Messages

Joe Kelly and Jeph Loeb speaking about Superman comics for the year 2000.

I watched Halloween Ends on Netflix last week.

I am going to assume that you have seen the Halloween Blumhouse trilogy, Silver.

Care to share your thoughts?

[after]

After all these years I would seriously still say Nicholson is my number one guy as the Joker. He provides a package that resembles my type of comics while retaining the required darkness. An aspect of B89 I like is how we get a glimpse into Jack's psyche after the transformation. He speaks about the trauma of falling into the chemicals and crying inside. His former self is still buried under there, providing depth, but it's not dwelt on. He's a brand new person who knows who he was and what happened, but moved on and embraced insanity. He's in character too much now for it to hurt him. For a one movie performance they packed a lot in there and a lot of it's right.

Oh, for sure! Jack is pretty much the perfect merging of the Golden Age, and Bronze Age Joker. Comedic, and openly partaking in tomfoolery, but very lethal at a moments notice. Also, Nicholson's Joker is still the only live action Joker that has used the villain's signature weapon; Joker Venom (renamed Smylex for B89). Which is wild. I also like how Jack himself has described the Joker as; "A hateful occurrence of a man who survived nuclear immersion".

Because of Hamill (to whatever degree), Ledger, Phoenix and Leto (to whatever degree), something that These Dang Kids today seem to be forgetting is how big a deal Nicholson playing the Joker was back in the day.

But a tremendous part of B89's success owes back to the casting announcement of Nicholson playing the Joker. That single element alone gave the film a LOT of mystique and interest.

It's safe to say that the hype around B89 would've been greatly diminished (or maybe even completely eliminated) if Nicholson hadn't been involved in the film.

For as good as Ledger might've been, he still had to prove himself in the role. In the early days, he had skeptics and doubters.

But literally nobody questioned Nicholson's ability to play the character. Which says something, I think.

Exactly. Jack Nicholson as the Joker was one of those casting decisions where it just fit like a glove. Not unlike the notion of Patrick Stewart being chosen to portray Professor X about 10 years later. Sometimes the best choice is simply the obvious choice.

Reviving this thread just in time for Halloween, but I thought these were pretty fun and well made.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BvxTCzeo-A4&t=2s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_R5tUSYSKo0&t=30s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PmVA-aJDYjM

Also Hugo is supposed to be the guy Joker talks to during the scene at Axis where Joker shouts "Have you shipped a million of those things!" Hugo is the scientist to shouts back "Yes, sir!"

LOL! I find this hilarious for some reason.



Alfred Pennyworth. Not just a butler. He's also ahead of the curve.

X-Men casting just prior to filming. Evidently, this was the last time Dougray Scott would be associated with the role, as Hugh Jackman was soon after called upon as the replacement for Wolverine.

[I think Folie A Deux has a lot in common with the spirit of Last Action Hero. A fictional character stepping out of the big screen and into the real world.]

I'm glad it exists too. The critical and financial response is disappointing of course, but that overwhelming negativity doesn't embarrass me to comply with the established narrative. Thinking more about it, I think Folie A Deux has a lot in common with the spirit of Last Action Hero. A fictional character stepping out of the big screen and into the real world. What happened after the events of the first movie is perfectly logical from that perspective. He killed, he was jailed, he went to court and then died. The movie people wanted (Joker breaking out, killing more people, eluding capture) was never going to happen in this construct. Arthur's life was always a tragedy. The way it ends up rings true to me. It feels nice and contained, and full circle.

I like that juxtaposition, and I believe it's a very adept observation with how Phillips and Phoenix approached the notion of a sequel. Where the comic book Joker could be perfectly sane but is just simply pleading insane, while playing the "role" of the Joker as a smokescreen of sorts. Leaving people to assume that he is, in fact, insane. Thus, in the grand scheme, making a absolute mockery of the justice system ("Case Study" by Paul Dini and Alex Ross ... highly recommended for anyone unfamiliar with this story).

I know, not particularly difficult to do these days.

Arthur on the other hand, as depicted in Joker 1 and 2, clearly falls under the umbrella of someone who suffers from mental illness and does need help, but is not afforded that same luxury. Nope. He's tried in court, and is harshly sentenced to the electric chair. He attempts to try the Joker persona as a smokescreen for his followers who want a show, but ultimately Arthur gets tapped out having to perform by several factors (the testimony from his former colleague Gary Puddles being a major one), and he's reduced to being a 'disappointment' by those that revered him just as it played out between Arthur and Murray Franklin.

There's a symmetry in the storytelling of Joker 1 and 2 that goes beyond the click bait narrative of, "It was made to just own the chudsz! Dur-Hur-Hur!!1!".

But, it is what it is.

[is]

Very much enjoying her performance. You can definitely see things from her perspective. The end of the last episode was one of the most satisfying things I've seen in a while and gets the viewer supporting her vendetta. Which is great from the perspective Oz is a villain who we shouldn't really be liking all that much despite his unique charisma. He'd be the best Survivor player in existence if he went on the show, managing to talk his way out of anything. He's going to have to make some ugly choices to become the kingpin, and Farrell said a lot of people will probably hate him by the end of it all.

Yeah, Cristin Milioti has taken, what I previously considered, a so-so character and made Sofia truly compelling. For me, it's one of those (oftentimes rare) examples where the cinematic adaptation unequivocally improves upon what was depicted from the source material. 

As Joker said in '89, "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs."

True! Penguin ascending to the throne as the Kingpin of Gotham is the hook, and what I previously thought would be the most interesting thing about the show by a mile (including Colin Farrell's performance), but again, Cristin Milioti as Sofia made this show more gripping, and it's better for it. We'll have to enjoy the time we get.

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

Unfortunately, I don't really foresee that many people changing their minds about Joker 2.

I can understand someone's viewpoint in that this sequel didn't really need to exist, but at the same time, I seem to recall that very same opinion often being reciprocated when it was initially announced that a Joker "Origin" movie was green lighted many years ago. Same holds true with the notion of a solo "Venom" movie as well. The sequel didn't need to exist, and apparently the 1st film didn't need to exist either. Until it was seen/successful.

In some ways, I was admittedly kinda surprised that "Joker (2019)" received such a warm reception since it was primarily dealing with elaborating on the Joker character and having a background and origin. Especially given that Post-The Dark Knight in 2008, the parroting of the The Killing Joke quote; "If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" was constantly referred to ad nauseam. Especially in comparing Ledger to previous cinematic incarnations. However, "The Killing Joke" was published in 1988. At that point, the Joker character had existed for nearly 50 years. So what was his background? He was a mysterious criminal mastermind known as "The Red Hood" who dove into a vat of chemicals to evade capture, and emerged disfigured with chalk white skin, and his hair bleached green. As per co-creator Bill Finger. As far as I know, this had no push back from subsequent writers/editors throughout the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, and to Alan Moore's credit, he also didn't really want to tamper with too much when writing "The Killing Joke" as the Red Hood criminal mastermind background for the Joker was accepted and understood. Personally, I like "The Killing Joke" as much as the next guy, but I think it's undoubtedly lifted up by Brian Bolland's amazing artwork than the story itself to be perfectly honest.

"Joker (2019)" certainly had it's share of influences from TKJ, but I could never really and truly see Arthur ever becoming a live action facsimile of the comic book Joker given the influences from TKJ failed comedian background choice with the depiction (I still have nitpicks with the failed comedian background and being bullied into the Red Hood guise that TKJ highlighted but whatever), and realism the film was going for. There's nothing wrong with that either, and Phoenix proved to be a very worthwhile addition to outstanding cinematic Jokers that we've seen thus far.

Personally, my latitude with the sequel that seemingly everyone hates (except for myself, TDK, and perhaps a handful of other people! haha), is that there was never a franchise here. I am not really a fan of "subverting expectations" or taking big wild swings when it concerns formulaic franchises with entrenched fan expectations, but with Joker 2? I had none. It wasn't envisioned as a franchise, and it wasn't going to continue on as one either (atypical these days). Under that context, the news of it being something of a "musical", and statements from both Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix of wanting to do something that also brought the fear of failing in order to make it interesting, pretty much gave a intuitive indication that we were not going to get a by-the-numbers follow up.

I get the hate/dissatisfaction that Joker 2 has received, but at the same time, I'm very glad it exists.