Messages

Interesting interview.

Snyder is a Miller/Moore disciple through and through, and although Snyder has been more associated with Frank Miller thanks to "300" and clearly being influenced by Miller with Snyder DCEU films, it's kinda a shame that "MiracleMan" was sold to Marvel rather than DC, ect. I think Snyder would've likely made a earnest adaptation of Moore's MM tenure, where a MM movie is even less likely to ever be explored under Disney in the foreseeable future.

With Gal, I think she could have easily pulled off a Wonder Woman 3 with minimum fuss. Shazam 2 came out, when? Last year? Gal had a small cameo in that, and I don't know? She looked pretty good to me. Course, when you have a amplitude of positive goodwill from the GA/fans (which I think Gal has with the role), they are more willing to overlook a lot in suspending disbelief just to see the actor reprise the role again and again.

Unfortunately, CBM's are not the sure-thing hit nowadays, and there's just no appetite for a WW3. Audiences are just not going to show up for nearly anything Superhero related like they did in the past, and sequels to billion dollar films can very easily fall flat on their face at the box office. Since 2019, outside of some very select outliers, it's pretty much been a series of diminishing returns...

Yeah, even though Robin Williams will always be best remembered for being a brilliant comedic actor, he was also amazing playing darker characters. "Insomnia", "One Hour Photo", his appearance on "Law & Order" ... we really missed out with Williams as the Riddler.

[Sofia Falcone, you have never done a thing wrong in your life.]

Sofia Falcone, you have never done a thing wrong in your life.

Yep. There's disappointment and confusion circulating about who the 'real Joker' is. Some viewers are adamant the inmate who stabs Arthur was actually the Joker all this time because he begins laughing and carves his own face. To me that's nothing more than Arthur's legacy, which wasn't originally intended - he was acting independently in the first movie, as he says "do I look like the kind of clown that could start a movement?" To me, The Joker of this series is both a real man and an idea. Arthur took on the title, abandoned it, then the followers sought to preserve the spirit of Arthur's original appearance on Murray Franklin. Arthur did take on the moniker first. He put on makeup and dyed his hair green. He had various traits of the comic character, namely suicidal ideation, off color jokes, extreme thinness, killing people on television, etc. He had his own version of Harley albeit with a twist to their relationship. The point is that NOBODY can live up to the shadow of what it all stands for, not even Arthur's killer who carved himself a smile. In this more real setting he's staying locked up in jail and probably getting a death sentence too. A point is that people only see the anarchy and not the mentally troubled man behind it all.

That's exactly how I see it as well. I've seen videos and read theories about the guy being the *real* Joker, or even Ledger's Joker (which I can't wrap my brain around, but I also remember people thinking "Batman Begins" was a prequel to "Batman 1989", and I just never understood how that possibly works or even makes sense?), but nah. In this iteration, Fleck is the original and defacto Joker. It's just his persona/shadow eventually swallows up the man behind the Joker alter ego, and who's 'shadow' simply looms large, and will continue to loom large, long past the innovator himself.   

Interesting comparisons to Ted Bundy in the movie too. He got rid of his defence team, represented himself and had a delusional female (Carole) strongly fighting his case. The difference is that she believed Ted was innocent. Lee liked Arthur for his killing. When Bundy admitted to being a murderer in his last days (mainly as a last ditch tactic) Carole stopped talking and wanted nothing to do with him. Her delusion was over. In contrast, Lee walked away too but her warped mindset continued. They both loved the man on the stands for who they thought them to be.

QFT. We already are aware of the Gacy/Pogo connections with Phillips' iteration of the Joker, and I also have no problem envisioning there being a blatant Ted Bundy influence. Especially considering Bundy is probably considered one of the more charismatic when considering high profile serial killers.

I believe Robin Williams' name was associated with Batman movies no less than three times.

1. Essentially used as bait to persuade Jack Nicholson to sign on as the Joker. (Batman 1989)

2. Pursued for the role of the Riddler by Joel Schumacher. Williams (per Schumacher) remained cordial, but ultimately noncommittal. Role eventually was offered to Jim Carrey instead. (Batman Forever)

3. Williams openly opined that he would like a "role" in Chris Nolan's followup to "Batman Begins" around 2006. I can't remember if "The Dark Knight" title was settled at that point, but this sparked speculation that Robin Williams might appear as Nolan's version of the Joker. (The Dark Knight 2008)

I vaguely remember Robin Williams was also brought up somewhat when there was online speculation on which villain was going to be used for "The Dark Knight Rises" prior to Bane being announced. Riddler was one for sure. I think Hugo Strange was also another.

It's a testament to you as a big fan of the character you can see the intent of what's going on: that Arthur can't match his shadow. I think the hard backlash is because viewers really do love the Joker as a character and see Folie A Deux as severely disrespecting him. I get that passion.

Right on. I appreciate that. I think most people are open to different interpretations, but at the same time, want the Joker character to be interpreted with parameters in mind. That's not a criticism either. Just the way it goes. I grew up reading numerous elseworlds stories that interpreted the Joker very differently than what the then-status quo was offering. Such as stories like the Joker being the good detective, where Batman & Catwoman were Bonnie & Clyde type criminals, or one such 2-part Showcase '94 story (The Great Pretender/King Joker) where some guy name "Joe" is convinced he's the Joker. Later, kills his wife, paints his face with Joker makeup, and as the story goes, descends into a hellish realm where other characters are being imprisoned and starved (Tim Drake is starving and emanicated, I think Bane commits suicide by hanging and the book notes a stench is beginning to form), where "Joe" eventually encounters a demonic Hellraiser-ish "king Joker" that rules over this realm. "Joe"succeeds in supplanting this Joker, and he congratulates himself by digging into his face until he's left with the grotesque visage of a bloody skeleton face ala Poltergeist. I think this 2-parter even included two babies in a cribbage infected with Joker venom, and all of this wasn't even under DC's Vertigo imprint as it was featured in DC Showcase. Which makes it even more wild. I could go on and on, but that one, in my memory, veered way off the then-standard depiction, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. These days, I would probably consider it too edgy, but in '94, I was all about edgy. haha

When Lee stands up and leaves the room that's exactly what we're seeing in real life with the negative feedback. Total abandonment of Arthur and rushing to elevate what Joker typically stands for. Comic Joker is complete bulletproof confidence and an ability to escape at will. That's not the case here.

Just to add to this, I also like how the sequel brings everything full circle. Arthur's original intention in going on the Murray Franklin Show, was to publicly commit suicide. That was the plan. It's not until Murray becomes increasingly contrarian to Arthur's worldview, that Arthur decides to publicly kill Murray instead. With the sequel, when Arthur decides to discontinue his Joker persona as he slowly begins to crack, he's essentially met with the same disappointment Arthur once had with Murray Franklin. culminating with one of the Joker's most ardent supporters being given the opportunity by the guards to murder Arthur, and reciting the very same line "Joker" famously said to Murray Franklin, "You get what you f**king deserve.

The guards liked Arthur, but the inmates liked Joker. He had to straddle that line and eventually he chose to be Arthur. No choice has good outcomes, as the film depicts. It literally causes his death with the shanking in terms of the other prisoners, and it pushes Lee and his followers away. But he's the one being raped in there.

Exactly. Comic book films generally are very bombastic and glamorous in many respect. "Folie à Deux", outside of the musical sequences, is anything but. Even more indicative when we first see Arthur and how he's been essentially just merely existing for the past two years (if you want to even call it that).

He had to listen to his friend being killed. Those guards were God. I imagine Arthur came to see how being Joker (as recently as the courtroom appearance) became more about pleasing others compared to his original gripe that drove him to murder in the first place. Acting as a comic book character has its limits on real people.

Right. Lee was not dissimilar to particular women who wind up having a thing for serial killers (probably even more so if they are fairly 'high profile'). As there is assuredly an element of infamous illustriousness that they find attractive given the reputation. I doubt Lee in this universe ever really did anything interesting with her life, but she was able to pull strings and get close to Arthur in the hopes of getting a "show". Much like the Joker followers in the film. Arthur, as "Joker" was a willing participant in being the showman, until the fantasy was no longer gratifying any longer. And that's all they really had. The fantasy. 

[Tonally it's no different to the original in my opinion, just expanded. Arthur hallucinated about being on Murray's show at the beginning of film one. We did have musical montages. This did push the envelope but at the same time doesn't feel out of left field to me.]

Yeah. The reaction has become hysterically hyperbolic. It makes the rating system absolutely worthless in my eyes if a well made film like Folie A Deux gets the tag of worst comic based film ever from rage scores of 1/5. That's the real joke. Even the original Joker movie has a low score, which to me says a lot. Folie A Deux will now have a bad reputation because of Rotten Tomatoes and a lot of sheep will go along with it.

Yeah, I just can't imagine thinking with a clear head, "Hey! You know what? Catwoman with Halle Berry, or Josh Trank's Fantastic Four are actually better than Joker 2!"

What a time to be alive.

Right now I put the two Joker films up there with the Burton duology in terms of my appreciation.

You know something? I'm kinda right there with you on this. A friend of mine often participate in friendly debates every so often about what Batman movies we like the best. He's in the Nolan camp cause he prefers the more serious/hyper realistic take, where I continually state that I am firmly in the Burton camp cause I prefer the gothic/aesthetic/fantasical interpretation. I honestly was really into the Nolan films as they were released, but I've honestly find myself reaching for my copy of Joker to rewatch more often in the past 4-5 years or so. To me, Joker 2 kinda hit that sweet spot between the more solemn and leaning more into the illusory...

Ok, I'm skimming this thread and I can see a few of you are liking the movie. After sitting on it for a few days, I'm just not feeling it. I'm not trying to bring anything down, but it is what it is. I don't like this movie overall. Sure, it's not the worst thing(I wont be giving it below a 5), but I expecting much higher from Todd Phillips....MUCH higher!

Man, I really wanted to love this. I really did. I dunno? This was a bummer for me.

Maybe I'll deep dive into it later, but I rather not at this point. I'll let you guys do your thing. Just ignore me. It is what it is. I wanted to like it.

I guess I'll see what everyone is saying outside of here. I still haven't read or watched any reviews. I think I'll queue up some YT reviews tonight. Again, I'm pretty bummed on this one. More so than I was expecting.

Bummer....

Perfectly understandable.

I've done enough of that and I'm going to stop. It's too frustrating. I get that the film wasn't what some were expecting (that's fine) but a lot of the feedback has become a hate tsunami that ignores or dismisses what's contained within.

The supporters setting off the car bomb outside court shows the persona really has taken on a life of its own. The Joker movement already killed Thomas and Martha Wayne in the first movie, no doubt inspiring young Bruce to eventually don the cape and cowl. Arthur was never going to meet Batman either because their age disparity was too great. I just don't have a problem with what we see here in this particular context.

Arthur ends up as a victim of the same violence he was empowering. That's Life playing over the end credits feels like a fitting statement. A dream (a relationship with Lee) has been stomped, Arthur has rolled up into a big ball and died, and that's life.

The TV movie made about his rise to prominence made him a public commodity and bigger in their imaginations. I love talking about this stuff. Tonally it's no different to the original in my opinion, just expanded. Arthur hallucinated about being on Murray's show at the beginning of film one. We did have musical montages. This did push the envelope but at the same time doesn't feel out of left field to me.

Admittedly, I walked out thinking it was very different than Joker 2019, but hmmm ... that is food for thought, TDK. I can't say I disagree the more I think about it.

Just to talk about some positives, I have to say I really liked the WB Looney Tunes Joker intro that comically foretells Arthur as the Joker, and his "shadow".



Much like Joker 2019, I also was very keen on how the opening title card was incorporated. Such a great visual!

I figured this film would easily wind up being divisive among fans and general audiences when I saw it this past Thurs, but holy toledo! The reactions I've read online, and including the lethargic box office numbers, sure is making it seem like Joker 2 is (almost) just flat out universally despised. I think I saw on X where "CinemaScore" or something giving it the worst score ever for a comic book movie. That, to be clear, makes Joker 2, in their estimation, worse than anything comic book related that Disney/Warners/Fox/Sony/ect has ever produced! Something I can't help but find both interesting, and incredibly amusing. LOL 

Honestly, I can't sit here and lie and tell someone I would much rather watch something like "The Marvels", or "Blue Beetle", or "Morbius" over Joker 2 cause, well, that would be lying wouldn't it? 

Accurate. We already have the joybuzzing permawhite Joker of Nicholson and the agent of chaos from Ledger. There's room for Arthur's broken man who had his big moment on Murray Franklin and then was put in jail. What also needs to be considered about the ending is that Arthur WAS going to get the electric chair as the comic version would in reality anyway. Folie A Deux presents that reality in a stark way.

Right on. I've always chose to view these films as cinematic elseworlds tales that doesn't have to follow the comic iteration history to a T, and hardly any really do. Which is good, cause I'd want a filmmaker to have the creative freedom to experiment, rather than be beholden to standard formula. Which tends to get schlocky after awhile. 

The movie was powerful to me personally because it solidified a lot of how I've felt as an adult. That nothing really matters and nobody cares. We're really just on our own and things go through the motions. We all build things up in our imaginations that often don't match reality. Lee had celebrity worship. Arthur had delusional longing for love. She gave Arthur a sense of purpose and excitement he was lacking. I'm sure he knew Lee was a liar, but he had no one else. These movies are about the human condition and are very effective. I walked out of the cinema a different person to the one I entered, and was pondering what I had seen for hours after.

Yeah, there was definitely a inverted dysfunctional codependency angle where Arthur was the one more attached where classically it's the other way around. Like you, I enjoyed and appreciate the unique experiment. It's incredibly atypical for sure, and very much unlike any comic book related movie that I am aware of.

[That opening intro felt consistent with what came later in the musical delusions too. Especially in one specific scene involving Arthur and Lee at Arkham. I think those montages fit in cleanly and transitioned in a logical way.]

Glad you're liking the movie overall, and interesting comparison. You're on the money. That opening intro felt consistent with what came later in the musical delusions too. Especially in one specific scene involving Arthur and Lee at Arkham. I think those montages fit in cleanly and transitioned in a logical way.

I think one of the things you and I have in common, is that we don't mind films that lend into the unconventional or quirkiness (for instance I actually like the Mel Gibson movie "The Beaver" even though it's incredibly quirky, and I honestly wouldn't even call it a 'good' movie, but the offbeat comical nature of it all is just too fascinating), and I think it's safe to say that "Joker Folie à Deux" also falls into this sort of category.

Prior to Disney's MCU, and the whole "shared universe" deal, comic book films were largely self contained cinematic Elseworlds/What Ifs that were self contained stories. Thus giving whatever filmmaker/storyteller the creative freedom to put their own unique stamp on the IP . Phillips' "Joker" films are definitely a throwback to that era, and being a guy who's just so beyond tired of the "shared universe" shtick (it was a novelty there for a while, but eventually the concept begins to buckle under it's own weight in terms of continuity and films coming across as same old, same old), I can't help but appreciate the brazenness of this sequel's very unique vision of what a follow up story to Arthur Fleck's Joker would be like. At the same time, I can absolutely understand anyone who doesn't like the approach taken with this. As "Joker Folie à Deux" does squash any preconceived notions of a sequel.

With what TDK said about musical delusions, I agree wholeheartedly. It's about insanity being locked up in a vacuum. Which, at this stage, has Arthur experiencing delusions relating to his life, what he had done, and his new connection to 'Lee'. With 'Lee' she's continually pushing Fleck, even though she at the same time, is fully aware that Arthur's past actions has obviously broken him. In the grand scheme, this isn't a bother to 'Lee'. Much like the masses, the media, and the character of Wayne Gale from "Natural Born Killers", it's about selfishness, and theatre. She, like the audience, is focused on wanting a show. Which is meta aspect of this film I think (and which also goes along with my Gremlins 2 comparisons as that film assuredly had it's share of meta moments as well).

 

For a film set in two main locations they provided a reprieve from the day to day existence. They're the 'comic' element juxtaposed to the brutal reality. I found the song usage charming, particularly Dancing in the Moonlight and again Sinatra's That's Life. No matter how bad things are music can soothe the soul and give a sense of hope. Billy Joel's My Life pops up as well, which has very relevant lyrics. Loved that.

Absolutely! I also liked the rendition of the Carpenter's "Close to you", and Arthur's sequence singing Anthony Newley's "The Joker".