Messages

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

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

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

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.

 

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.

To tell you the truth I would have liked Resurrection to feature no new villains at all and instead focus on Bruce's ruminations, the remnants of Joker's gang and the beginnings of Max Shreck's string pulling. I have no idea how much time the author is putting in between the two films but I never felt it was terribly large. I like the idea The Penguin being the second villain Batman faced after a period of relative calm following Joker's death. These books rewrite all that if readers are willing to consider them canon.

Thanks for your thoughts, GK. My copy is yet to arrive. I'm expecting to feel similar to you. A decent read that generally does a good job, but not without niggles.

However, as is typical with the Burtonverse's forays into the expanded canon, we have the same old issues. It isn't as extensive as the 89 comic run, but we still have to deal with a few big problems: trying to re-litigate the films, straying too far from the voices we recognize, and trying to make it more like the comics. It starts off well enough, but as the narrative progresses it becomes apparent that this isn't quite the 89 universe, particularly where Batman is concerned.

Not surprising. Any Burton continuation that has a closer relationship with Gordon or has references to Arkham Asylum gets an automatic red mark against it from me. These things didn't happen in the first two films and I see no reason they would have in a third. I believe Resurrection features a scene of Batman in daylight, and while that was an unused idea for B89, it nonetheless didn't feature and I just can't imagine this incarnation doing that.

[ALL]

I like darker material as much as anyone. But I do think the tone of modern content has become repetitive and exhausting. There just doesn't seem to be that spark of magic. Goosebumps still interests me because I believe it does have that. The market of children's novellas means there's added pressure on creating scary ideas. Importantly, Stine gives us a nice mix of mystery and humor that makes this a world you're eager to dive in to. I'm about half way through the original run of books (taking my time) and I'm still finding things to enjoy.

On this topic, as I've gotten older my belief has cemented that Batman should be something ALL ages should be able to watch. B66, BTAS and the Burton/Schumacher series fit that criteria. B89 and BR are the darkest of those interpretations but they're undeniably comic book with a sense of adventure. The restrictions on BTAS were also a blessing in disguise as far as I am concerned.

An atmosphere of constant hard violence and swearing runs the risk of becoming one note and lacking the full nuance the world of Batman deserves. Absolute Batman rubbed me the wrong way in this regard. It actually makes me feel like that style interpretation is LESS valid because it's not mainstream. A permission to now like the characters and material because it's been made less 'embarrassing'. I think the trick is presenting something unreal so we have the desire to wish it was. Escapism 101.

I do think a course correction is required in the near future.

I didn't like it unfortunately. Felt too try hard. I find the axe dumb and still don't like Batman's design.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 

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