me is crystallize the idea that the Joker is always on the verge of offing himself for the lolz. He's always ready to do that next but something else always comes up that's funnier so he does that instead. In the movie, he planned to shoot himself but obviously that changed because he had a better idea.

I've seen various criticisms that JOKER made Arthur "too sympathetic". Sorry, duderinos, but citing this as a negative is loserthink. JOKER rammed home another important aspect of the character that seems to have gone over people's heads: that both the Joker and Batman are correct in the way they view the world, while at the same time being diametrically opposed to one another.

The Police and people like Murray or Thomas Wayne just hear about three dead Wall Streeters, but they have no idea about context, and nor do they care about context, as the crime is the crime.

We have an already beaten down man getting beaten down by TV talking heads, and with funding cuts, being let down by the Government. This is the origin of his beef. When killing becomes commonplace, Arthur really becomes the villain they thought him to be.

Bruce, on the other hand, will rightly see the random murder of his parents as a travesty that must be avenged. I think both Bruce AND Arthur are good people deep down, but through their experiences went down different roads. They both embrace the crazy to bury their pain.

Wow. So, okay then.

Congratulations, Joaquin. Don't know wtf happened with those other nominations but whatever...

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 14 Jan  2020, 00:25
At the very least if I had to choose, I'd take Phoenix as best actor. Anything else is just gravy.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 23 Sep  2018, 01:59
Great pics, thanks SN.

I must say I'm kind of getting jazzed for this movie. It's a low budget thing (in today's estimation of what "low budget" means), it's a period piece and it looks to be incredibly character-driven. From the sounds of it, Phoenix is doing the movie for love of the game. He wants to make a FILM. Same seems to be true of Phillips, the director. And...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bt0slFQVI8

... the 80's setting instantly gives the movie a bunch of extra grit and texture it might lack otherwise.

This is starting to look pretty cool, y'all.

Reading the first few pages of this thread is pretty interesting. You can watch the tide change pretty quickly with the movie, esp once the makeup test was posted online. The drip drip drip of set photos, props and whatnot helped too.

Anyway, so Tarantino sounded off on the movie at https://theplaylist.net/quentin-tarantino-praises-profound-subversion-joker-20210204

"The subversion on a massive level, the thing that's profound is this: It's not just suspenseful, it's not just riveting and exciting, the director subverts the audience because the Joker is a f*cking nut," Tarantino explained. "Robert De Niro's talk show character is not a movie villain. He seems like an a-hole, but he's not more of an a-hole than David Letterman. He's just an a-hole comedian, talk show guy."

He continued. "He's not a movie villain. He doesn't deserve to die. Yet, while the audience is watching the Joker, they want him to kill Robert De Niro; they want him to take that gun, and stick it in his eye and blow his f*cking head off. And if the Joker didn't kill him? You would be pissed off. That is subversion on a massive level! They got the audience to think like a f*cking lunatic and to want something [they would never normally want]. And they will lie about it! ["Audiences] will say, 'no, I didn't [want that to happen]!,' and they are f***ing liars. They did."

Just to see those quotes, Tarantino almost sounds like he's from the Ruin Johnson school of subversion for subversion's sake. But his movies tell a different story, I think. Very astute observations. And very true. I watched JOKER for the first time on my honeymoon. Our cruise ship has a two-screen movie theater aboard and we watched the movie with a proper audience. They all basically gasped when the Joker blasted De Niro into the next lifetime.

Before then, I think the audiences could've gone either way. I ran to the bathroom during Arthur's standup comedy set and someone followed me. In violation of The Guy Code, he talked to me about the movie. "It's okay so far but soooooo slow. Hope something big happens soon." Wtf am I supposed to say when I'm in the middle of taking a leak?

Saw the guy again after the movie and he gave me thumbs up so I guess he enjoyed JOKER after all. The talk show scene rly did elevate that movie to the next level.

Here's a video going over the aforementioned Quentin Tarantino comments about Joker 2019 for the hell of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPNzWsu-M2M

So I just watched this the other day for the first time in awhile, and I gotta say, I think this may be my favorite DC movie ever made....and I like a LOT of DC movies.

There's just so many things going on with this movie that I love. On paper, I shouldn't like this movie. It goes against some of the things I rail against, but for some reason, this movie works for me. It's just so goddamn good.

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 13 Feb  2021, 02:47
So I just watched this the other day for the first time in awhile, and I gotta say, I think this may be my favorite DC movie ever made....and I like a LOT of DC movies.

There's just so many things going on with this movie that I love. On paper, I shouldn't like this movie. It goes against some of the things I rail against, but for some reason, this movie works for me. It's just so goddamn good.

Very well said. And, if I may, JOKER is already a well-liked movie. But I think history will look back very kindly on it. When the movie's tenth anniversary rolls around, I'd be amazed if there aren't quite a few retrospective think-pieces which reevaluate the movie on its merits and apart from the controversy that greeted its release.

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 13 Feb  2021, 02:47
So I just watched this the other day for the first time in awhile, and I gotta say, I think this may be my favorite DC movie ever made....and I like a LOT of DC movies.

There's just so many things going on with this movie that I love. On paper, I shouldn't like this movie. It goes against some of the things I rail against, but for some reason, this movie works for me. It's just so goddamn good.

It's a masterpiece and every single scene has something going for it.

I think the movie works so well because it captures the time in which it was made, with the translation done in a universal way that doesn't appeal to just one side.

One of the few ways I think another Joker could begin to match the intensity of Phoenix would be casting someone established like Willem Dafoe. Him against Pattinson would be a sight to behold, and they have shared the screen together before.

Found a sort of interesting thing over on r/FanTheories (https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/lxpmmm/joker2019_movie_and_messiah_complex_theory). Since posts have a way of vanishing into the ether on reddit, I figured I'd archive it here.

•Posted byu/More_than_Salvation
1 day ago
Joker(2019) movie and messiah complex theory.
FanTheoryspoiler
There will be spoilers. #SPOILER
The movie is not only about the descent into insanity and nihilism or the origin of the character Joker, but also the unconscious development of psychological messiah complex of Arthur.

So the movie subtly presented him as a messiah-like figure in the story with Jesus imageries. The plot subtly revolves around the messianic complex psychology of Arthur that drove him to become Joker.

The story of Arthur Fleck oddly resembles the story of Jesus in the gospels or makes references to the gospels:

It is estimated that Jesus was around in his early 30s when he was preaching./ Arthur's birth year in 1948 or 1949, meaning that he was 32-33 years old during the events of Joker.

Joseph(Jesus's human father) is no longer mentioned as being present during Jesus's adult age./ Arthur lived with his mother Penny and there was no father present with them.

The gospels make claim that Jesus's spiritual father is God, a high figure/ Penny claimed that Arthur's biological father is Thomas Wayne, a high figure.

Jesus caused a rebellious movement and presented himself as the central figure / Arthur also caused a rebellious movement and presented himself as the central figure.

After Jesus's death on the cross, his followers took the body and laid it in the tomb./After just the car crash, the protestors took Arthur's body and laid on a car.

After waking-up from the car crash, surrounded by protestors, Arthur stretched his arms out like Jesus did on the cross.

There was a scene, above Penny's bed, and Arthur got beside her to watch the TV, you can see a picture of Virgin Mary and Jesus. There was also a religious candle with a printed image of Mary and Jesus, in the living-room of their apartment.

All the subtle Jesus references or imagery stress the point of Arthur in the psychological process of becoming Joker and presented him as messiah-like.

Everytime Arthur was dreaming or hallucinating, his dreams subtly evoke his personal or societal issues:

In the scene when Arthur imagining himself in Murray show, Murray talked about the problem of piling trashes outside and rats roaming in the city. Arthur laughed at his joke, then Arthur shared the fact to the public that he lived with his mom and took care of her for long time. His dream occurred just after he started actually watching the Murray show on live.

Joker's first time on stage as comedian scene, he awkwardly stated that he hated school because of kids(probably due to bullying) and then he was making a joke about rich people which the movie is fading the audio to the "smile" song and we hear public laughing.

When Arthur hanging out with Sophie, as Arthur and Sophie observed newspapers with these headlines displayed on the street, Sophie, not knowing that Arthur was the one responsible for it, commented that she believed the murderer clown was "a hero" and that the city's self-conceited elite deserved it.

When Arthur actually appeared as Joker in the Murray show, he affirmed that his joker look in the show was not political. I think that's not entirely true. Arthur might honestly tell himself or to others that he was not being political. However his unconscious aspect of his psychology did care about politics. His unconsciousness was fed up about Arthur's miserable life and the bleak societal reality. So his unconsciousness developed a messiah complex that drove Arthur in the process of becoming Joker. His psychological shadow, the unconscious aspect of Arthur's "dark" personality(the joker) , progressive merged with his consciousness as the product of individuation according to Jung.

I like the similarities. A modern Jesus who chose a different path.

At the core I think Arthur is a good man. But he was abandoned by everyone, and thus his faith was broken. He knew he had to either fight back or blow his brains out. He chose the fight back option.

"When you feel the last bit of breath leaving their body, you're looking into their eyes. A person in that situation is God."

At a base level of personal satisfaction, that's the messiah complex Arthur was after.

When Arthur kills his bullies, he not just becomes the master of his own universe, but the centre of the universe for many others who share similar frustrations. What started out an individual expression of resistance evolves into something else. Many creations have come into existence without people intending them to, and historical figures don't see themselves as such.

I didn't like the movie, it mostly felt like just watching The King of Comedy, also with some Taxi Driver, again and also too much was random.

While I disagree with the less traditional backstory to the Joker, the fact that the story was self-contained and clearly out of universe gave it a good setting to exist in. I won't go on a full review, but I do want to state some of my nitpicks. Namely, they went so far to make it a self-contained story, but just couldn't resist a backdoor Batman pilot. Completely unnecessary to include the Waynes, they could have replaced Thomas Wayne with any wealthy socialite from Batman lore. A side effect of that is the extreme age difference between Batman and Joker; at best a new Batman in his 20s will be facing off against a Joker in his 60s. Probably the most egregious part was retelling the Wayne murders again. People were tired of this part of Batman's story being retold with each reboot. BvS wasn't particularly bad, but everyone hated that we had to see the sequence yet again. Joker might just be the worst instance in that respect.

Quote from: Slash Man on Sat, 28 Aug  2021, 01:07
While I disagree with the less traditional backstory to the Joker, the fact that the story was self-contained and clearly out of universe gave it a good setting to exist in. I won't go on a full review, but I do want to state some of my nitpicks. Namely, they went so far to make it a self-contained story, but just couldn't resist a backdoor Batman pilot. Completely unnecessary to include the Waynes, they could have replaced Thomas Wayne with any wealthy socialite from Batman lore. A side effect of that is the extreme age difference between Batman and Joker; at best a new Batman in his 20s will be facing off against a Joker in his 60s. Probably the most egregious part was retelling the Wayne murders again. People were tired of this part of Batman's story being retold with each reboot. BvS wasn't particularly bad, but everyone hated that we had to see the sequence yet again. Joker might just be the worst instance in that respect.

In both movies, the Wayne shootings probably occupy less than five minutes combined. In JOKER, the murders are the culmination of Fleck's story. In BVS, the murders propel Batman's eventual "redemption".

Bottom line, they contribute greatly to both stories. I do not understand the opposition some people have toward those scenes.

Not using the Wayne family would've been the elephant in the room. JOKER does take place in Gotham City, so I want to know their place in it. Substituting them with other characters wouldn't have had the same resonance. The murder of Thomas and Martha cements Arthur's status as a street level influencer given his final words to Murray are repeated before the trigger gets pulled. Arthur is much older than Bruce, but I don't think that matters much in a sea of various different incarnations. This Joker could remain jail bound and simply be a martyr for clown gangs, as the deceased Nicholson seems to be in the B89 comic series.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 28 Aug  2021, 03:37
Not using the Wayne family would've been the elephant in the room. JOKER does take place in Gotham City, so I want to know their place in it.

Some early criticism was that a Joker movie without Batman would feel incomplete. On that matter they proved the film could stand on its own, and it was even better for it. My only gripe was that they could have taken that even further to develop this already unique identity that the film laid out for itself. Part of my perspective just comes from the fact that I like it as a film in general, but not as a comic book movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5CrzdMhzwQ

This guy's specific story ideas, I can kinda take or leave, but I think the notion of the sequel taking it's inspiration from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", much like how "Joker" was influenced by "Taxi Driver", and "King of Comedy", is a really good place to start. Especially in where we left off in the story with Arthur.

Plus, it's a nice nod to Jack. To me, that's always a positive.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 24 Sep  2021, 19:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5CrzdMhzwQ

This guy's specific story ideas, I can kinda take or leave, but I think the notion of the sequel taking it's inspiration from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", much like how "Joker" was influenced by "Taxi Driver", and "King of Comedy", is a really good place to start. Especially in where we left off in the story with Arthur.

Plus, it's a nice nod to Jack. To me, that's always a positive.

By all accounts JOKER II is happening and it's not a hypothetical idea. I like this guy's idea a lot, actually. I agree One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest would be a great place to look for inspiration, as well as the Arkham Asylum graphic novel. If Batman villains were to appear, I'm very much preferring grounded characters like Zsasz, Hugo Strange, Quinzel and the like, with Arthur causing an inmate uprising while giving psychologists sob stories about various elements of his childhood. All of these concepts remind me how good the Eastrail Trilogy is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19AtR-6bAcc&ab_channel=TheVileEye

I tumbled onto this guy's YouTube channel thx to a video he did about Michael Myers. This one came up in my recommendations afterwards. And this guy gives one of the most honest and straight-forward evaluations of JOKER as a movie and Fleck as a character that I've ever seen. Definitely worth watching.

^I'll watch that vid later. Sounds interesting.

I watched this again in preparation for The Batman. Still love it. Just as amazing as the first time I saw it. So good.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 25 Sep  2021, 00:41If Batman villains were to appear, I'm very much preferring grounded characters like Zsasz, Hugo Strange, Quinzel and the like

The suggestions other people have had for a sequel are a bit infuriating, tbh. "omg, let's bring in Harley and make it all about her *squeeeeeeeee*".

I'm boycotting the sequel if that happens. But I'm thinking it won't.

Quote from: Travesty on Wed,  2 Mar  2022, 16:06
Still love it. Just as amazing as the first time I saw it. So good.

Any other character would crawl over broken glass littered with dirty syringes to have JOKER and The Batman in their filmic catalogue. This style of filmmaking is the template for me. Going in the completely opposite direction of the mainstream norm because the sheep flock together and the lion walks alone.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  2 Mar  2022, 17:40
The suggestions other people have had for a sequel are a bit infuriating, tbh. "omg, let's bring in Harley and make it all about her *squeeeeeeeee*".

I'm boycotting the sequel if that happens. But I'm thinking it won't.

The people suggesting that must literally live on Twitter.

Here's another one.

https://youtu.be/SSj1MvjQsn4

It's pretty much a technical commentary on Phoenix's performance.

My love and affection for this movie remains undimmed. History will be very kind to JOKER, I think.

Sometimes proclaiming a recently released film to be a modern classic can be a bit premature, but JOKER fits the bill quite nicely.

The replay value is solid. As far as any DC film 2013-onward, it's definitely right up there with MOS, BvS, and WW.

Via Todd Phillips' instagram:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUr3y7gWAAEJ4s4?format=jpg&name=large)

It's happening. JOKER is a truly special movie and no matter what happens next we will always have it. The first film was labelled unnecessary before it was made and the same will be said of the sequel. The prospect of the same creative team getting back together does excite me, especially when I know the focus is firmly focused on acting and concept. Once Phoenix loses a ton of weight and gets into character there's a good chance magic will happen.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  8 Jun  2022, 03:52
It's happening. JOKER is a truly special movie and no matter what happens next we will always have it. The first film was labelled unnecessary before it was made and the same will be said of the sequel. The prospect of the same creative team getting back together does excite me, especially when I know the focus is firmly focused on acting and concept. Once Phoenix loses a ton of weight and gets into character there's a good chance magic will happen.

I feel put in my place after reading this comment. But it's true. The same creative powers behind the original are coming back for the sequel. That should be enough to quiet my doubts and concerns.

And COVID notwithstanding, this will be a considerable gap between the original and the sequel. A 2024 release date is my guess. That makes five years between films. My hope is the gap indicates that everyone involved is taking their time to make sure the second effort is worthwhile.

Strangely, I find myself dwelling on Hildur Guðnadóttir and hoping that she comes back for the sequel because her score for the original is one of my favorites of all time.

With insane cost of living pressures and a sharp divide between the general public and the protected, there is fertile ground for a Joker sequel. Especially if it gets released around 2024. The world of the Joker is a commentary on society as much as anything else. I am not exaggerating when I say Joker is perhaps my favorite DC film of all time, and even eclipses the likes of Falling Down. Arthur contemplates suicide but decides to point the barrel at others, first for self defence and finally for revenge. I love everything about it. Phillips and Phoenix seem to have a strong working relationship, and even if the studio forced a sequel they'd have to agree on character and script decisions. Ledger didn't get the opportunity to reprise the role, but Phoenix does. Let's ride that train while we can.

I'm extremely happy to see that this is moving forward. I can't wait to hear more about this.

I have a feeling that this sequel will ultimately determine whether the first one is good or not. On its own I've soured a lot on this picture and think it is way overrated. This sequel has the potential to change all of that. We'll see.

Quote from: Travesty on Wed,  8 Jun  2022, 13:30
I'm extremely happy to see that this is moving forward. I can't wait to hear more about this.

I have a feeling that this sequel will ultimately make the first one better. On its own I've elevated my opinion a lot and think it is way underrated if anything. We'll see.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  9 Jun  2022, 00:32

Quote from: Travesty on Wed,  8 Jun  2022, 13:30
I'm extremely happy to see that this is moving forward. I can't wait to hear more about this.

I have a feeling that this sequel will ultimately make the first one better. On its own I've elevated my opinion a lot and think it is way underrated if anything. We'll see.

Indeed. And there is character-driven potential for a sequel.

What I find interesting is how transparent the original production was. Iirc, by this equivalent point, we'd already gotten Phoenix's costume fitting edited into a trailer set to a song. When's the last time something as esoteric as a costume fitting was released to the public before the movie?

But with the sequel, we've only seen the cover of the script. Seems like Phillips has the ability to play things close to the vest this time around. I see that as (mostly) a positive thing.

Trepidations aside, between JOKER 2 and Top Gun: Maverick, I am enjoying being excited about sequels to stuff. It's a refreshing change of pace for me.

This image was also released of Phoenix reading the script:

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXrTGTvB/phoenix.png)

So this is not a joke or a game. It is happening and the transparency continues.

What I love about JOKER is how it treats the character as a real person and gives him a sense of authenticity that we haven't ever really had. And I don't say that to disparage the other incarnations, as they clearly had different intentions. This universe manages to have its cake and eat it too, simultaneously being a comic based film (all the psychological components of the Joker are absolutely there) but also not being one. I think that attracts Phoenix and Phillips to the concept in the same way it does me.

What I am wondering right now, is that with "Folie à Deux" (meaning "Madness for Two") is in french, might this sequel take cinematic inspiration from the French New Wave and François Truffaut? Just as the JOKER took inspiration from the New Hollywood era, and Scorsese.

Might be looking way too deep into the title, but it is a thought ....

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  9 Jun  2022, 04:44

What I am wondering right now, is that with "Folie à Deux" (meaning "Madness for Two") is in french, might this sequel take cinematic inspiration from the French New Wave and François Truffaut? Just as the JOKER took inspiration from the New Hollywood era, and Scorsese.

Might be looking way too deep into the title, but it is a thought ....

Actually, the "for two" part sort of plays into my fear that this might become The Harley Show, because modern clown world. Gotta have those female characters running around. Whether anybody wants them or not.

What I'm hoping is that the "à Deux" part is a self-referential acknowledgement that this is a sequel and the spotlight remains firmly fixed on Fleck.

I don't have a problem with Quinzel appearing if she's in her vulnerable interviewer state. Unless I'm way off, I can't see Phillips or Phoenix going down the full blown Margot Harley route. That's why I'm not worried about the idea, which is possible if we receive a film prominently inside Arkham Hospital. We've seen Fleck suffer and use violence. Emotional manipulation could be the next evolution we see play out. It's an exciting possibility given we haven't seen it before. Suicide Squad had abusive elements with the Joker/Harley relationship before it was cut to ribbons. JOKER's team needs to be uncompromising and play the 'this isn't an endorsement of such behavior' card.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  9 Jun  2022, 12:43
Actually, the "for two" part sort of plays into my fear that this might become The Harley Show, because modern clown world. Gotta have those female characters running around. Whether anybody wants them or not.

What I'm hoping is that the "à Deux" part is a self-referential acknowledgement that this is a sequel and the spotlight remains firmly fixed on Fleck.

"Folie à Deux" could be referring to Harley?

Could be referring to an imposter Joker (Loosely inspired by The Three Jokers, perhaps)?

Could be a subtle reference towards being inspired by the approach of French New Wave cinema (which leaned into experimentation rather than the typical conventional style of filmmaking) as I theorized?

Or, it could be a simple confirmation of a sequel?

All are possibilities as far as we know. IF it is Harley, I would assume that Phillips would want to get her back to something more resembling the original conception of the character as Paul Dini and Bruce Timm created, rather than the more 'modern iteration' that's been pushed by DC to mixed results. Right now, I am a less worried about Joaquin Phoenix playing second fiddle in this. I can only imagine the conversations Phoneix and Phillips, might've, and probably had, concerning where Arthur's story would go next. I'd like to think the "Folie à Deux" script Phillips worked on, would emphasize those ideas greatly.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  9 Jun  2022, 04:44

What I am wondering right now, is that with "Folie à Deux" (meaning "Madness for Two") is in french, might this sequel take cinematic inspiration from the French New Wave and François Truffaut? Just as the JOKER took inspiration from the New Hollywood era, and Scorsese.

Might be looking way too deep into the title, but it is a thought ....

That could prove an interesting approach. Batman '89 took some influence from French New Wave cinema; specifically Les yeux sans visage (1960). I can imagine the French preoccupation with existentialism gelling with the themes of Arthur's story.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  9 Jun  2022, 12:43
Actually, the "for two" part sort of plays into my fear that this might become The Harley Show, because modern clown world. Gotta have those female characters running around. Whether anybody wants them or not.

I share your fatigue with Harley. If the story is going to focus on Joker's relationship with another character, I'd rather they take a more Pre-Crisis approach and make it about Arthur's friendship with Gary. Have Gary become Gaggy and then have the two of them form a partnership like Dr. Evil and Mini-Me.


I feel this particular version of the Joker would be more prone to form an empathetic attachment to someone vulnerable, like Gary, rather than to a physically attractive psychiatrist. I don't mind Harleen Quinzel appearing as a doctor, and perhaps getting killed by the Joker, but I don't fancy the idea of her becoming his partner and sharing the limelight.

I hope Gary gets to play a role in the sequel. He is someone Arthur genuinely cares about, and I'm intrigued to know how Gary feels about Arthur's descent into madness. Is he disgusted with his actions but goes along with them out of obligation/fear, or does he become a true believer? The first option seems more interesting to me. If they captured the original spirit of Harleen, someone who is used and abused, it could serve as a mirror to Arthur's bond with Gary. If she features, I'd have Arthur use her to break out of jail and nothing more. Just before he leaves, Harleen is badly assaulted or outright killed - as the therapist from the first film seems to be given the red footprints going down the hallway. A transactional and cold relationship.

Hollywood Reporter is saying Joker: Folie à deux is a musical.

With possibly Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/joker-2-lady-gaga-joaquin-phoenix-todd-phillips-in-musical-1235154135/

I'm not surprised to see Harley included. It seemed like the logical extension of this world, particularly as Arthur has two prominent female influences in the original - his mother and Sophie. I'm not the biggest Gaga fan but I can see her in the role. She also fits the direction of a musical, which isn't much more of a stretch considering the prominent use of That's Life and Smile in the first movie. Phoenix likes dancing, and did so in front of a bathroom mirror and down stairs. If anything, this news doubles down on the fact this will be something against the mainstream grain. I remain unintimidated about a sequel.

I absolutely hate musicals, sooooo yeah.


Bummer.....

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 14 Jun  2022, 08:55
I'm not surprised to see Harley included. It seemed like the logical extension of this world, particularly as Arthur has two prominent female influences in the original - his mother and Sophie. I'm not the biggest Gaga fan but I can see her in the role. She also fits the direction of a musical, which isn't much more of a stretch considering the prominent use of That's Life and Smile in the first movie. Phoenix likes dancing, and did so in front of a bathroom mirror and down stairs. If anything, this news doubles down on the fact this will be something against the mainstream grain. I remain unintimidated about a sequel.

I'm... less optimistic. I'll reserve judgment, of course. Phillips has earned that much from me. But I don't see this as a good sign. At all.

I'm strangely not really bothered as Phillips won me over before - there could be genius in going a different route. There is an interplay between reality and fantasy with a musical, which in theory can fit the world of JOKER. There was uncertainty in a number of scenes from the original, namely if things actually played out exactly as the viewer witnessed them. Phillips could go for hallucinations or moments of heightened mania, perhaps as Arthur or Harley fall for one another. With the frequency of those sequences reducing and darkening as things sour. Which makes me interested in checking out Burton's Sweeney Todd.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 14 Jun  2022, 23:00
I'm strangely not really bothered as Phillips won me over before - there could be genius in going a different route. There is an interplay between reality and fantasy with a musical, which in theory can fit the world of JOKER. There was uncertainty in a number of scenes from the original, namely if things actually played out exactly as the viewer witnessed them. Phillips could go for hallucinations or moments of heightened mania, perhaps as Arthur or Harley fall for one another. With the frequency of those sequences reducing and darkening as things sour. Which makes me interested in checking out Burton's Sweeney Todd.

The musical aspect bothers me least, frankly. I see it as a natural extension of the dancing from the original.

It's the Harley thing that has me concerned.

Then again, there are ways of making this work. If Dr. Harleen Quinzel treats Arthur Fleck in therapy in "the real world" while, in Fleck's imagination, he's the Joker again and Harley Quinn is his moll... yeah, that could work. Or basically, if Harley is something that only exists in the Joker's mind, I'm fine with that.

My concern is and has been Harley stealing the show. Call it sexist, call it whatever you want. But I've had enough of female replacements taking over from original male characters. And I don't want to see the sequel go in that direction.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 15 Jun  2022, 01:15
My concern is and has been Harley stealing the show. Call it sexist, call it whatever you want. But I've had enough of female replacements taking over from original male characters. And I don't want to see the sequel go in that direction.

I understand that. Joker is still the name on the film's branding, so the focus should circle back to him. I'm hoping that is the case. It really should be, but we'll see. When a trailer gets released we'll have a fair idea how they're going to pull this off. I'm imagining this movie taking place a lot inside Arkham, so distortion of reality would easily work. Sophie wasn't even physically with Arthur most of the time, so there's that angle to consider. Gaga is also trying to be 'A Serious Actor', so that also gives me hope tonally.

There's a number of ways this could work, and I'm pretty open to making Lady Gaga's Harley distinctly different from Margot Robbie's DCEU Harley Quinn. Whether that be as her being portrayed as a rather low key psychiatrist, and slowly over the course of the film, realizing that she has a 'Mad Love' for Arthur (where both are shown to be rather unreliable narrator's in their perceptions of one another), an imaginary muse (which can lean heavily into some very surreal sequences ... also comedic if they are inclined), or maybe even as a cunning and disingenuous manipulator that's exploiting Arthur due to his now-notorious reputation in infamy (especially after basically having murdered a Johnny Carson-like figure right on the set).

Lot's of possibilities here.

I've never seen "American Horror Story: Hotel", but I have seen Lady Gaga in "A Star is Born", and she was fine in that. Not a movie I would rewatch a whole hell of a lot to be honest, but it's not a bad movie by any means, and I don't recall Gaga herself being horrible in it whatsoever. She held her own with Bradley Cooper.

With the musical aspect being considered, I'm imagining there might be a scene similar to Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia", where we'll have Arthur and Harleen singing along to a song even though they are in completely different locations (ala the Aimee Mann "Wise Up" sing along sequence from Magnolia). Could be way off on that, but it's a thought I had after finding out about the musical deal.

Apparently the script has leaked and it turns out Gaga isn't playing Harley Quinn, she's playing some other deranged character that gets involved with Fleck as a 'Tom and Jerry' kind of relationship after he escapes. The 'musical' portion of the film involves a rape scene because the gist of the film is that it's going to be ripping off A Clockwork Orange as opposed to ripping off Taxi Driver and the King of Comedy.

At this moment, I'm experiencing a strange mixture of reactions. Hope that this is true, relief that the sequel might go in a positive direction and minor annoyance that the spoiler text wasn't colored white.

Ditto. I did my own research and if the leak is true, we're looking at a severe escalation in the depiction of violence. Decapitations, castrations and torture. If that's the case we'd be getting a fully fledged Joker in terms of embracing his new identity. I can see Phoenix being terrifying with that type of off the chain portrayal.

This whole premise makes me think of the Mark Hamill Trickster from 90's Flash.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed, 13 Jul  2022, 13:42
Apparently the script has leaked and it turns out Gaga isn't playing Harley Quinn, she's playing some other deranged character that gets involved with Fleck as a 'Tom and Jerry' kind of relationship after he escapes. The 'musical' portion of the film involves a rape scene because the gist of the film is that it's going to be ripping off A Clockwork Orange as opposed to ripping off Taxi Driver and the King of Comedy.

How's the credibility of the source?

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 13 Jul  2022, 21:25

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed, 13 Jul  2022, 13:42
Apparently the script has leaked and it turns out Gaga isn't playing Harley Quinn, she's playing some other deranged character that gets involved with Fleck as a 'Tom and Jerry' kind of relationship after he escapes. The 'musical' portion of the film involves a rape scene because the gist of the film is that it's going to be ripping off A Clockwork Orange as opposed to ripping off Taxi Driver and the King of Comedy.

How's the credibility of the source?

Better than Giant Robot, which is why I went ahead and posted it. My feeling is that this is probably real.

I could be completely wrong but it could be possible that Gaga may not be called Harley but it's still the Phillips version of the character, just as Joker is called Arthur Fleck. I'm curious about what this possible leak says about the ending not allowing much possibility for a third movie. Arthur dies?

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed, 13 Jul  2022, 21:42
Better than Giant Robot, which is why I went ahead and posted it. My feeling is that this is probably real.

Hmmm. Well, admittedly, I was kinda into the idea of Gaga playing a different Harley Quinn. Mainly due to how Phillips could really play with the relationship between the two. Especially in terms of both of their agendas with one another, the mental/physical abuse (like really lean into that), and the pair possibly reaching a 'tragically doomed' and 'realistically probable' resolution if Arthur Fleck/Joker decides he'd rather be a solo act. Reestablishing that unpredictable wild card aspect of the Joker's character, and leaving audiences agasp at just how especially heinous Phoenix's Joker can be at a mere moments notice (ala Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer).

If it's just a whomever, you kinda lose some of that emotional investment some of the general audience might have due to everyone basically being aware of the couple, and where one definitively killing the other wouldn't be as shocking perhaps, but apparently the supposed script's intentions lies elsewhere with Phoenix/Gaga being more Tom and Jerry. We'll see.

We have a release date of October 4, 2024. I hope this actually happens.

https://deadline.com/2022/08/joker-2-release-date-1235084541/

Yup, an official release date and Lady Gaga is now official, as well.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  3 Aug  2022, 20:41
We have a release date of October 4, 2024. I hope this actually happens.

https://deadline.com/2022/08/joker-2-release-date-1235084541/

2024?! Wtf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zgttt8Q2Rw

 Nice

More than happy with Phoenix, but given the recent news about Leo as Lex Luthor, I felt like this was worth posting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f70HWDfw68M