Who was the best Joker ever? What exactly makes a good joker? Should Heath Ledger have actually won an Oscar? What does any of this have to do with Captain Marvel?
For someone denouncing the worth of an Oscar, your sure seem picky who gets them
well yeah, I love the idea of giving awards when they are earned properly, people should get praised for spectacular work, and sadly heath ledgers joker is not that, it was good as ive said multiple times, but not the highest form of excellence which is what the Oscars is supposed to be for.
Can you even name the other nominees from that year without looking it up? I'm pretty sure Ledger's is the only one people are still making memes with.
yep
Robert downey Jr
Thanos
Michael Shannon from shape of water, man of steel and revolutionary road, not really around much at the moment.
Philip seymour hoffman, who died, but was still making movies up to his death.
So Thanos and RDJ are still kicking around and going strong, michael shannon has kind of dropped off in the last year or so and philip seymour hoffman is dead
OK, so first off, I don't believe you that you knew the nominees from the best supporting actor from the Academy Awards a decade ago without looking it up. I truly doubt the attendees of the 2009 Academy awards remember with out looking it up. I question whether Robert Downey Jr even remembers he was nominated. So, lets break it down more:
Josh Brolin – Milk as Dan White
Robert Downey Jr. – Tropic Thunder as Kirk Lazarus
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt as Father Brendan Flynn
Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road as John Givings Jr.
These are all great actors. I'm not going to dispute that. However, was each one of them an academy award winning performance in those roles? I would argue no. Only Phillip Seymour Hoffman even came close, having seen those performances. He doesn't have to have given the best acting performance of all time, he needs to have given the best acting performance in that year as compared to those other nominees, and I think he did that. I think the Joker was a tour de force, honestly.
Anyway, I would say that Heath Ledger was the best so far, and then I would go Mark Hamill and Jack Nicholson. I don't remember the Cesar Romero one very well, I only watched the show when I was a kid.
Ouze wrote: What does any of this have to do with Captain Marvel?
After plumbing the depths of 9gag and reddit, I’ve found a subset of people who believe that Brie Larson and Heath Ledger look alike. Mayhaps people are subconciously bringing up The Joker in a Captain Marvel movie thread because they perceive a resemblance.
I probably appreciate the Hamil more for being the Joker than Luke Skywalker. That laugh is the laugh I always think of when thinking of Joker. Even as mediocre as I found the film adaptation of the Killing Joke, I still can't knock Hamil's performance.
I will say I've never appreciated Nicholson's bit as the character, but maybe that's an age thing. I've never appreciated the older Batman films and have never really gotten in synch with what others like about it so much.
What does any of this have to do with Captain Marvel?
Ouze wrote: Josh Brolin – Milk as Dan White
Robert Downey Jr. – Tropic Thunder as Kirk Lazarus
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt as Father Brendan Flynn
Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road as John Givings Jr.
I feel like the only performances from this list anyone really remembers are RDJ and Ledger, the former because his role in Tropic Thunder was basically the only great thing in the move and the later because his role made the movie great. I barely remember Doubt at all, and I've never seen Revolutionary Road so I won't comment. I personally don't find Josh Brolin's role in Milk as worthy of nomination for... anything really. I don't remember the entire movie as being very memorable.
I think to be fair, I remember commentary about Russel Crowe's 2000 win for best actor over Tom Hanks drawing controversy at the time, and people commented that votes swung for Crowe because voters thought he'd earned an award even if Hank's performance in Cast Away was slightly better than the performance in Gladiator, simply because Hanks had already received the award twice.
So maybe his death played a role in making that final stretch. IDK, it's absolutely bonkers to me for anyone to ever say that his performance in the Dark Knight wasn't worthy of such an award. It most certainly was by any standard.
OK, so first off, I don't believe you that you knew the nominees from the best supporting actor from the Academy Awards a decade ago without looking it up. I truly doubt the attendees of the 2009 Academy awards remember with out looking it up. I question whether Robert Downey Jr even remembers he was nominated. So, lets break it down more:
tough luck I suppose, and yes I did remember it, i remembered it because I have had this exact discussion with many people many time, dont believe me... meh
Josh Brolin – Milk as Dan White
nope
Robert Downey Jr. – Tropic Thunder as Kirk Lazarus
yep
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt as Father Brendan Flynn
nope
Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road as John Givings Jr.
nope
and the person i mentioned earlier who was a supporting actor but they put him in the wrong category
frank langella, michael sheen was the lead actor of that film if you watch it, frank langella was what made the movie and his performance was leaps and bounds better than ledgers.
These are all great actors. I'm not going to dispute that. However, was each one of them an academy award winning performance in those roles? I would argue no. Only Phillip Seymour Hoffman even came close, having seen those performances. He doesn't have to have given the best acting performance of all time, he needs to have given the best acting performance in that year as compared to those other nominees, and I think he did that. I think the Joker was a tour de force, honestly.
you know i already conceded that the pickings were a bit thin right? did you read my previous posts?
for me the best supporting actors were RDJ for a frankly absurd, risky and excellent performance in tropic thunder, a movie if made now would be .... well I am sure you know, and frank langella as Richard Nixon, the sheer emotion he brought to that roll and gravitas, its still one of my favourite films and i continue to watch it when Batman has fallen by the wayside and I am a comic book nerd.
So, is this a Joker thread, or a thinly veiled excuse to gak on people who weren't convinced by the first Captain Marvel trailer? Hah, just kidding, it's obvious
On topic for a change for me, I would have loved to see Willem Defoe play the joker, but my favourite depiction of joker is still make hamills, perfect mix of menace and humour
Ouze wrote: Who was the best Joker ever? What exactly makes a good joker? Should Heath Ledger have actually won an Oscar? What does any of this have to do with Captain Marvel?
Well he was one of the better things in an prety awful film.
Was he the best Joker? - well not for me - but I guess him dying made the oscar inevitable, deserved or not.
My favourite Joker was and is Jack's portrayal in Tim Burtons version, but I also have liked pretty much everyone who have acted as him often in very different ways - I like the most recent incaranation more than Heath Ledgers in fact as IMO the HL one was simply not insane or dangerous enough - he just came across as a terrorist with some bad make up, a scar and super precog abilities.
Not that any of that was bad but just not the Joker - for me anyway
Bearing in mind that before him, Joker in the public consciousness was Caeser Romero. Still a fine turn, but the character had moved on since then.
Nicholson's Joker kept much of the whimsy, but crudely nailed it to madness and cruelty. It made his portrayal unpredictable, and more threatening for it.
But I am confident when I say I feel we can all unite behind Jared Leto as being the absolute nadir of Joker. Just.....awful.
Personally I find it hard to judge his performance one way or the other.
Suicide Squad was such a mess on every level, it almost doesn't seem to fair to critique the performance of the cast. There was nothing any of them could do to have made that movie better or worse imo. The only person I think anything can be said about is Margot Robbie, who I think nailed Harley fairly well despite the awful script and crap direction she had to work with. Enough that she stood out in the messy heap of the final product.
Mark Hamill
Heath Ledger
Caesar Romero
Jack Nicholson
Guy who did Joker in Injustice game
Jared Leto
Now, Jack and Caesar are right below Heath's performance, and the Injustice role wasn't bad either, but Leto is far below. He wasn't the worst thing in the world. But he's failing against the competition.
Other than the fact that I HATED the Jared Leto Joker (Joker must be funny. There was no funny in his performance), I think that Mark Hamill, Heath Ledger, Caesar Romero, and Jack Nicholson all did great jobs. They all made the Joker a great villain. Heath Ledger's performance was masterful and he totally deserved the Oscar.
Formosa wrote: On topic for a change for me, I would have loved to see Willem Defoe play the joker, but my favourite depiction of joker is still make hamills, perfect mix of menace and humour
I totally agree. I think Willem Dafoe would have been an absolutely amazing Joker and wish he wouldn't have been squandered on the Green Goblin instead.
The reason I like Jack best is, I can eqaully well imagine his Joker murdering me as telling me a joke I’d really laugh at — and what really seals it, I can imagine him doing the latter and then immediately the former.
LordofHats wrote: I'd say they squandered an excellent Green Goblin in a "just okay" Spider-Man film.
Except it was the second best Spider-film to date. The best was the one with Doc Ock right after. All the rest that came after have been garbage. I get “opinion” and all, but they GOT Spidey in those two films. No matter what others say, I will never accept Homecoming as “good”.
I find it hard to compare them on all fronts just because they're different Jokers.
Nicholson's Joker was good as a '50s/'60s styled Joker...the kind of Joker who'd rob banks and have wacky gadgets and helicopters that looked like his goofy head. Like I said in the other thread, clearly Jack had fun with the role, but I wouldn't call it one of his best performances.
Ledger's Joker was probably closest to the original Joker from the '40s, although there are stylistic differences. That Joker is more of a cold-blooded, mass murdering agent of chaos where the facepaint is worn ironically, rather than him being a funny prankster. It's a very different character than the one in the '89 film.
I will say this though...Ledger *became* his character, and this contrasts greatly with Nicholson's performance IMO, which is basically him being him in facepaint. Setting aside the notion of what style of Joker one prefers, Ledger's performance almost has to be the best pure acting job so far.
Leto's Joker had a chance -- even with some of the more interesting choices -- to be something closer to the modern Joker from the comics. But I don't know that we ever actually got to see his performance, given the chopped-up-and-run-through-a-blender nature of that film. Apparently there's tons of Joker material that didn't make it in. *shrug* I might be more interested to see that stuff than the ballyhooed 'Snyder cut' of JL. I already know what that was probably like, but Leto Joker? I don't have a clear picture other than him going hard on the gangster theme.
Hamill? I dunno. That cartoon didn't define Batman and his universe for me the way it obviously has for some people. It's one of many to me. He had a good 'Joker voice', I guess. But it's just a voice performance, and it's hard for me to compare it to live action performances.
I know geeks are having trouble getting their heads around the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, but I think it's going to surprise people.
LordofHats wrote: I'd say they squandered an excellent Green Goblin in a "just okay" Spider-Man film.
Except it was the second best Spider-film to date. The best was the one with Doc Ock right after. All the rest that came after have been garbage. I get “opinion” and all, but they GOT Spidey in those two films. No matter what others say, I will never accept Homecoming as “good”.
Only if you think spiderman is only a sad sack who feths up everything all the time and has no sense of humor.
Which has never been the case. Spidy has drama yes. Sometimes a lot of it. But those movies are a distilation of all of peter parkers worst moments with none of his personality.
Manchu wrote: The reason I like Jack best is, I can eqaully well imagine his Joker murdering me as telling me a joke I’d really laugh at — and what really seals it, I can imagine him doing the latter and then immediately the former.
Agreed - Jack N Joker was scary insane and so much darker than Ledgers merely face painted terrorist.
Jack killed an entire gallery full of pople just to be alone with Vicki, he made "art with his lover" - by using acid on her, he had poison distributed to the wole of Gotham in seemingly random products - etc - he also was not inhumanly infalliable - he made mistakes and was suprised .
Heath L's Joker killed a few mobsters and oh yeah blew up an empty hospital whilst also having super amazing precog abilities. Just not scary compared to Jack N and everything was always acording to plan - it was worse than "24" villains
I feflt Leto was closer to Jack than Heath and hence enjoyed it more.
Vulcan wrote: I'll grant that Ledger delivered a fantastic performance.
I'll even grant that out of the nominees that year, Ledger did the best job and deserved the Oscar the most.
I just don't see the character he played as being a very good Joker, that's all.
I’ll be with you when you can point to that one thing that the Joker has consistently been in all of his many incarnations that Ledger’s character wasn’t.
Saying “I don’t like that rendition of X” is one thing. Saying that “I don’t think it was a good X” — which seems to be a catchphrase in the geek community these days — is different and requires a strong argument IMO.
gorgon wrote: I know geeks are having trouble getting their heads around the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, but I think it's going to surprise people.
I think it's got less to do with Joaquin Phoenix so much as no one wants a Joker origin story, let alone by by the people who brought you the incredibly uneven DCCU.
gorgon wrote: I know geeks are having trouble getting their heads around the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, but I think it's going to surprise people.
I think it's got less to do with Joaquin Phoenix so much as no one wants a Joker origin story, let alone by by the people who brought you the incredibly uneven DCCU.
It makes absolutely no sense. Why would you make an origin story for a character who historically has no origin. It complicates things more since Geoff Johns claims there are at least 3 different Jokers. Who knows anymore
gorgon wrote: I know geeks are having trouble getting their heads around the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, but I think it's going to surprise people.
I think it's got less to do with Joaquin Phoenix so much as no one wants a Joker origin story, let alone by by the people who brought you the incredibly uneven DCCU.
That, and it's yet another Joker. Completely separate from the others. Just....why?
I mean, I'm willing to give it a chance. I like Joaquin Phoenix and have confidence he'll bring something to the role. But the choice of the film? Entirely reflective of DC's panic mode.
Joker has the same issue that captain marvel has in the comics, too many iterations that contradict each other, the biggest difference is that joker has been doing for longer and the fans have a kind of joker they like, marvel hasn't quite nailed down captain marvel just yet.
We have
Gangster joker
Sociopath
Psychopath
Terrorist
Sane
Insane
Red hood joker
Various movie versions
Origin stories out the Ying Yang and much more, but
Vulcan wrote: I'll grant that Ledger delivered a fantastic performance.
I'll even grant that out of the nominees that year, Ledger did the best job and deserved the Oscar the most.
I just don't see the character he played as being a very good Joker, that's all.
I’ll be with you when you can point to that one thing that the Joker has consistently been in all of his many incarnations that Ledger’s character wasn’t.
Amused.
The Joker is amused when he succeeds, and sometimes even more amused when he fails. Despite his catchphrase, Ledger was deadly serious the whole time. Not a peep of laughter than I can recall.
The Joker is amused when he succeeds, and sometimes even more amused when he fails. Despite his catchphrase, Ledger was deadly serious the whole time. Not a peep of laughter than I can recall.
That linked, his laugh has nothing on Hamil's. If I were to rank the jokers just on their laugh alone, Ledger probably would be last place. Loved the performance but yeah. Not a good laugher. At least not a memorable one.
Not only that, but he was very amused with himself when guy after guy killed each other off in the bank. When he lit the fire truck on fire. When the hospital blew up and he was in his lil nurse dress.
These are not things a super serious person does. These are things someone with a real dark sense of humor does.
Lance845 wrote: Not only that, but he was very amused with himself when guy after guy killed each other off in the bank. When he lit the fire truck on fire. When the hospital blew up and he was in his lil nurse dress.
These are not things a super serious person does. These are things someone with a real dark sense of humor does.
Jack killed an entire gallery full of pople just to be alone with Vicki,
He made "art" with his lover - by using acid on her,
He had poison distributed to the wole of Gotham in seemingly random products - it made a good contrast with his apparent "silliness" - it was twisted and sadistic and IMO much more scary than HLs version.
I wouldn't deny that Nicholson Joker is pretty classic Joker.
HL though is like someone read the darkest renditions of the character and played it completely straight minus all the trimmings of comic book logic. Everything he does is to subvert expectations. Not in the art criticism kind of way, the literal way. One man's death is a tragedy as it were, so why is it that when a gang banger dies no one bats an eye but when Joker threatens one little old mayor everyone panics? That's classic Joker too. Attack people's expectations. Go right where they take things for granted and hollow it out. Don't just rob a bank. Rob from the mob to encourage the mob to hire you so you can get all the mob's money and burn it because you don't need money. Don't just attack a District Attorney. Break him down piece by piece, give him a bit about life's little hypocrisies, and then give him a loaded gun and watch what he does. The Dark Knight presents a Joker who progressively goes about step by step undoing how people assume things are supposed to work and relishes almost solely in the completely expected and the completely unexpected.
It's troll logic right out of the Killing Joke.
I think you can knock HL Joker as not the most accurate to the source material Joker easily, but I don't think anyone could make that character seem so real in that way ever again.
I don't really care to get into the "best" arguments, particularly when comparing things across different decades. The point is, pretty much all of these are pretty memorable. Nobody is bringing Kevin Richardson, Zach Galifianakis, or even John freaking DiMaggio into the discussion after all. It's way more useful to discuss the performances themselves and how they reflect on the perception of the character at the time than to try to determine the best OF ALL TIME when time keeps changing the rules on that.
FWIW, I completely get the argument that Heath Ledger may have simultaneously had the best performance and the worst Joker (though even there he may have to bow out to monkey man from The Batman). At the same time he exists in a version of the world that doesn't really lend itself to villains with a costumed identity of their own and that's why he works for so many people. His biggest strength is that the performance itself is pretty mesmerizing and probably most important to the character, unpredictable; which is also something of a weakness as it loses the impact when you've already seen the trick. Still, so many of his scenes have a great sense of tension because he does such a great job of selling you on a character who might kill or maim anyone around him without provocation or purpose. It's an impressive performance that captures a crucial part of the Joker's appeal, even if its not the most comic accurate version out there.
Ledger's joker embodied an idea of "there's nothing wrong with me, the world made me the way I am. " that a lot of people you derstsnd and relate to because in varying degrees it's true for a lot of people. That's why he resonated.
I kinda liked him because he didn't care about money, he believed in something other than money. I can respect that if nothing else.
Speaking on batman villains what about the penguin? I saw some of his comics that made me feel for him a little. Being the kid everyone gakked on in school, having an insane mother with a mouth that would terrify a tyrannosaur, showing how he finally refused to be bullied and bewtned down anymore, in some ways he's like a success story.
Penguin as a sort of role model/inspiration.
(Btw when yiu see how his umbrella fetish is explained you may understand him and feel some sympathy for him.)
There are basically two penguins now, the original, basically odd looking dumpy human with a deformed nose, and the version created in the second batman movie where he's literally bestial, with pirahanna teeth (actually penguins have no teeth at all...) and flipper like hands. (Wtf did the green blood come from?!)
Yeah yeah I would do a penguin thread but I get tired of having my threads locked. If someone else want to start one good.
LunarSol wrote: Nobody is bringing Kevin Richardson, Zach Galifianakis, or even John freaking DiMaggio into the discussion after all.
I did like DiMaggio's take on it in Under The Red Hood. There was a lot of Ledger in there, with a dash of Hamill's mania just under the surface. He'd definitely be high on my list to get more shots at the role now Hamill's semi-retired from it. Likewise, Troy Baker's turn in Arkham Origins; yes, it was simply imitating Hamill to a large extent, but he did that pretty damn well, and there's the odd moment where he really does his own thing with it. His 'Have you ever had a really bad day' speech to Harleen in that game is one of my favourite Joker moments of all time.
Surprised no one has mentioned Cameron Monoghan yet. Okay, so neither of his characters in Gotham have been explicitly called The Joker in-universe, but the writers have explained both of them as interpretations of him. Jerome as their own take on it, Jeremiah as a more traditional version. What's so impressive is that he absolutely sells both incarnations, the former as a Hamill-esque madman who's totally off the rails and leans into the grim comedy, the latter as a more Ledger-type that thinks he's the only sane person in the world and is willing to kill them all to prove it.
It's certainly a performance driven by the influences of the other great Jokers, but he does make it his own. I'd love to see him given a go at voicing some animated stuff as a full-fledged Joker.
Speaking of Gotham, if you want a show that makes Penguin a little more sympathetic, look no further. He's a scumbag throughout, but he's a scumbag who you can consistently get behind, even at his most repulsively evil. Poor guy just can't catch a break...
If you like the joker try the batman/judge dredd crossover "Die laughing". The joker ends up in Dredd's mega city one and ends up like a kid in a candy store. He teams up with judge death and his 3 brothers. Batman goes to MC-1 to save it from his worst enemy, teaming up with dredd to do it.
LordofHats wrote: HL though is like someone read the darkest renditions of the character and played it completely straight minus all the trimmings of comic book logic. Everything he does is to subvert expectations. Not in the art criticism kind of way, the literal way. One man's death is a tragedy as it were, so why is it that when a gang banger dies no one bats an eye but when Joker threatens one little old mayor everyone panics? That's classic Joker too. Attack people's expectations. Go right where they take things for granted and hollow it out. Don't just rob a bank. Rob from the mob to encourage the mob to hire you so you can get all the mob's money and burn it because you don't need money. Don't just attack a District Attorney. Break him down piece by piece, give him a bit about life's little hypocrisies, and then give him a loaded gun and watch what he does. The Dark Knight presents a Joker who progressively goes about step by step undoing how people assume things are supposed to work and relishes almost solely in the completely expected and the completely unexpected.
It's troll logic right out of the Killing Joke.
I think you can knock HL Joker as not the most accurate to the source material Joker easily, but I don't think anyone could make that character seem so real in that way ever again.
Right. His whole plan is his joke. It was a troll job done for his amusement. (The Joker has always been a planner and schemer -- it's a fundamental part of his character, back to the beginning. His words to Harvey in the hospital about being a dog chasing cars were lies, because the Joker LIES.)
And the Joker finds his ultimate amusement in Batman, as he explains after being captured. He says that Batman won't kill him, and he won't kill Batman because he's "too much fun". Then comes that simple but iconic line: "I think you and I are destined to do this forever." He's obviously gleeful at that moment as he hangs there, even though his plan has been stopped.
Saying that Ledger's Joker lacks amusement is, to me, a swing and a miss.
Eh since someone brought up another villain I see no reason not to bring up another: I thought Nolan and Hardy's Bane was... interesting. While there were lots of issues with the film, and the character (Bane shouldn't have been a henchman/underling), overall I felt they had an intriguing concept and a few good scenes. I am curious what it would have been like if they went with the original voice instead of changing it.
Yeah, Heath Ledger (like Jack Nicholson and Mark Hamill) met my main criteria for Joker: be funny. I laughed when I got the joke in TDK when we was going to have the Honor guard kill the Major. Or makes a pencil disappear. The Joker makes jokes. Sick twisted jokes.
Leto's Joker wasn't funny. He was trying too hard to be edgy. And the fact that he actually had some affection for Harliquin in Suicide Squad completely felt that they did not understand his character.
Bane's a tough character. He was created as a gimmick, but written above the quality of the story he was created for. He also HAD a gimmick and that was an easy thing to latch onto so most early adaptations made it his THING and he lost what made him more than a henchmen (even being reduced to a Henchmen in the abysmal B&R). In many ways, the DKR Bane is the closest to what makes him compelling in the comics an adaptation has come; he's just in a film that's... super confused as to what it wants to be. It cares about comic references in a way that prior films were generally pretty happy to ignore and has a bunch of little ideas without really having a big one. It's just trying to do way too much and everything suffers for it somewhere along the line.
Its easy enough to do a compelling bane. Just stop making him someone elses lacky. Bane is intelligent enough to run his own scheme and manipulate everyone else in the process. So let him.
Josh Brolin – Milk as Dan White
Robert Downey Jr. – Tropic Thunder as Kirk Lazarus
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt as Father Brendan Flynn
Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road as John Givings Jr.
These are all great actors. I'm not going to dispute that. However, was each one of them an academy award winning performance in those roles? I would argue no. Only Phillip Seymour Hoffman even came close, having seen those performances. He doesn't have to have given the best acting performance of all time, he needs to have given the best acting performance in that year as compared to those other nominees, and I think he did that. I think the Joker was a tour de force, honestly.
Doubt is one of my favorite dramatic movies, and I am in LOVE with Streep. Hoffman acted his butt off in that movie, but I think Ledger edged him out. He's the only joker that I can honestly say seems like he is a crazy man trying to act sane, rather than a sane man trying to act insane.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Upon further consideration I have to say there is ONE thing that hinders any comparison between HL and JN. The Dark knight was supposed to be "realistic". The Tim Burton Batman still has a lot of cartoony camp to it.
Both are good for what they are. I just see them as slightly different genres, and thus a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.
Josh Brolin – Milk as Dan White
Robert Downey Jr. – Tropic Thunder as Kirk Lazarus
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt as Father Brendan Flynn
Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road as John Givings Jr.
These are all great actors. I'm not going to dispute that. However, was each one of them an academy award winning performance in those roles? I would argue no. Only Phillip Seymour Hoffman even came close, having seen those performances. He doesn't have to have given the best acting performance of all time, he needs to have given the best acting performance in that year as compared to those other nominees, and I think he did that. I think the Joker was a tour de force, honestly.
Doubt is one of my favorite dramatic movies, and I am in LOVE with Streep. Hoffman acted his butt off in that movie, but I think Ledger edged him out. He's the only joker that I can honestly say seems like he is a crazy man trying to act sane, rather than a sane man trying to act insane.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Upon further consideration I have to say there is ONE thing that hinders any comparison between HL and JN. The Dark knight was supposed to be "realistic". The Tim Burton Batman still has a lot of cartoony camp to it.
Both are good for what they are. I just see them as slightly different genres, and thus a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.
The idea that Nolans Batmans films are in any way realistic is hilarious - both his and Burtons films are very different from the 60's tv series but neither of them are realistic.
I think he just meant it wasn’t as campy. JN was crazy fun Joker, HL was crazy evil Joker. Neither was goofy Romero Joker. And I’m glad somebody pointed out the JD Joker from Red Hood!! His performance was awesome. Never mind, he gets second spot after Hamill. Now THAT was a psycho Joker. The laugh, the humor, the violence...it had everything.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think he just meant it wasn’t as campy. JN was crazy fun Joker, HL was crazy evil Joker. Neither was goofy Romero Joker. And I’m glad somebody pointed out the JD Joker from Red Hood!! His performance was awesome. Never mind, he gets second spot after Hamill. Now THAT was a psycho Joker. The laugh, the humor, the violence...it had everything.
As I have said before - IMO JN's Joker was much darker and more evil than HL's - he might have loved to overact but we was far more dangerous and sadistic than HL's.
gorgon wrote: I find it hard to compare them on all fronts just because they're different Jokers.
Nicholson's Joker was good as a '50s/'60s styled Joker...the kind of Joker who'd rob banks and have wacky gadgets and helicopters that looked like his goofy head. Like I said in the other thread, clearly Jack had fun with the role, but I wouldn't call it one of his best performances.
IMO that's the boring Joker with weird gadgets etc. I dont' find that sort of thing all that interesting. So Ledger not having weird gadgets all the time was just plus for me.
I like the acid flower. I like a joy buzzer that kills. But those are more or less concealed weapons. Joker Helicopter style gadgets or collapsible giant revolver is just goofy.
Lance845 wrote: I like the acid flower. I like a joy buzzer that kills. But those are more or less concealed weapons. Joker Helicopter style gadgets or collapsible giant revolver is just goofy.
The acid flower was nasty Jack vehicles were just painted bright colours and he on several occassion bemoaned that Batman had the "best toys" Otherwise it was just carnival balloons and "that" gun.
Batman is always the gadget guy in the films - even more so in Nolan's films with the bat car that split into the bat bike etc.
Nolan was very much the inheritior of the darker, more "realistic" (even though its a comic book film and simply so can't be that realistic) that Burton pioneered for Batman. I remember seeing at the cinema for the first time and it was a massive change from the general perception. Nolan did expand on this a bit but all the main work had already been done (and better IMO)
The Joker got really silly at certain points in times. Here's a Jokermobile.
I'm pretty sure there was a helicopter with a big Joker face on the front too. Anyway, the less of that stuff the better. And I think making the Joker an anti-gadget guy (Nolan's Joker mostly just uses bullets and gasoline by his own admission) creates another layer of contrast with Batman.
Vulcan wrote: I'm not sure humanizing a major villain is really needed.
Humanise him and then when he does such inhuman things the impact is all that more stronger, think of the man he was and what the world made him, I am really looking forward to this take on the joker
Who knows...maybe at the end of the film, he'll state that sometimes he remembers it all differently. *shrug*
This is the new DCEU...each film will have lots of room to be what its director wants it to be, without worrying much about a shared universe. It's not like anyone other than Marvel has shown they can consistently pull it off anyway. (FWIW, Shazam does lots of nods to DC characters and such, it's just that it has its own tone.)
This one does seem very obviously inspired by Scorsese films, even including Bobby DeNiro in the cast.
I'm not that interested in DC but a colleague just made me watch the trailer and it looks an interesting take. Not sure it's my sort of film though, I've never completely moved on from Romero.
But are the DC movies supposed to be as tightly intertwined as the MCU, or even at all? Wasn't there a younger Joker in that ensemble film?
This is potentially great but also a double edged sword. the joker needs to be evil. Pure evil. Not "justified, fed up with society anti-hero". He needs a hard punch from life to kickstart him? Sure, go for it. But after that, he must be evil.
Riquende wrote: I'm not that interested in DC but a colleague just made me watch the trailer and it looks an interesting take. Not sure it's my sort of film though, I've never completely moved on from Romero.
But are the DC movies supposed to be as tightly intertwined as the MCU, or even at all? Wasn't there a younger Joker in that ensemble film?
MCU has a single canon. Film makers are given things to slot into their individual movies (set up x, mention y, introduce z type stuff), but can otherwise do what the fancy.
DCCU? Not so much a canon, as a blunderbuss. This Joker film is nowt to do with the rest of their oeuvre.
Ouze wrote: Finally, the origin story no one wanted.
The Joker has had an origin story in comics for decades. More than one story, in fact. Batman '89 was a Joker origin story also.
I've heard this gripe about this film before, but it doesn't make any sense to me unless your entire experience with the character is limited to the Nolan films.
Comic book movies are now pretty thoroughly enshrined in pop culture. Origin movies at this point really only exist to bootstrap you into a bigger venue. When the DCCU started being a thing, and they did Batman vs Superman, they covered Batman's backstory in about 2 minutes in flashback. They didn't bother explaining it at all in Spider-Man: Homecoming. We all know. This Joker movie doesn't in any way bootstrap any larger story, we all know who the Joker is and he's established, super well established. They knew this in Suicide Squad, so explained nothing there - correctly, I think. So it's not useful as a means to that end.
So far as his actual origin, he's always had conflicting origins and I think part of the appeal is that is origin story is in no way important to the character. I think it's probably the least important or interesting thing about the character.
I tended to read both Marvel and DC comics as a kid. My favorites were probably the X-Men, but I always thought DC had better, more iconic characters. I still think that, and they continue to squander them regularly. There are so many interesting stories that they could tell with their characters that it just seems such a lazy, pointless waste to do this one.
Looks kind of interesting. Might work, might not. Kind of depends on where they leave the story and how much they really go for it at the end. There's definitely something lacking when you have the Joker with no Batman to antagonize.
While there's no reason or place in this film to adapt the arc, I keep hoping to see someone adapt the punchline of the War of Jokes and Riddles in a more straightforward way. That moment is one of my favorite takes on the origin of the modern incarnation of the Joker.
DCCU? Not so much a canon, as a blunderbuss. This Joker film is nowt to do with the rest of their oeuvre.
To be fair this has worked well for them in the animated films department. The animated film canon is more than happy to buck the idea of sticking to one chronology and just keep chucking out film adaptations of popular comic runs.
Both styles work for me. MCU has a nice pigeonholed coherent universe and singular story plot, which mostly exists in the post credit scenes actually. The individual plots are industrially formulaic. Frankly most non Xmen MCU films bore me to tears and I have little interest in seeing them. Deadpool and Venom were the exceptions and I really liked them. I have only a passing interest in seeing Avengers (didn't see the earlier one).
DCU being the older film version started as indivusal films. While I am fine with an overarching universe and the ability to drop in characters into differing films, I like the individual takes. Batman should be dark and either gritty or fantastical. Superman should be bright and on another level. I enjoyed the freshness of both WW and Suicide Squad, and am very much looking forward to Shazam.
This may be a bit too dark. We'll see what the reviews say.
The Joker origin was a intergral part of what I consider by far the best Batman film by Tim Burton (Closly followed by Lego)
I am not sure I will go to the cinema to see it - I prefer more fun for a night out but would def be interested in seeing based on the trailer and as I have less than zero faith or interest in what critics or "professional" reviwers say thats enough.
Mr Morden wrote: The Joker origin was a intergral part of what I consider by far the best Batman film by Tim Burton (Closly followed by Lego)
I am not sure I will go to the cinema to see it - I prefer more fun for a night out but would def be interested in seeing based on the trailer and as I have less than zero faith or interest in what critics or "professional" reviwers say thats enough.
Man I forgot about the awesomeness of Lego Batman. My second favorite batman behind Michael Keaton.
Ouze wrote: Finally, the origin story no one wanted.
The Joker has had an origin story in comics for decades. More than one story, in fact. Batman '89 was a Joker origin story also.
I've heard this gripe about this film before, but it doesn't make any sense to me unless your entire experience with the character is limited to the Nolan films.
The Joker has no origin story. That is his thing. Those stories about his Origins are always wrong or a hallucination or a different joker. There are reportedly 3 different Jokers in the DC Comics Universe, or there could be. Nobody knows! That is what is great about the Joker!
Literally nobody knows his Origin, even the writers. Every Origin story of his has been redacted, retconned, or it was an outright lie. Nothing about having an origin story for a character with no origin makes sense.
Ouze wrote: Finally, the origin story no one wanted.
The Joker has had an origin story in comics for decades. More than one story, in fact. Batman '89 was a Joker origin story also.
I've heard this gripe about this film before, but it doesn't make any sense to me unless your entire experience with the character is limited to the Nolan films.
The Joker has no origin story. That is his thing. Those stories about his Origins are always wrong or a hallucination or a different joker. There are reportedly 3 different Jokers in the DC Comics Universe, or there could be. Nobody knows! That is what is great about the Joker!
Literally nobody knows his Origin, even the writers. Every Origin story of his has been redacted, retconned, or it was an outright lie. Nothing about having an origin story for a character with no origin makes sense.
Yeah, if ever there was movie that required a twist ending or mind feth, this would be the one that needed it.
Ouze wrote: Finally, the origin story no one wanted.
The Joker has had an origin story in comics for decades. More than one story, in fact. Batman '89 was a Joker origin story also.
I've heard this gripe about this film before, but it doesn't make any sense to me unless your entire experience with the character is limited to the Nolan films.
The Joker has no origin story. That is his thing. Those stories about his Origins are always wrong or a hallucination or a different joker. There are reportedly 3 different Jokers in the DC Comics Universe, or there could be. Nobody knows! That is what is great about the Joker!
Literally nobody knows his Origin, even the writers. Every Origin story of his has been redacted, retconned, or it was an outright lie. Nothing about having an origin story for a character with no origin makes sense.
You're simply wrong. There ARE origin stories for the Joker. There may be more than one of them, and they may have contradictions, but DC has never called them all falsehoods. They've simply let the contradictions stand. This is a different thing than *not having* an origin.
This film is nothing different than The Killing Joke, or Detective Comics #168. It's another presentation of an origin story just like those works. It doesn't present a 'definitive' origin within the DC film universe either, since this one isn't intended to be part of even its newly loose continuity. By your logic here, The Killing Joke or DC#168 should never have been written. Well, it's too late for that...again, it's been decades.
nels1031 wrote: Yeah, if ever there was movie that required a twist ending or mind feth, this would be the one that needed it.
Actually, I think we may be in for an interesting twist or two.
Ouze wrote: Finally, the origin story no one wanted.
The Joker has had an origin story in comics for decades. More than one story, in fact. Batman '89 was a Joker origin story also.
I've heard this gripe about this film before, but it doesn't make any sense to me unless your entire experience with the character is limited to the Nolan films.
The Joker has no origin story. That is his thing. Those stories about his Origins are always wrong or a hallucination or a different joker. There are reportedly 3 different Jokers in the DC Comics Universe, or there could be. Nobody knows! That is what is great about the Joker!
Literally nobody knows his Origin, even the writers. Every Origin story of his has been redacted, retconned, or it was an outright lie. Nothing about having an origin story for a character with no origin makes sense.
Nonsense - the whole joker story is covered in the Burton Batman film.
Sure some versions of the Joker have no or ambigious origins but not all.
My big fear whenever someone wants to do a Joker origin story is that they'll try to make that origin explain the modern Joker. It's important to remember that the modern Joker has evolved and grown as a character over time and used to have very different motives than he does now. That's a big part of why I really like the end of the War of Jokes and Riddles. It's an "origin" of Joker's current dynamic of being obsessed with trying to crack the Bat but it appreciates that before that moment the Joker was still identifiably the Joker; just with different goals in life.
I'm actually okay with the Joker having an origin and honestly, in a lot of ways I'd prefer it to be relatively mundane. For all I care he can just be a crook with a gimmick. He doesn't even need to be particularly psychotic. A lot of his appeal is that he's an evolving, escalating villain. He's a child misbehaving for attention and its through repeated encounters with Batman that he grows into what he becomes. He's a character with a real growth arc; just one that sees him grow into an inhuman monster.
Ouze wrote: Finally, the origin story no one wanted.
The Joker has had an origin story in comics for decades. More than one story, in fact. Batman '89 was a Joker origin story also.
I've heard this gripe about this film before, but it doesn't make any sense to me unless your entire experience with the character is limited to the Nolan films.
The Joker has no origin story. That is his thing. Those stories about his Origins are always wrong or a hallucination or a different joker. There are reportedly 3 different Jokers in the DC Comics Universe, or there could be. Nobody knows! That is what is great about the Joker!
Literally nobody knows his Origin, even the writers. Every Origin story of his has been redacted, retconned, or it was an outright lie. Nothing about having an origin story for a character with no origin makes sense.
You're simply wrong. There ARE origin stories for the Joker. There may be more than one of them, and they may have contradictions, but DC has never called them all falsehoods. They've simply let the contradictions stand. This is a different thing than *not having* an origin.
No, I am not. Letting the contradictions stand is a way of retconning past Origin stories. Oh, there was this Origin Story? Now we have the new one? WHICH ONE IS REAL?!
That is the Joker. Not a soul knows. They will never know.
Burton had an Origin story and like the movie, it was terrible.
Joaquin Phoenix is a solid actor and I'm looking forward to this.
Getting The Dark Knight Returns vibes from the TV show but obviously it won't play out in that way.
Would prefer that cold psychopath from The Dark Knight Returns. I like the idea that the Joker isn't sympathetic at all, while many of the other Batman villains are in some way.
As for the Origin. The Killing Joke is definitely an origin. While The Joker states he has a "Multiple choice" past the flashbacks are entirely internal and seem to be triggered by events/things in the story. If his multiple choice past was true and that was a lie, why focus entirely on it in the story. I'm not a massive fan of The Killing Joke tbf.
I prefer this explanation. That he's just a horrible manipulator. "He's got a million of 'em Harley..."
Ouze wrote: Finally, the origin story no one wanted.
The Joker has had an origin story in comics for decades. More than one story, in fact. Batman '89 was a Joker origin story also.
I've heard this gripe about this film before, but it doesn't make any sense to me unless your entire experience with the character is limited to the Nolan films.
The Joker has no origin story. That is his thing. Those stories about his Origins are always wrong or a hallucination or a different joker. There are reportedly 3 different Jokers in the DC Comics Universe, or there could be. Nobody knows! That is what is great about the Joker!
Literally nobody knows his Origin, even the writers. Every Origin story of his has been redacted, retconned, or it was an outright lie. Nothing about having an origin story for a character with no origin makes sense.
You're simply wrong. There ARE origin stories for the Joker. There may be more than one of them, and they may have contradictions, but DC has never called them all falsehoods. They've simply let the contradictions stand. This is a different thing than *not having* an origin.
No, I am not. Letting the contradictions stand is a way of retconning past Origin stories. Oh, there was this Origin Story? Now we have the new one? WHICH ONE IS REAL?!
That is the Joker. Not a soul knows. They will never know.
Burton had an Origin story and like the movie, it was terrible.
If multiple origins equals no origin, then you should have zero issues with this film. Because it's just another origin story added to the pile with its own contradictions, right? Which equals no origin in your world.
Now, the perfect fanboy scene would have the two of them trying to kill each other before hearing a "nuh-uh-uh" and seeing Jack Nicholson step out of the shadows demanding they "play nice".
LunarSol wrote: Now, the perfect fanboy scene would have the two of them trying to kill each other before hearing a "nuh-uh-uh" and seeing Jack Nicholson step out of the shadows demanding they "play nice".
The Mobious Chair DID say there were three Jokers...
It’s shaping up to look like it could be a very fun ride. That said, it’s also The Joker. Is knowing this version of him going to ruin character expectations moving forward? Fingers crossed for a good movie!!
If you thought my constant bemoaning of Dr Quinzell was bad its nowt compared to how much toxic manbaby bile I hold for Mr J
as wobbly as The Killing Joke was at least it calls the Joker out as largely deluded run of the mill psychopath, a bit of rich coming from Bats but takes one to know
Why exactly is anyone disputing Ledger as being the best joker? The performance was literally phenomenal. He made the Joker a believable character which is what the idea behind the new batman series really was - to make these things seem more possible and relate to us more.
If I had to pick anyone to do the job better I think the only guy that could do it would be Daniel Day Lewis. To be the joker you must become the joker.
It was a great performance, but different people like different takes on the character.
And again, we're talking about a character who's been through so many changes in personality that comic writers have felt compelled to create explanations for it. There is no 'true' Joker in the comics.
Phoenix's performance in this one is shaping up to be a doozy, IMO.
Xenomancers wrote: Why exactly is anyone disputing Ledger as being the best joker? The performance was literally phenomenal. He made the Joker a believable character which is what the idea behind the new batman series really was - to make these things seem more possible and relate to us more.
If I had to pick anyone to do the job better I think the only guy that could do it would be Daniel Day Lewis. To be the joker you must become the joker.
Because Jack Nicholson did it better.
Ledger did Manson and called him Joker.
This one looks like Phoenix is doing Taxi Driver or something.
As for previous efforts, Jack and Heath provided very different takes on the Joker character and both succeeded in their own way. Hamill, always a pleasure!
My personal favourite joker is Dimaggio's in Under the red hood. For a tragic story, he was a good choice; he's still hyperactively comical, but with a cold...alpha male atmosphere to him. Like a wolf. Its one I pop in the player occasionallyfor his performance, and the sad story.
I'll be honest, I never understood the hype over Ledger's Joker. I didn't see the film for a while after it came out so was well aware of his death etc. And yeah, it was overall a good film and he was excellent, but the praise went a little far IMO.
But then 'my' Joker is Romero, so what do I know?
This film looks more interesting to me than I thought it would, I don't normally do DC but might catch this when it's in the wild.
As for previous efforts, Jack and Heath provided very different takes on the Joker character and both succeeded in their own way. Hamill, always a pleasure!
My personal favourite joker is Dimaggio's in Under the red hood. For a tragic story, he was a good choice; he's still hyperactively comical, but with a cold...alpha male atmosphere to him. Like a wolf. Its one I pop in the player occasionallyfor his performance, and the sad story.
Agreed. Still the only Batman movie to score 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Almost like it’s the best Batman movie out there...glad that Hush is out there now too, so we can complete the trifecta after all these years: TKJ, Hush, UtRH!!
Riquende wrote: I'll be honest, I never understood the hype over Ledger's Joker. I didn't see the film for a while after it came out so was well aware of his death etc. And yeah, it was overall a good film and he was excellent, but the praise went a little far IMO.
But then 'my' Joker is Romero, so what do I know?
This film looks more interesting to me than I thought it would, I don't normally do DC but might catch this when it's in the wild.
The tragic loss of Heath back in 2008 helped turn The Dark Knight into an event film.
Batman Begins didn't even take half the gross of its sequal and wasn't exactly showered in universal acclaim(I liked it, though). Until they mentioned the news of Heath's death, it was pretty much grumbling about a "lazy makeup" job and that Nicholson would always be the definitive Joker.
But the girls loved him( damn you Sir, damn you! ) and his turn in Brokeback Mountain turned critics heads and so when the news revealled that The Dark Knight was his last performance, a much larger audience flocked to see it. Of course, the film being somewhat better than its predecessor certainly helped in reviews...
...personally, I felt Aaron Eckhart was the central performance of the film, but its nice that Heath was honoured all the same. Brokeback didn't receive an Academy Award and Heath left us so soon( born the same year as myself! ). His performance was good too and at least gave Jack a run for his money!
Heath's Joker is interesting in the sense that it's both not very authentic and extremely true to the character. He's not really "The Joker" the way Jack and Hamill are, but his performance is one of the best examples of the character's ability to mix charm with a frightening amount of unpredictability to create an uneasy but entertaining tension Hamill's best work captures the same spirit, but he's really only been able to take it to the extreme on a few occasions (Arkham, Batman Beyond, etc).
Xenomancers wrote: Why exactly is anyone disputing Ledger as being the best joker? The performance was literally phenomenal. He made the Joker a believable character which is what the idea behind the new batman series really was - to make these things seem more possible and relate to us more.
If I had to pick anyone to do the job better I think the only guy that could do it would be Daniel Day Lewis. To be the joker you must become the joker.
Only believable if you like pre-cog Mary Sues who have more back up plans than the terrorists in "24".... Seriously if HL had not died it would have a been an interesting but fairly poor portrayl of the character.
Jack N's Joker is a much much scarier guy, kill you, your family or a museum full of people to be alone with a girl. HL's Joker blew up a empty hosptial..............
You're certainly allowed that opinion, but I don't think many people found him to be particularly scary. The Nicholson Joker's roots are clearly that of the light-hearted Joker of the '50s and '60s, who robbed banks and had lots of silly gadgets. It's a really good performance, but the character is just too campy and played for too many laughs to seem truly threatening.
gorgon wrote: You're certainly allowed that opinion, but I don't think many people found him to be particularly scary. The Nicholson Joker's roots are clearly that of the light-hearted Joker of the '50s and '60s, who robbed banks and had lots of silly gadgets. It's a really good performance, but the character is just too campy and played for too many laughs to seem truly threatening.
He melted his girldfriends face to make art, he killed an entire museum of people for the date....it was a very dark film compared to what had come before, the humour (as usual) makes the darker elements more effective - IMO. The Nolan films built on the Burton films to a huge degree.
His "silly gadgets" were lethal for the most part - he was quite happy to poison an entire city with them.
I contend the opposite with HL's Joker.....he stuck a pencil in a gangers eye, killed some more gangers, blew up an empty hospital but he was far to controlled to be a risk to most people.
Jack (and other Jokers) will kill anyone, anywhere....for a reason or no reason.
gorgon wrote: You're certainly allowed that opinion, but I don't think many people found him to be particularly scary. The Nicholson Joker's roots are clearly that of the light-hearted Joker of the '50s and '60s, who robbed banks and had lots of silly gadgets. It's a really good performance, but the character is just too campy and played for too many laughs to seem truly threatening.
Of course that Joker was trying to kill the entire city...
Ledger’s Joker was trying to blow up ferries filled with people, if you recall.
And it doesn’t matter whether Nicholson’s Joker was murderous or not. It was a campy performance that got all the laugh lines. A number of his murders are played for laughs, not for shock effect or horror. Again, it’s a great performance, but not a particularly scary or disturbing one.
Also, Ledger was trying to make the city burn itself. He tried to incite chaos. And as for “premonition”...when his big scheme failed, he didn’t know what to do. He had an expectation and it was toasted and he was like someone who just woke out of a coma. It feels like we saw different movies.
Joker/Heath did things just to do them, seemingly with no rhyme or reason, but he always had a plan and an endgame. And expectations. Expectations that like in Killing Joke, all it would take is “one bad day” for Gotham to go mad like him and destroy itself. And like Gordon in TKJ, Gotham stood up to him and he couldn’t understand it. Ledger’s Joker was very much built with TKJ in mind, and it’s quite obvious.
gorgon wrote: Ledger’s Joker was trying to blow up ferries filled with people, if you recall.
And it doesn’t matter whether Nicholson’s Joker was murderous or not. It was a campy performance that got all the laugh lines. A number of his murders are played for laughs, not for shock effect or horror. Again, it’s a great performance, but not a particularly scary or disturbing one.
And he failed to do even that.
Lets agree to disagree on all these points - I thought ledgers Joker was the least scary one in recent decades
What I like about the Joker triumvate of Romero, Nicholson and Ledger is how we can see a clear progression.
Caesar Romero was all about the jokes, and proper nonsense. Outlandish, clownish plans.
Nicholson kept bits of that, bit added in the hint of a psychotic edge. Not in how he said - but what he said. His reactions to stuff were off kilter for a ‘normal’ person.
Ledger turned up the psychotic edge, whilst keeping a certain dark humour.
But all pale compared to Hamill. Spesh when you see his range as Joker over his many, many appearances.
Leto was a side character. Not bad as “a” Joker. Being generous, I’d say that he captured the narcissistic elements of Joker well. The vengeful, spiteful elements also.
I’ve heard the tone of the movie was shifted after filming and somewhat recut, removing some of the darker parts... I’m not saying he was a great Joker, but I think the character he was asked to present, following Ledger’s performance, was never going to be received well.
I’d say that Leto was missing the Nihilism that the “better” Jokers bring out. He seemed attached to the trappings of wealth, was flashy, but not showy, if that makes sense. Seemed desperate, in some ways. Had all the negative qualities but none of the “attractive” qualities he possesses. The Joker is never the second banana, and that’s the part he played in this movie. Which clearly doesn’t work.
Leto’s was definitely a gangster Joker. Some aspects of his look are right from the comics - specially the modern Morrison/Snyder Joker. Unfortunately the tats and such became a distraction with audiences.
And yeah, apparently much of Leto’s performance ended up on the cutting room floor. I think he and his management were looking at that role as a big one for his career. Oh well. That’s why he was bitter about the movie afterward.
Good reviews so far. I think it even won some prestigious award in Venice.
I think this movie is going to make huge money for DC.
Edit: I wonder how much of this movie is a "reaction" to what made Black Panther and Wonder Woman such a big hit and if it was purposely designed that way? I am also curious how much f it was a calculated choice and if it was intentionally a "villain" oriented piece?
gorgon wrote: Back OT, very good buzz about the film is coming out of the Venice film festival.
This thread wasn't wasn't actually for upcoming Joker movie, although obviously discussion of it is welcome. I'm not trying to be needlessly nitpicky, so much as making sure the thread doesn't get locked eventually for people discussing the Romero\Nicholson\Ledger\Leto\Phoenix Jokers... which were actually the main topic.
Although the Leto Joker was famously panned, I think it was actually a pretty faithful adaptation of the Joker from the same-named 2008 graphic novel (I have not yet read the sequel) in which the Joker was pretty much just a outlandish, dangerous gangster. Maybe that wasn't the greatest choice to adapt. Of course, I think any Joker coming on Heath Ledger's heels is going to come up pretty short.
So far as the new movie - No matter how many trailers I see, it doesn't look appealing to me. Will I see it anyway? Of course, I will watch damn near anything in the theater because I love going to the movies.
gorgon wrote: You're certainly allowed that opinion, but I don't think many people found him to be particularly scary. The Nicholson Joker's roots are clearly that of the light-hearted Joker of the '50s and '60s, who robbed banks and had lots of silly gadgets. It's a really good performance, but the character is just too campy and played for too many laughs to seem truly threatening.
So basically it's the difference between campy James bond with gadgets and realistic assassin James bond. You know best bond might make another good thread if anybody wants to start that one.
I may not have seen the movie but does anybody remember the story where robin is a girl, Batman comes out of retirement to fight crime and the joker kills an audience of people after he tells them he will. There was a legit moment when he told them that where it's just super creepy and scary in an unnerving way. Can't remember the name of the movie but it's animated.
Are you guys aware the dude that played bender (from futurama) and Marcus Fenix from the gears franchise was a joker once in an animated film.
As far as jokers go I'd either go with heath' s or hamills. It's too tough to judge and they both bring fun aspects to it. I agree heath is more chaotic whereas hamills is more silly and scary. Dark knight still had a dumb scene where they only leave one guy watching the joker with the door open. I get he was handcuffed but come on that's just bad writing. Guess someone wrote themselves in a corner with that one.
flamingkillamajig wrote: does anybody remember the story where robin is a girl, Batman comes out of retirement to fight crime and the joker kills an audience of people after he tells them he will. There was a legit moment when he told them that where it's just super creepy and scary in an unnerving way. Can't remember the name of the movie but it's animated.
.
Yeah dark knight returns was animated at one point. It's either one or 2 parts and was made some years back. It looked pretty gritty. That's something I don't see in enough movies anymore. It's a back and forth cultural fad I guess. It's like when video games were all dark, gritty, gray and featured space marines of a sort or when ww2 shooters were all the rage. Personally I just hate over-saturation of anything.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Are you guys aware the dude that played bender (from futurama) and Marcus Fenix from the gears franchise was a joker once in an animated film.
Under the Red Hood, which is definitely one of the better films in DCs recent comics > animation adaptations. It's also a LOT better than the comic its based on.
I didn't mind the Leto Joker all that much, it just wasn't a great iteration. I think a few bad choices held it back such as some bad tattoos (I don't mind a tatt'd Joker but 'Damaged' on the forehead? bleh) and making the Harley/Joker relationship more on the up and up instead of bad, one-sided relationship didn't sit right.
The huge cast list for Suicide Squad was recently released and Magrot Robbie is Harley again but no mention of Leto at all.
Ahtman wrote: I didn't mind the Leto Joker all that much, it just wasn't a great iteration. I think a few bad choices held it back such as some bad tattoos (I don't mind a tatt'd Joker but 'Damaged' on the forehead? bleh) and making the Harley/Joker relationship more on the up and up instead of bad, one-sided relationship didn't sit right.
It doesn't help that there was apparently a lot of Joker footage cut. I'd also point out they did make it clear with the extended cut stuff that "this isn't a healthy relationship"...since it started with Joker giving her electroshock therapy during the escape from Arkham.
The huge cast list for Suicide Squad was recently released and Magrot Robbie is Harley again but no mention of Leto at all.
I doubt that he would have done it even if they tried to get him.
I have to admit, the Phoenix Joker movie looks like it will be good.... but I am not 100% sure it IS a Joker movie.
That said, I think Nicholason's performance was pretty scary. He was a man that laughed at your suffering and found humor in it. He was insane.... killing his own henchman, killing people randomly, and basically just being an over the top lunatic gangster.
Ledger was more an agent of chaos but he wasn't has in your face crazy to me. He seemed like he had an twisted ideology and clear goals he wanted to meet.
I do love me some 60's Batman, but Gorshin as the Riddler gets the best plotlines and crazy antics. Poor Romero couldn't out-clown Gorshin.
Critics need to be allowed their opinions, though! Can't be too...erm, critical...of critics liking different things than you. It's their job, and sometimes it can be useful to find critics who hate everything that you like.
But I feel like that review could have simply said "I hate everything about it with every fiber of my being" and saved people the time of reading it.
Nah, good criticism is a literary form in itself, and should be interesting and/or entertaining. Plus, this way you know _why_the author disliked the film; without that a review is worthless.
But when said review is full of hyperbole and so scathingly negative as that one, it ceases to be valuable. It doesn't hone in on particular perceived flaws. Instead it's just all bad. Phoenix's performance is bad and the direction is bad and the director himself is bad and the script is bad and the message is bad and the whole concept of the film is bad. It's not helpful.
Roger Ebert wrote a lot of books, and I read most of them. He always said that when a movie critic has done his job right, you know if you would like a movie even if they didn't.
I don't mind critics and have ones I watch/read but I don't use them to determine whether I see something or not. If I am going to see a film I will wait until after I have seen it to look at what is being written. Now if it is something I have no intention of seeing I'll watch/read about it out of curiosity.
Met Ebert once and he was a major jackass when I did. Others try to tell me about how nice he was but that was not my experience. It may have been an off day but it will always be how I remember him.
That makes me sad to hear. I'd never met him, just read the books. Never meet your heroes, indeed.
I don't use individual critics really but I do consider the aggregated opinion. I've never had bad reviews sway me out of a movie I really wanted to see, but - they have led me to movies I might not have seen due to very high reviews (Lady Bird), and have countless times had me not go to movies I was only sort-of interested in seeing. If I have nothing better to do and want to go to the movies, and one of the ones I was sort of interested in is rocking a 20% on RT, I am likely going to see something else or find something else to do.
Personally I really dislike the "wisdom of the crowd" approach to reviews, film reviewers are just as vulnerable to groupthink and badwagons as anyone else. For example, this Joker movie will now undoubtedly get far more positive reviews from a certain type of reviewer regardless of its actual quality because it's awards bait now, and so in the eyes of some is automatically worthy of more respect and serious consideration than your common plebian "capegak" movies.
I think you need to cultivate a stable of reviewers who A; broadly share your own tastes and opinions about film, and B; are capable of reviewing with a level of analysis that conveys more about the film than whether or not it matched said tastes and opinions. That way if they like it, you can be reasonably sure you'll like it as well, and if they dislike it, they can still discuss the film in a manner that might make you decide you'd like it anyway.
I don;t need or want reviewers but having looked at afew after the fact its obvious that many just regurgetate the press release they are given and spin it with their view.
I find trailers normally give me enough information to decide if a film is worth seeing or not without someone else telling me what I should like, why I should like it or the opposite.
Same with food, books and pretty muc anything else that has attracted a profesional inheriently parastic job called "critic".
I've never really been on the Metacritic site, but Rotten Tomatoes wouldn't be worthy of wiping my rear-end if they had a print copy. Case in point: Their reviews of Dave Chappell's last special. 30% fresh from critics, but 99% from the public. On the other end of the spectrum they gave glowing reviews to Ghostbusters 2016, and everyone thought that was a dumpster fire.
Alas, some of the critic's reviews refer to the Joker as a "manifesto for white-male violence". I mean, damn, leave politics out of this. Was it a good story? Was it acted well? Were the scenes shot well?
My general advice is to use friends and people I know for reviews. For instance i'd probably take somebody with similar movie and video game tastes on dakka rather than most of these critic sites.
I actually have at least one friend with very similar movie tastes as myself so his personal reviews are worth more to me than a tidal wave of angry internet reviewers in one direction or another.
My general advice is to use friends and people I know for reviews. For instance i'd probably take somebody with similar movie and video game tastes on dakka rather than most of these critic sites.
I actually have at least one friend with very similar movie tastes as myself so his personal reviews are worth more to me than a tidal wave of angry internet reviewers in one direction or another.
Let's not rehash the "Reviewers are useless/have a purpose" argument here. Start a new thread if you must.
That said, I can see the "White Male Violence" argument considering the Joker from the TDK was a similar iteration and we live in a time where a significant number of the electorate just wants to watch the world burn for a variety of reasons. Since TDK the character has attracted that type of following online.
This seems like an origin movie that does not follow the character's actual origins. Therefore, I am interested to see how fanbois react as well.
Easy E wrote: Let's not rehash the "Reviewers are useless/have a purpose" argument here. Start a new thread if you must.
That said, I can see the "White Male Violence" argument considering the Joker from the TDK was a similar iteration and we live in a time where a significant number of the electorate just wants to watch the world burn for a variety of reasons. Since TDK the character has attracted that type of following online.
This seems like an origin movie that does not follow the character's actual origins. Therefore, I am interested to see how fanbois react as well.
Seriously I didn't even say reviewers are all trash or not since I watch some. I'm just saying friends with similar tastes are more reliable. Discussing 'white male violence' is just so much more controversial and could lead to a thread lock. You do know other people shoot up different crowds it's just the media doesn't report on it all. It's almost like media focuses on terrorism from one end or another and we don't talk about all the various murders. That or murder on the news has also become so commonplace nobody actually cares.
I don't see how wanting to watch batman causes white male violence. It's the same version of video games cause violence that we used to see and yes there were supposed video game shooters. I think it's more dangerous to ban books or tv because some crazy says xbox or something made them do it.
I like the part where you recognize going off on a, essentially, political tangent will get the thread locked and then immediately start pouring gasoline on fire.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Wanting to see batman? There's no batman in this film, from what I hear. Maybe some Martha...
Really?! Then who is that little boy in the trailer then? The one that the joker makes smile. I suppose that's young Bruce Wayne then. Btw wasn't there a series called Gotham that was live action? How did that turn out because I'm legitimately curious.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Btw wasn't there a series called Gotham that was live action? How did that turn out because I'm legitimately curious.
The first season is genuinely good and stands up on its own, focussing primarily on relatively grounded organized crime and the consequences of the Waynes being murdered.
Subsequent seasons get zanier as you go - and you can stop or continue depending on your taste.
He just came across as a wannabe, with nothing even remotely or unsettling about him.
I actually think it would have worked well it they went with the "wannabe" angle more. Or rather, that the Leto Joker wasn't the original, but a brain-washed previous Robin. At least 1 clue was there in BvS.
Ahtman wrote: I like the part where you recognize going off on a, essentially, political tangent will get the thread locked and then immediately start pouring gasoline on fire.
Fair enough.
How about any thoughts on the Origin story that isn't?
This seems like an origin movie that does not follow the character's actual origins. Therefore, I am interested to see how fans react as well.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Wanting to see batman? There's no batman in this film, from what I hear. Maybe some Martha...
Really?! Then who is that little boy in the trailer then? The one that the joker makes smile. I suppose that's young Bruce Wayne then. Btw wasn't there a series called Gotham that was live action? How did that turn out because I'm legitimately curious.
Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. But how many iterations of young Bruce seeing his parents killed do we need? Besides, you specifically mentioned people seeing this film to see Batman, when this is at best Batman-adjacent.
I wonder if this would show the importance of getting help with mental illness. Of course maybe the movie wouldn't get too deep or great. Hopefully people can get help before turning into the joker but in the past mental illness was treated poorly. I hope that didn't get political but hopefully we can agree on that point.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Wanting to see batman? There's no batman in this film, from what I hear. Maybe some Martha...
WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME
Thank you! I thought that set up might never pay off.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @flaming
It's hard to say how the movie will present mental illness, but the title of the film and protagonist is someone who will self-justify becoming an insane murderer in a manner that can easily be taken for glorification by many.
People are already seeing it that way based on the title and trailer, but even the more negative reviews out of TIFF don't accuse it of glorifying his actions (except, in some cases, by merely existing...)
And while I don't expect a movie about a murderer in clown makeup to present a particularly nuanced look at mental illness, I don't like the sort of knee-jerk assumption that the film will be controversial just because it wants to be challenging.
Did the Joker ever have an origin in the comics? I thought that was kinda his shtick was that he didn't have an origin? I am only familiar with Batman the animated series and the films.
The Joker doesn’t have a canonical origin, though the “semi-canonical” origin story is *one bad day*.
In that, the Joker is a failing comedian that takes on a job with a gang to be able to afford having a baby. But the job goes sideways, his wife dies, ALL THE BAD happens to him and he breaks.
The Joker doesn’t have a true origin story, as he himself rewrites his past to suit his whims. So the retelling of one bad day could just be him pulling a story out of his arse.
greatbigtree wrote: The Joker doesn’t have a canonical origin, though the “semi-canonical” origin story is *one bad day*.
In that, the Joker is a failing comedian that takes on a job with a gang to be able to afford having a baby. But the job goes sideways, his wife dies, ALL THE BAD happens to him and he breaks.
The Joker doesn’t have a true origin story, as he himself rewrites his past to suit his whims. So the retelling of one bad day could just be him pulling a story out of his arse.
The tricky part with the Joker is that he's had multiple origins, and has behaved differently in different eras (more on that in a sec). There are various rationalizations for this. Yours is one of them. But note that Geoff Johns revealed in the comics that there have been three Jokers, which seems to provide a clearer explanation for his disparate origins and behaviors.
So .. saw it today and absolutely loved it. Not sure what I expected going in but the wife and I were mightily impressed (she called the whole film 'deeply unsettling', which was actually a compliment).
The central performance was pretty damn solid, with enough of a fresh take to keep it interesting. Some resonance with The Killing Joke (with regards to the origin trajectory) but certainly its own beast.
Song choice on the soundtrack was strong, and seeing a big screen movie not shot in widescreen lent it a nice degree of intimacy.
My wife and I both independently read a review on the BBC news website today, and it sounded pretty good to both of us. She actually said she'd be interested in seeing it... Anyone who's seen it already, does this ring true to you?
and the year of disapointment has finally been broken, this film is ... dare I say it, a masterpiece, the greatest "comic book" movie ever made even my brother who hates "monsters and maniacs" movies loved this film and he represents the "normie" crowd that does not care about comics and such.
Phoenix will get an oscar for this film without a doubt.
Crispy78 wrote: My wife and I both independently read a review on the BBC news website today, and it sounded pretty good to both of us. She actually said she'd be interested in seeing it... Anyone who's seen it already, does this ring true to you?
Joker reminds me a lot of the Head Hunter. It's not the movie I expected, and it plays out in ways that are equal parts disturbing and brilliant. I honestly didn't like it much, but I think it's a real one of a kind film. I have a hard time imagining anyone else doing this kind of movie, and it's a film that probably warrants a lot of discussion about its themes and ideas, cause there's some real meat in there.
I'd say it deserves best film of the year, but I know it won't get it.
I know you put quotation marks around the expression and I'm not ranting at you, but I just hate this expression. People who use it (without quotation mark and usually with contempt) often are just as normal as the people they diss out, they just want to feel special for having what is still relatively mainstream interest…
I went into this honestly not really wanting to see it that much, but the group was going the movies so I figured why not?
Glad I did. That film was excellent, and the few times where I thought they were heading down a bad road/plot point, they always swerved and gave a different answer.
Yeah. That was great. He was the Joker by the end.
I know you put quotation marks around the expression and I'm not ranting at you, but I just hate this expression. People who use it (without quotation mark and usually with contempt) often are just as normal as the people they diss out, they just want to feel special for having what is still relatively mainstream interest…
You are both right and wrong at the same time with that, some use it as a "gatekeeping" thing and others to differentiate between the fans and general public, its not different from marvels "true believers" or star treks "trekies/trekers", my brother is the epitome of the stereotypical "normie" though, zero interest in anything sci fi or fantasy, cant stand marvel, dc or any of that stuff but has a passing knowledge of all this stuff through cultural osmosis .... and me.
On its own merits, as a film about a mentally unwell person and their odyssey in an uncaring world, it is an excellent film. Until they mention "Gotham", "Mr Wayne", "Arkham Hospital" and a special guest appearance by a certain young boy...it had very little to do with the Batman world as a whole and could have been re-written as its own psychological thriller. Which isn't really spoiling the plot because it needs a bit of a warning...
Not every piece of art is mean't to be enjoyed, but we can still appreciate it for what it is and represents. In the case of Joker it is not going to be a typical comic book film. Over the years some comics have explored serious social issues in a mature manner, but they tend to get drowned in the sea of fantasy, sci-fi and superheros genres which makes it hard for them to be noticed. If you are expecting a traditional comic adaptation...the actual experience will be akin to ordering a burger, fries and coke but instead served a healthy meal prepared by Amelia freer. The majority of this film is about mental illness and can open one's mind to the hardship involved, but if you are looking for escapism then its not here; its violence, not action. There are a lot of uncomfortable truths in Joker which might not be everyone's cup of tea, so bare that in mind before booking those tickets.
I'm not a comic book historian, but as far as I know they have changed the Joker's origin here. This could upset a lot of dedicated fans so theres also that to consider. Even still, its a stand alone movie that certainly does not need a sequel and this is of little consequence.
Joaquin Phoenix might not be the most popular Joker( John Dimaggio for me ), but his performance is certainly the best and I would be surprised if accolades are not on the way...
Hmmm I don't know I would not say it's bad as such but it took itself way to seriously, was not as clever as it thought it was and the depiction of mental illness was pretty gak to be honest.
It felt like one of those films designed to fish for an oscar because it has a "message" despite being at least on paper a comic book movie.
As someone above said it either started off as an unrelated script and the joker was shoe horned in or it would just have been a better movie without being about the joker, just about some other poor sod with a crap job and mental health issues in any big US city.
Saw it last night. My wife and I walked out and had the same two word response: “holy gak”. I can’t and won’t say it’s my favorite “comic book character movie”. But I’ll be damned if it isn’t the most powerful one out there. Oscar worthy? Oh, hell yes. My brain feels dirty for having watched it. It was just...it was rough.
The movie is a slow burn. If you want a fast paced action movie, you aren’t gonna get it. If you want the slow breaking of a man that is essentially a psychological torture movie...you’ll get what you’re looking for. I went in with certain expectations last night...and they were met. It works. It bloody well works!
timetowaste85 wrote: Saw it last night. My wife and I walked out and had the same two word response: “holy gak”. I can’t and won’t say it’s my favorite “comic book character movie”. But I’ll be damned if it isn’t the most powerful one out there. Oscar worthy? Oh, hell yes. My brain feels dirty for having watched it. It was just...it was rough.
The movie is a slow burn. If you want a fast paced action movie, you aren’t gonna get it. If you want the slow breaking of a man that is essentially a psychological torture movie...you’ll get what you’re looking for. I went in with certain expectations last night...and they were met. It works. It bloody well works!
Yeah, this is how I feel about it too. Fantastically well executed movie. Even the music was well done as it gave me constant feeling of being uncomfortable.
I'd certainly recommend it, but I'm glad I didn't bring the kiddos with me, nor do I want to see it again particularly soon. I need to mentally rest for a while before seeing it again
And it has Robert Deniro in it to boot! I qite enjoy all those tips-of-the-hat to other films about mental illness. There's even a nod to Heath ledger's Joker towards the end
Spoiler:
when he's in the squad car. Similar framing, lighitng and tone.
Very good as a late 70's and early 80's modern dystopia and descent into madness film.
I can see why it is getting so much buzz.
Pet theory in the spoilers
Spoiler:
Arthur is not the Joker and never was. Everything we saw was a mental creation he built for himself while incarcerated in Arkham.
We see a quick shot of him hitting his head on a psyche ward window, and then at the end we see him int he psych ward laughing about the joke the therapist would not get.
The whole movie is the joke.
However, the great thing about this film is that there are many different ways to interpret it.
and now we get a bunch of news stories (and already on the daytime chat shows) about how Gary Glitter (convicted rock & roll paedophile) is set to earn royalties as Joker uses some of his music
(good I say, something for his victims to take away in court)
but you do wonder if it was a deliberate choice (after all this is an R rated heavy hitter set up to inspire debate at the very least) or those on the film just being unaware of things that were heavily reported in the UK but (I guess) may not have made it onto tv/the papers elsewhere
I really can't see a problem? Committing a crime shouldn't deny your ability to make a living once the sentence is served, and royalties on hit records is a primary way musicians make a living.
It would be different if the income was directly linked to the crime, but regardless of what he did, he co-wrote a song that is still relatively popular and the 'story' here seems to be that people don't like to see a 'bad person' have a 'good thing' happen to them.
It's certainly ironic given the context of the film being that "if you treat people in your society like garbage, all it takes is the right combination of mental illness, social isolation, self-pity, and casual cruelty and you've got a recipe for the Joker." So yeah, there's kind of a dark laugh in some of the criticism of the movie missing the point and then skipping right over to playing into said point.
I think my favorite comment on this film so far is one I saw over on reddit; I can't call it good, but I also can't call it bad. I'd call it effective.
LordofHats wrote: if you treat people in your society like garbage, all it takes is the right combination of mental illness, social isolation, self-pity, and casual cruelty and you've got a recipe for the Joker.
The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth
I think very few people will truly walk out of this movie knowing exactly what to make of it or how it makes them feel inside. It's the same reason I keep watching The Shawshank Redemption, but in a slightly twisted way.
I wonder if this confusion is why this movie has had critics call it:
1. Promoting violence
2. White male conservative propaganda.
3. Incel manifesto
4. promoting child abuse.
cuda1179 wrote: I wonder if this confusion is why this movie has had critics call it:
1. Promoting violence
2. White male conservative propaganda.
3. Incel manifesto
4. promoting child abuse.
I believe that anyone who thinks even a single one of these can safely be discounted in all things moving forward.
Like that one review, I read of Overlord that was basically "a movie for incels" (which made zero sense and might as well have been "I didn't watch the movie but it looks stupid").
I can kind of get it a bit more with this one, just because of the controversial subject matter, but I think anyone who makes at least 3 of those accusations is pretty much saying they didn't wathc the movie. The "promoting violence" one maybe, if you squint real hard and like complaining about the kids today.
LordofHats wrote: Like that one review, I read of Overlord that was basically "a movie for incels" (which made zero sense and might as well have been "I didn't watch the movie but it looks stupid").
... Overlord, the movie about WW2 roided pseudozombies? Boy, I can't track that metaphor. As you said, I'd have to assume anyone who said that hadn't seen the movie or maybe even the trailer honestly.
So far as Joker, still haven't not seen, so also not reading articles about it because I might this week. I've been pretty negative on this movie from the giddyup just because, well, I didn't think the Joker really needed an origin story blah blah blah; but I've seen a lot of people say Joaquin Phoenix did a great job, so ... maybe. If Gemini Man bombs (and it looks like it will) I think I'll probably see Joker this week.
Ouze wrote: So far as Joker, still haven't not seen, so also not reading articles about it because I might this week. I've been pretty negative on this movie from the giddyup just because, well, I didn't think the Joker really needed an origin story blah blah blah; but I've seen a lot of people say Joaquin Phoenix did a great job, so ... maybe. If Gemini Man bombs (and it looks like it will) I think I'll probably see Joker this week.
I didn't want to see it. I didn't like the idea of telling a Joker origin story. I ended up seeing it just because that's what we were all doing that night, and I didn't want to be the guy going "Nu uh! #NotMyJoker!" like an idiot.
And boy am I glad I went. Do not regret it at all.
The hate for the film only made me want to see it more. Honestly, I was blown away by everything about the movie. Hands-down the best movie I have gone to see this year, and I will definitely be picking it up the moment it drops on blu-ray.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I didn't want to see it. I didn't like the idea of telling a Joker origin story. I ended up seeing it just because that's what we were all doing that night, and I didn't want to be the guy going "Nu uh! #NotMyJoker!" like an idiot.
Yeah, pretty much sames - don't wanna be that guy So, probably Thursday.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I didn't want to see it. I didn't like the idea of telling a Joker origin story. I ended up seeing it just because that's what we were all doing that night, and I didn't want to be the guy going "Nu uh! #NotMyJoker!" like an idiot.
Yeah, pretty much sames - don't wanna be that guy So, probably Thursday.
cuda1179 wrote: I wonder if this confusion is why this movie has had critics call it:
1. Promoting violence
2. White male conservative propaganda.
3. Incel manifesto
4. promoting child abuse.
I believe that anyone who thinks even a single one of these can safely be discounted in all things moving forward.
LordofHats wrote: For the best. I can conceive of no reality where Gemini Man won't be garbage XD
It already is. I feel bad for Will Smith, with all his recent films being bombs and what not. We can only hope his animated movie coming out in a couple months does well.
Went to see it on friday on a whim. Didn't make me go wow or bleargh either way. Rather neutral one off movie that you can see or not see and not lose much either way.
A 100% real and totally-not-at-all-satirical News Website wrote:Media Horrified By Lack Of Violence At Joker Screenings
U.S.—Our nation’s intrepid journalists had been warning the country about the threat of the Joker movie and how it could encourage violence among disaffected white people and incels -- the new greatest threat to mankind. And as reporters prepared for an onslaught of violence as Joker premiered over the weekend, they were horrified by what happened: absolutely no violence or anything worth reporting on whatsoever.
“We found one incident of a guy cheering too loudly at the fictional violence,” said CNN reporter Terrance Shelton, “but that was it. There was nothing. Absolutely nothing we can glom onto and spin into a hot take that reinforces The Narrative. I’m shaken to my core.”
More fun at the link.
I do appreciate when someone can use "glom" in a sentence.
A 100% real and totally-not-at-all-satirical News Website wrote:Media Horrified By Lack Of Violence At Joker Screenings
U.S.—Our nation’s intrepid journalists had been warning the country about the threat of the Joker movie and how it could encourage violence among disaffected white people and incels -- the new greatest threat to mankind. And as reporters prepared for an onslaught of violence as Joker premiered over the weekend, they were horrified by what happened: absolutely no violence or anything worth reporting on whatsoever.
“We found one incident of a guy cheering too loudly at the fictional violence,” said CNN reporter Terrance Shelton, “but that was it. There was nothing. Absolutely nothing we can glom onto and spin into a hot take that reinforces The Narrative. I’m shaken to my core.”
More fun at the link.
I do appreciate when someone can use "glom" in a sentence.
I just read a New York Times op-ed where they literally state the real villain of the film was "Whiteness", and what happens when White Supremacy is left unchecked.
I was surprised by how nothing in the movie really surprised me. In some ways, the movie felt formulaic. Like how, in the series Law and Order, you know exactly how the show is going to go, and you almost don’t need to watch it... but you watch it because that’s what you’re doing right now? A lot like that.
The movie is a character piece. And I’m more of a plot / story kind of guy. I feel like the movie tried too hard to make the character relatable. Which felt like it dragged on faaar too long for a movie with an inevitable death / rebirth moment for the character. Part of the Joker’s attraction is the divorce from reality the character has. This movie, for a “mainstream” movie, makes a solid point of how failing to provide mental health services to those in need increases the likelihood of creating characters like the Joker. It almost feels too grounded in reality.
On the whole, I’d say there was too much foreplay, not enough getting on with things. We get it, the world treats Arthur like garbage and then he snaps... do we need 1 hour and 40 mins of watching a guy get beat down, for 20 mins of embracing the Joker?
The movie feels like it painted itself into a corner for the third act. We spent this long getting you to relate to this character, but now the obvious break comes and we’re not sure how fast to pull the bandaid.
The movie is very well acted; the performances are gripping with some real stick-with-you moments. Joker embracing his Nihilism when stating, “I’m not political. I don’t believe in anything.” Is just magnifique in the moment.
The movie has some real meat to it. For myself, the balance of the movie was unsatisfying. Arthur isn’t an interesting enough character to hang a character piece on, when the “purpose” of the movie is to introduce the Joker. There’s lots of good in this movie. I want to like it a lot. But I don’t.
Maybe a second viewing, knowing that the Joker is the destination, not really the journey, would make it more palatable.
This seems like the second time a one off movie that was one actor's personal vehicle for a popular character has completely blown through expectations and put the studio making horrid comic book moves to shame.
And that means it's time for a Joker/Deadpool crossover
greatbigtree wrote: The movie has some real meat to it. For myself, the balance of the movie was unsatisfying. Arthur isn’t an interesting enough character to hang a character piece on, when the “purpose” of the movie is to introduce the Joker. There’s lots of good in this movie. I want to like it a lot. But I don’t.
Yeah, I saw it over the weekend and I think this summarizes my thoughts about it better than I could.
Maybe it's because I don't really care much about the Joker as a character. Maybe because, well, every sociological and psychological point the movie seemed to be making (to me) I already agree with, generally speaking. So really, the movie was, for me, superfluous in a way.
Saw it this weekend and thought it was terrific. Most of my thoughts just echo those who also really liked it.
It's interesting to me that people think that the movie celebrates Arthur's/Joker's actions. While I sympathized with his plight, I found his actions pretty fething reprehensible. I don't know if it's more fascinating or sad that some seem to have trouble recognizing that it can be both things.
Frazzled wrote: Evidently its made $544mm. Thats a lot, especially considering the cost to make was modest. A major winner for DC.
Wife and I have not seen. She is interested but wants to watch on rental.
Frazz, I'd try to see it in the theater if you can, unless you have a really good home theater. It's beautifully shot with a great soundtrack.
And yeah, financially speaking it's crushing it. Think I read it only had a 29% drop in the second weekend, which is pretty tremendous. DC just needs to keep making good films and let Marvel do the big cinematic universe thing.
gorgon wrote: It's interesting to me that people think that the movie celebrates Arthur's/Joker's actions. While I sympathized with his plight, I found his actions pretty fething reprehensible. I don't know if it's more fascinating or sad that some seem to have trouble recognizing that it can be both things.
Well, there is the usual sort of "depiction is endorsement" crowd about almost anything.
There is a good deal of ambiguity in the film. There are plenty of elements, sociological and psychological, that are left to the viewer to resolve, just like in real life. So, what we are seeing is people, as usual, scrambling to resolve the ambiguity of the world by resorting to narratives, meta-narratives, normative claims, and so on.
Or at least, that is my take, which is not really more or less the same sort of thing.
LordofHats wrote: It's got Will Smith in it. Worse, it's got him playing two rolls!
That's like, 10x the unwarranted sense of smug self-importance of a typical Will Smith film!
/kidding not kidding
Yeah, that's how it comes across with Will - whether its intentional or not. I am Legend didn't help matters neither...
"...I am the last surviving man..."
"...I am operating on all frequencies..."
"...Ladies...I will be at this meeting point everyday at 12 o'clock..."
...that said, I wish his character ran off into the sunset with Samantha!
To be fair that is probably his best movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On Joker. I enjoy movies with well thought out musical scores. I also enjoy movies that make you think. Joker has both of these. People act like this was the first movie every made about a psychopath...
Kind of makes me think of the movie "Gone Girl" which was also amazing. Psychopath in that movie framed her husband for her own murder and murders a dude that took her in and protected her. Pretended that he kidnap her - and got away free. Then blackmailed her husband to get back with her. Yet...I think all that movie got was praise (which was well deserved).
Saw it this weekend. Went in kinda sceptical, but I actually really enjoyed the movie. I kinda feel like it warrants a second veiwing, because I wasn't sure I was unpacking everything I was being shown, but at the same time, I'm not sure I liked it enough to actually watch it a second time.
I'm certainly someone who is less-than-enthused by the relatively relentless stream of superhero movies of late, and this was absolutely a refreshing change of pace in that regard. The last big-budget action film I saw was Solo (it was a long plane journey, alright), and I think Joker was absolutely miles better. The soundtrack/use of music was excellent, and the set dressing was very very fitting. I got a slight nostalgia buzz via some of the haircuts to superhero saturday morning cartoons (of my generation, at least), which was fun, and not at all so-cartoony-that-it-detracts-from-the-tension, but I think they did a very nice job of making an 80s period peice.
I also really liked the use of closeups, and dialogue-free, action-free camera shots. In a movie that very much lets you know it's going to be playing around with perceptions, reality and the truth a little, these were a very nice way to leave you alone in the cinema chewing over what had happened, and also thinking about what you were seeing, as Phoenix writhes about onscreen. Again, to compare it to Solo, where it felt like the shot changed every few seconds, it was a nice break from the established norm of todays action/superhero fare.
To go back to Phoenix a bit, I thought - especially at the start, he did a great job. His speech patterns and body movements were very convincing in terms of being visably unwell, and quite unsettling.
Spoiler:
what's up with his shoulder is that like a VFX thing? Because it was VERY atmospheric, and a nice body-horror flourish. If this is, as I'm kinda hoping, going to tie into the new Robert Pattison Batmans, I think it would be a great contrast for perfect prettyboy millionaire Wayne to have his nemesis be urban poor cripple Joker. BTW, thought the casting for that lil chubby cheeked kid with a perfectly unblemished complexion was a real nice shout - looked perfectly bourgeois compared to greasy dirty Fleck and his wizened old mother
They certainly did a great job of making Arthur Fleck someone who invokes profound pity, and never actually seems sincerely wicked. Rather, throughout, though Fleck unquestionably behaves abhorrently, the biggest emotion he evokes is pity. He's not adimrable, he's not evil, he's just a bit pathetic and unfortunate. And Phoenix pulls this off exquisitely.
Another aspect I think was handled much better than I expected was the kind of parrallels to "current year" that have caused such a flurry of interest. I suspected, going in, that they'd be a bit ham-fisted, self-righteous and preachy, but in fact, I felt like they were left very open-ended and ambiguous. Whilst mental illness, lone-wolf-ism, urban loneliness/terror, spiking crime and poverty, mass media, political radicalism and milionaire politicians are all present, and reflected, I think Joker does a very good job of not providing any kind of moralizing voice at any time. They're all presented as interwoven, yet never is anything conclusively declared wicked or virtuous by any character that is themselves simply heroic or villainous. Joker's world is undeniably a bleak one, but part of that is that there are no quick fixes, and no good or bad.
I will say, however, that there was more than a slight nagging sense that some of this wasn't wholy neccessary. Additionally, the transition to the Joker felt a bit odd - this might not necessarily be bad, or unintentional, again, I think jarring the audience and making them feel uncertain isn't a bad technique - but it seemed like he suddenly was a different person in the interview scene, and the speech between the two was, though dramatically tense, in terms of the actual dialogue, wasn't all that compelling. And as the sort of memorable moment for Phoenix's Joker, it remains to be seen how well he'll stand the test of time.
Much like Legend's Joker, the 2019 iteration is tapping into a lot of zeitgeist-y stuff. Nolan's Dark Knight came out at a time of general hysteria about terrorism, a collapse in faith in state governance, and a rise in cynicism and more than slightly voyeuristic/sadistic reality TV. But at that time, the 'gritty realism' superhero movie was relatively new, and there was very little fatigue, and social media hadn't quite gestated into the great hyper-connected cynicism factory that we have today. Everyone from scene kids at your local mall, to redneck anti-Obama-ists adopted Legend's portrayal of the Joker, and that has since been widely lampooned. On top of that, Legend's final performance was easily mythologized, as the actor himself was a genuinely troubled individual - this, more than his performance (looking back, I can hardly remember that film at all. TBF, I was 13 when it came out) seems to be a big part of the endurance of the Legend Joker, while the follow up - Leto's frankly self-important and talentless effort - helped cement Legend as the 'good' movie Joker. Phoenix certainly delivered an excellent performance, and this is easily one of the better movies I've seen of late, but it remains to be seen as to how much of a cultural impact it'll have, especially considering the media circus going on right now.
The ending certainly begs for a sequel, and tbh, I for one would check it out.
gorgon wrote: Saw it this weekend and thought it was terrific. Most of my thoughts just echo those who also really liked it.
It's interesting to me that people think that the movie celebrates Arthur's/Joker's actions. While I sympathized with his plight, I found his actions pretty fething reprehensible. I don't know if it's more fascinating or sad that some seem to have trouble recognizing that it can be both things.
Frazzled wrote: Evidently its made $544mm. Thats a lot, especially considering the cost to make was modest. A major winner for DC.
Wife and I have not seen. She is interested but wants to watch on rental.
Frazz, I'd try to see it in the theater if you can, unless you have a really good home theater. It's beautifully shot with a great soundtrack.
I’ve watched it and I’m glad I did. I don’t think it’s a movie with a lot of replay value for me, but it was one of those movies that was just well made all around. The sounds, the music, the cinematography, it really is worth watching on the big screen for the sake of “watching art” I would almost say.
I don’t know if it was a great Joker movie. But I do think it was a great movie that happened to have the Joker in it.
I have not been caught in any of the hype/controversy, haven't really read any reviews or this thread for example. For me it was just...boring. It was well made and well acted, but the subject matter left me completely emotionally flat and I did not care about anything what happened to the characters, the plot was not interesting in any way, it was not funny, not clever, not surprising, not emotionally gripping or anything. So I just tried to concentrate enjoying the depressing '80s atmosphere, which was well made, no question, but not enough to make it interesting as a movie or wanting to rewatch it again.
As a Joker movie, it is as said pretty awful. In my opinion, Joker is one of those characters which work as an absolute 'lynchpin' of sort in the setting. Whatever happens, you can count on Joker being fething evil and he will try to screw you over somehow. Similarly, I am not interested about tragic background of Sauron or Emperor Palpatine or Martha Stewart. Sometimes aura of mystery adds to the character and if you start deconstructing them the effect is lost. As a movie about psychotic spree killer Arthur Fleck it was ok but the movie lacked any kind of cleverness or surprises or punchlines - much like comedy of Arthur Fleck. I am sure that the parallel was intentional, but down side of it is that effect of watching it was much like watching comedic act of Arthur Fleck: you get few chuckles, shake your head about the weirdness and walk out wondering "now what the heck was the point of even putting that on show??"
This is the new DC boss’s formula from his days at New Line. Good filmmaker, trust the vision, tighter budget, hopefully big profits. Also saw it with Shazam (which actually could have used more investment in advertising but whatevs), and will see it with BoP and Gunn’s new SS.
Still haven't seen it, planned to about 5 times and something keeps coming up at the last minute. I hope to next week.
Irrespective of that, I saw it reached the largest grossing R movie of all time and am well pleased by that. I'd like to see more mature comic-oriented stuff, and in general would like to see DC do better than they have - the rising tide lifts all comic book movie boats.
I just hope it doesn't mean that DC fall into the Dork Age mentality again and we still get to see a spread of films. Aquaman was a great adventure/romance movie in the vein of "Romancing the Stone" and Shazam was a superhero action comedy with a real heart to it.
Compel wrote: I just hope it doesn't mean that DC fall into the Dork Age mentality again and we still get to see a spread of films. Aquaman was a great adventure/romance movie in the vein of "Romancing the Stone" and Shazam was a superhero action comedy with a real heart to it.
I did not see Aquaman but couldn't resist seeing Shazam. You are spot on. Shazam was a Superhero kid's movie comedy. Quite excellent in that format. It took itself the opposite of seriously, which frankly most super hero comics should do because they are...superhero comic book movies.
Compel wrote: I just hope it doesn't mean that DC fall into the Dork Age mentality again and we still get to see a spread of films. Aquaman was a great adventure/romance movie in the vein of "Romancing the Stone" and Shazam was a superhero action comedy with a real heart to it.
Think they've made it pretty clear that there won't be a 'DC tone'. Each movie will have the tone each filmmaker demands. Batman will probably be a dark detective story. Birds of Prey looks to be R-rated but lighter. Black Adam will probably be your typical Dwayne Johnson vehicle. Gunn's Suicide Squad looks like it's going to be pretty comedic.
Compel wrote: I just hope it doesn't mean that DC fall into the Dork Age mentality again and we still get to see a spread of films. Aquaman was a great adventure/romance movie in the vein of "Romancing the Stone" and Shazam was a superhero action comedy with a real heart to it.
Think they've made it pretty clear that there won't be a 'DC tone'. Each movie will have the tone each filmmaker demands. Batman will probably be a dark detective story. Birds of Prey looks to be R-rated but lighter. Black Adam will probably be your typical Dwayne Johnson vehicle. Gunn's Suicide Squad looks like it's going to be pretty comedic.
Compel wrote: I just hope it doesn't mean that DC fall into the Dork Age mentality again and we still get to see a spread of films. Aquaman was a great adventure/romance movie in the vein of "Romancing the Stone" and Shazam was a superhero action comedy with a real heart to it.
Think they've made it pretty clear that there won't be a 'DC tone'. Each movie will have the tone each filmmaker demands. Batman will probably be a dark detective story. Birds of Prey looks to be R-rated but lighter. Black Adam will probably be your typical Dwayne Johnson vehicle. Gunn's Suicide Squad looks like it's going to be pretty comedic.
Didn't suicide squad just come out like two years ago? And they're already remaking it?
This is why I don't see films anymore and instead look for more targeted content. It's all the same trash over and over and over again.
Well, maybe this time they'll do a good one for their fans?
It's more of a soft reboot than a remake - mostly the same cast, basically ignores the first one's existence entirely, new director, new tone(it's being made from the beginning to be much more comedic, as opposed to the first film which was darkgrim-grimdark with a side of edgelord that got crudely hacked away at in editing to try for a "quippy" end result after the rest of the DCU shat itself).
This is the new DC boss’s formula from his days at New Line. Good filmmaker, trust the vision, tighter budget, hopefully big profits. Also saw it with Shazam (which actually could have used more investment in advertising but whatevs), and will see it with BoP and Gunn’s new SS.
I think Shazam mostly suffered from the loss of faith created from Justice League and BvS. Aquaman did well, was a ton of fun, but not.... good; at least, not in the way that makes you think everything coming off the line is gold. Shazam deserves a lot more attention than it got, but it doesn't have an obviously great premise and is tied to something still trying to earn back the trust of its audience.
I’m actually amazed by the amount of praise I see on here for Shazam. I like Zach Levy. I like the character. I was bored out of my mind during the movie. My wife begged me to wait til it came out on DVD and to rent it first, and I agreed. Thankfully, I listened to her. About halfway through, I turned to her and asked “are you as bored with this as I am?” The plot was sensible, the characters reasonable, and I like the main actor. I just yawned through it. If watching Joker was like chewing on nails that had been laced with cocaine, watching Shazam was like watching paint dry on a bedroom wall.
Subjectivity is a thing, but I still have trouble understanding it. Perhaps you would have enjoyed it more watching with a crowd who enjoyed the humor?
Me, I found all the actors compelling enough that I was never bored, even when there were no jokes or fights. I was emotionally invested enough for the missing mother subplot to hit me in the feels.
timetowaste85 wrote: I’m actually amazed by the amount of praise I see on here for Shazam. I like Zach Levy. I like the character. I was bored out of my mind during the movie. My wife begged me to wait til it came out on DVD and to rent it first, and I agreed. Thankfully, I listened to her. About halfway through, I turned to her and asked “are you as bored with this as I am?” The plot was sensible, the characters reasonable, and I like the main actor. I just yawned through it. If watching Joker was like chewing on nails that had been laced with cocaine, watching Shazam was like watching paint dry on a bedroom wall.
I haven't seen Shazam (zero interest, honestly), but I feel the exact same way about Aquaman. I have absolutely no idea how that movie broke a billion dollars at the box office. I couldn't even finish it, and yet it's held up as some shining example of the 'new DCU'. I don't even think it was as good as Wonder Woman, and that warranted no more than a solid 7 from me. Warner Bros have poisoned the DC brand so much for me that it's just hard for me to get excited about anything they do.
I liked Aquaman. It was a fun time, and that’s what it needed to be. I mean, he’s king of the Mer-people and he talks to fish.
I got more out of it than I was expecting. The movie really embraced the comic book over the top sea battle. That spectacle alone was worth the price of admission for me. Unleash the Krakken!
And, um, this relates to the Joker movie because, um, it was the total opposite of that. Entertaining in a severely grounded sort of way.
LunarSol wrote: I think Shazam mostly suffered from the loss of faith created from Justice League and BvS. Aquaman did well, was a ton of fun, but not.... good; at least, not in the way that makes you think everything coming off the line is gold. Shazam deserves a lot more attention than it got, but it doesn't have an obviously great premise and is tied to something still trying to earn back the trust of its audience.
I'd say that Shazam has a pretty darn great premise, actually. Lack of familiarity with the character plus the brand issues were certainly factors. Poor performance in Asia also figured into the good not great box office (lack of spectacle and cultural challenges figuring heavily here).
Still, Marvel would have introduced the character in another film, and then probably doubled the box office for the solo film. The MCU coattails effect is strong.
Also...proximity to a certain other superhero movie was a big factor we shouldn't discount. It wasn't just Endgame raking in all the superhero dollars -- it was the way it sucked all the air out of the room. It's odd to me that they didn't explore moving Shazam once they knew they had a highly likeable film on their hands.
Anybody else see that they've already green-lit for a second one? I guess being the most successful comic-book movie ever made (cost to earning ratio) makes it pretty much a given. So long as they don't flub it like Deadpool 2*!
*Deadpool 2 being too good for the source material, they really should have striven for that '5' and not an '11' on the rating-scale. Yes, I actually said that and threw their commercial with Celien Dion back at them.
I was a big supporter of this movie, but never in my wildest dreams did I think it'd hit a billion. And without a release in China! The main thing isn't the money though, but keeping Phoenix on board. It sounds like he had a blast working with the director and on the film, so it's awesome that he's open to it. Still need a script that everyone likes, though.
I think we'll see many more of these lower-budget concept films from DC regardless. Chris McKay (Lego Batman) was attached to a Nightwing project a couple of years back. Seems like that might be a similar fit...?
cuda1179 wrote: I wonder if this confusion is why this movie has had critics call it:
1. Promoting violence
2. White male conservative propaganda.
3. Incel manifesto
4. promoting child abuse.
I believe that anyone who thinks even a single one of these can safely be discounted in all things moving forward.
Disagree in part, I think this film was pretty much dead-on "incel spree killer daydream fantasy". I was not "outraged" by this aspect but it was very clear. Lets look at it: a lonely troubled guy gets constantly his teeth kicked in by society and 'better-offs', then finally flips and fights back, shoots his offenders and starts a social revolution which totally redeems his actions. This is pretty much 100% what most school shooters and guys like Breivik & his copycats dream of. They did not see themselves as horrible murderers. Rather they saw themselves as justified revolutionaires who would start an uprising where 'wolves' rise up against the 'sheeps' and those who ignited the 'revolution' (ie. them) would be hailed as heroes. Climatic scenes of Joker manifest this dream.
This is why I tend to side with the theory that this was not real Joker - that was just psychotic spree killer Arthur Fleck who dreams of becoming Joker. In fact ending of the movie leaves it somewhat ambigious if all, or any, of that really happened or if it was just another one of his fantasies, like his 'girlfriend'.
cuda1179 wrote: I wonder if this confusion is why this movie has had critics call it:
1. Promoting violence
2. White male conservative propaganda.
3. Incel manifesto
4. promoting child abuse.
I believe that anyone who thinks even a single one of these can safely be discounted in all things moving forward.
Disagree in part, I think this film was pretty much dead-on "incel spree killer daydream fantasy". I was not "outraged" by this aspect but it was very clear. Lets look at it: a lonely troubled guy gets constantly his teeth kicked in by society and 'better-offs', then finally flips and fights back, shoots his offenders and starts a social revolution which totally redeems his actions. This is pretty much 100% what most school shooters and guys like Breivik & his copycats dream of. They did not see themselves as horrible murderers. Rather they saw themselves as justified revolutionaires who would start an uprising where 'wolves' rise up against the 'sheeps' and those who ignited the 'revolution' (ie. them) would be hailed as heroes. Climatic scenes of Joker manifest this dream.
This is why I tend to side with the theory that this was not real Joker - that was just psychotic spree killer Arthur Fleck who dreams of becoming Joker. In fact ending of the movie leaves it somewhat ambigious if all, or any, of that really happened or if it was just another one of his fantasies, like his 'girlfriend'.
Frankly, I wish they'd have left the what, three "scenes" with the "girlfriend" out entirely, just so this farcical "it has a lady in it, it must be THE INCEL-BOOGYMAN AT WORK!" would have been even easier to dismiss out of hand
You're just lumping together words that describe people who have nothing whatsoever in common except that they killed a lot of people. Incel killers, ideological neo-Nazi killers, and nihilistic spree killers have about as much in common with each other as they do with combat veteran soldiers(which, before some flag-waving galoot leaps in to defend Milady Thanks For Your Service's honour, is knob-all besides having killed).
Fleck is not motivated by a hatred of women, or a conviction that they "owe" him sex, or a constructed narrative based on wonky evo-psych and imageboard rantings. There's nothing "incel" about it.
The film's through line is a blatantly obvious "you reap what you sow" narrative aimed at the wealthy/small-state ideologues. It doesn't redeem his actions at all, rather it apportions the blame fairly - Fleck isn't a monster, he's a madman, but that only becomes everyone else's problem when the Thomas Waynes of the world get their way. When he got his meds and his gakky low-effort counseling sessions, he was just a weird guy who looks after his mum and wouldn't even blame the kids who beat the gak out of him because he's aware that, in the end, they're stuck in the same garbage situation he is. Even once he loses the meds, his reaction to realising his interactions with the woman down the hall were all delusions isn't to lash out at her or blame her, it's to recoil in shame. It's only when he's in a total downward spiral and Gotham keeps gaking on him over, and over, and over that he loses all semblance of reality and falls into nihilistic violence.
Joker's story isn't about "redeeming" or justifying the Joker's actions, it's about showing that society creates its own villains when it becomes callous and uncaring and miserly.
I really liked the Joker film, I'd actually recently watched The Taxi Driver for the first time before seeing it and the similarities were quite striking.
Only thing I think they could have done better was leave what was fact and fantasy a little bit more ambiguous.
Like the final scene with the lady down the hall.
Like most people, I'd already suspected that his relationship with her was more fantasy than fact. But the film felt it necessary to hit us over the head and say "this is what's going on, stupid" with that scene.
The death of the three bankers as well, how cool would it have if the police had arrested someone else for it and put the evidence on the news?
We would be left wondering if the Joker really was a powerless prole who stood up to 'the man', or if he had just inserted himself into the role of the 'hero' as part of his fantasies.
These are just minor gripes though, overall the best film I've seen at the cinema for a while.
Disagree in part, I think this film was pretty much dead-on "incel spree killer daydream fantasy". I was not "outraged" by this aspect but it was very clear. Lets look at it: a lonely troubled guy gets constantly his teeth kicked in by society and 'better-offs', then finally flips and fights back, shoots his offenders and starts a social revolution which totally redeems his actions. This is pretty much 100% what most school shooters and guys like Breivik & his copycats dream of. They did not see themselves as horrible murderers. Rather they saw themselves as justified revolutionaires who would start an uprising where 'wolves' rise up against the 'sheeps' and those who ignited the 'revolution' (ie. them) would be hailed as heroes. Climatic scenes of Joker manifest this dream.
This is why I tend to side with the theory that this was not real Joker - that was just psychotic spree killer Arthur Fleck who dreams of becoming Joker. In fact ending of the movie leaves it somewhat ambigious if all, or any, of that really happened or if it was just another one of his fantasies, like his 'girlfriend'.
Frankly, I wish they'd have left the what, three "scenes" with the "girlfriend" out entirely, just so this farcical "it has a lady in it, it must be THE INCEL-BOOGYMAN AT WORK!" would have been even easier to dismiss out of hand
You're just lumping together words that describe people who have nothing whatsoever in common except that they killed a lot of people. Incel killers, ideological neo-Nazi killers, and nihilistic spree killers have about as much in common with each other as they do with combat veteran soldiers(which, before some flag-waving galoot leaps in to defend Milady Thanks For Your Service's honour, is knob-all besides having killed).
Fleck is not motivated by a hatred of women, or a conviction that they "owe" him sex, or a constructed narrative based on wonky evo-psych and imageboard rantings. There's nothing "incel" about it.
I'm lumping them together because they do have lot in common, even if only in general sense, detailed motivations vary. These are people who see themselves as righteous and believe that eventually they will be justified. This is much contrast with most serial killers.
I don't see term 'incel' as necessarily hating women (which Fleck doesn't seem to do). Fleck is also hardly a white supremacist as he fantasizes about having a black girlfriend. So anyone who claims that Fleck is a woman-hating white supremacist has not obviously seen the movie. But he does cross a lot of boxes in typical spree killer/"expanded suicide" -categorization.
I'm not really sure why people think it needs to be one or the other.
The film's point to me was "all you need is the right combination of societal error, mental illness, casual cruelty, and self-fulfilling narcissicism. Do you want Joker? Cause that's how you get joker." Yeah, Joker is an incel spree killer daydream fantasy. Yeah the film is about how society reaps what it sows. Those narratives are not exclusive. I think the film works as well as it does is because it manages to weave such a delicate balance in painting the picture of how Joker and people like Joker are made both an an individual and a societal level. You can't separate one from the other and still get the full picture, which is why I think this film can be hard to swallow for a lot of people, because it's pointing the finger at everyone.
Backfire wrote: I don't see term 'incel' as necessarily hating women (which Fleck doesn't seem to do). Fleck is also hardly a white supremacist as he fantasizes about having a black girlfriend.
I think we agree and disagree in part.
I disagree in that I think hating women (or at least a frustration driven by lack of access to sex) is a critical component of being an incel, and that is not present in Fleck. He's clearly sad, lonely, and angry, but his lack of access to physical intimacy doesn't drive his violence (and of course, neither at all does white supremacy, as you say). So I disagree on what you categorized as an incel but agree he isn't one, I think that's obvious to anyone who has seen the movie.
I don't think he falls into a box we have a neat label for. Just because he overlaps some categories of inceldom does not make him an incel. If anything, his rage is fueled by economic austerity than anything else.
The film's through line is a blatantly obvious "you reap what you sow" narrative aimed at the wealthy/small-state ideologues.
...which is exactly how spree killers operate. They transfer responsibility to the society/government/ruling ideology/etc. "You made me do this".
But in this case, there's no need to "transfer" responsibility.
Fleck on meds and in counseling is a reasonably functional person who's no danger to anyone.
Fleck after budget cuts have removed his access to meds and counseling is unstable and incapable of restraining himself from becoming a danger to everybody including himself.
If the small-staters and bootstrappers never agitate to have the budgets cut his meds and counseling never go away, and he never gets put into the position to become Joker. If the city isn't run into the ground so that the Waynes of the world can have that fifteenth gold-plated ivory backscratcher they really really want, there's no crowd to riot in response to Joker's actions. If rich people didn't treat everyone else like garbage because they think they can get away with it, he never would have been put in a position where he would kill people and realise that, sans meds, doing so doesn't bother him. His obvious and serious mental health problems mean it's clearly obvious that he's not culpable for his own actions either legally or ethically.
The society/government/ruling ideology didn't make Fleck do what he did, but they are the reason he did what he did, which is the point of the narrative.
There's also his mother's obvious mental illness and the emotional trauma that wrought on Arthur, and then there's the calousness of Thomas Wayne's reaction (which was in most ways perfectly understandable in a way, but it's also inseparable from Arthur's escalating violence).
Nevermind the obvious flag-waving of how the three donkey-caves on the train were immediately treated as victims because they were young, white, and affluent despite being disgraceful human beings.
There's a lot of things in the movie that contribute to the creation of Joker and I think trying to point to any one thing as the thrust of how it happened is missing the other 95% of the movie.
I just saw it, didn’t even know there was any controversy until after seeing the movie and googling it (I don’t like reading reviews before seeing movies, prefer to read them afterwards to see what people saw that I maybe didn’t).
I thought it was an okay movie, mediocre plot, felt a bit too slow/boring/predictable at times, but really well constructed world, good soundtrack and I thought Phoenix played it brilliantly.
It’s funny, because I didn’t read any of the controversy before seeing the film my interpretation was a comment on poor treatment of mental illness, loneliness, detachment from society and generally crappy society stuff driving someone crazy enough to start executing people. He said in his first meeting with the counsellor that she wasn’t listening to him and how he was better off when he was in the hospital.
But there are a lot of overlapping themes, I think people are trying to hard to say the movie is something when that thing is just a facet of it.
Kroem wrote:The death of the three bankers as well, how cool would it have if the police had arrested someone else for it and put the evidence on the news?
We would be left wondering if the Joker really was a powerless prole who stood up to 'the man', or if he had just inserted himself into the role of the 'hero' as part of his fantasies.
I love this idea to peices, would have been great.
Backfire wrote:
I'm lumping them together because they do have lot in common, even if only in general sense, detailed motivations vary. These are people who see themselves as righteous and believe that eventually they will be justified. This is much contrast with most serial killers.
I don't see term 'incel' as necessarily hating women (which Fleck doesn't seem to do). Fleck is also hardly a white supremacist as he fantasizes about having a black girlfriend. So anyone who claims that Fleck is a woman-hating white supremacist has not obviously seen the movie. But he does cross a lot of boxes in typical spree killer/"expanded suicide" -categorization.
...which is exactly how spree killers operate. They transfer responsibility to the society/government/ruling ideology/etc. "You made me do this".
I think that a critical point, however, is that Joker doesn't have any ideology. Yeah, he sparks a movement, but he never sets out to do so. He's carrying a gun because he's afrai of being assaulted, gets assaulted, panics and shoots the guys doing it. It wasn't pre-meditated, much less ideological.
For most of the film, Fleck seems to barely have the faculties to comprehend the political fallout he's caused. He's inarticulate, scared, and increasingly inwardly-focused, as his mental health deteriorates. It's really not until the end of the movie, when he fully embraces the Joker persona and goes on television that he becomes at all outwardly political, and shifts his focus beyond himself and his domestic/financial/psychological troubles. By that point, the 'movement' is fully formed, independent of anything he may or may not believe. We're subjected to Fleck watching television far more than we are him considering the body politic. Just as he's a victim of familial and financial circumstance, he's a victim of being adopted by people railing against capitalism. Certainly, he has reason to rail, too, but his position is thrust apon him by a mass he has no control over, something I think was highlighted as his body is hauled out of that police car in the final scene, and he performs to a horde of out-of-focus anonymous rioters.
Most shooters etc. do their disgusting stuff for ideological reasons, in which they convince themselves of the infallable virtue of themselves and their ideals, before deliberately heading out intending to murder as a part of this.
I think in Joker, it's less a case of "you made me do this" as it is, "This is a series of things that just sort of happened to me". Ledger's Joker was witty, chaotic, and deviously intelligent. Arthur Fleck isn't inspirational, he's just a victim.
I think there was a great deal of media pearl-clutching about the content of this film, and while I feel like it's probably worth acknowledging a great deal of Fleck's frustrations are fronted by womenm and are catalysts for his more destructive episodes (though, again, as he's never really presented as anything other than pityable, it's hard to say this episodic violence is golrified at all), it was most likely (worked in the shady recesses of online media for a bit) some editor noticed a spike of interest in superhero gubbins after the whole Avengers thing, and decided to have people pump out a few hype/think/hysteria peices in the run up. Not all of them miss the mark, but a great deal are lacking any real substance.
There is a theory about him not being freed after his arrest, that this is actually just another part of his imagination, like his girlfriend. That his need for validation and recognition projects the idea of him being freed by a cheering mob while in reality he is just taken away by those cops and put into an institution. This is why he survives supposed internal injury that makes him cough up quite a bit of blood and leaves two cops dead. The reason why he seems free one moment but locked up the very next scene.
Pretty neat theory to me, even though it is unlikely to be true.
My theory is that none of the movie is real. Arthur is no more the Joker than I am, he is imprinting it all in his own imagination.
Spoiler:
There is a quick cut early int he movie of him in a straight jacket, hitting the door to his cell. This is the true "story" of Arthur Fleck. The rest is all made up. He is not the Joker at all.
Just saw this movie and I liked it a lot but wouldn't recommend it as a date movie for obvious reasons, not for the faint of heart and not for small children or people with a weak physical state. This movie is gonna be rough and hard so bite your lip and get ready to take it long and hard.
So what I took away. Most of the people Arthur encountered are either bad, don't give a crap or are focused on their own troubles too much to understand his.
My sympathy went completely away around the part where he suffocates his mother to death. Did she have a fling with Thomas Wayne? The papers went by quickly but it looks like it. Is he Mr. Wayne's illegitimate son? I don't know honestly. Considering how he acts to Mr. Wayne's bodyguard I get that he treated him poorly but at the same time he gives zero sympathy to Arthur. The end where he gets randomly killed for being an elite by a copycat killer that idolized the joker seems disturbing but legit. While Mr. Wayne didn't deserve to die I personally think he deserved a few punches to the face given how he treated Arthur esp. how he punched him in the first place when Arthur was just going through stress.
My thoughts on the mental health issues in the movie is that he laughs from being nervous like how some people smile when they're nervous and people think said people are laughing at them. It's a misunderstanding that happens with people with mental disorders that I've recognized. People treat you like crap until they know you have a disorder because they think you're crazy. I'd say oddly though most people that are seen as crazy have had a disorder or went through traumatic circumstances. The part where the woman barely listens to him that works for him to provide mental help is sorta similar to real life. Some care, many don't, many don't know how to help and some people actually treat people with disorders like children unable to make their own decisions not realizing these people have their own dreams and sometimes just want a fulfilling average and normal life (not even to fulfill their dreams). In my experience sometimes the people try to help but they don't know the best way how to and admittedly a lot of the people with disorders don't try to fix things they probably could (not shown in the movie).
I fully understand why he entered the woman's apartment closer to the end. He was looking for comfort in the only place he had it left. The woman he cared about cared about him somewhat but in honesty I think a dude kissing someone so early on to knowing them is weird and wouldn't fly off so well usually. As far as the apartment thing goes it fully makes sense.
The crazy part is the movie in some ways feels like it's against the Elite and Wealthy of society. The interesting part is the comedian that teased him didn't seem like a bad guy. The fight that broke out on the train between the joker rioters and the 2 cops also seemed legit. A scuffle starts, the situation gets heated and accidentally someone gets killed and next thing you know all hell breaks loose on the train. The rioters seem like what we know of em from news sources maybe.
Interesting how the news in the movie only seemed to care about the elites dying rather than the fact they beat up people. Is that legit? Sometimes and they didn't right off deserve to die. It was also a pile of bad things coming together. You have a guy with mental disorders off his meds with a gun he shouldn't have considering all of those things and the fact he's jumpy, scared and going through a lot of stress and a bunch of rich A-holes that are beating him up and pushing him into a corner. Something's gonna give at some point.
-------------
So my end thoughts on this movie?
We should all treat each other a little better and maybe try to get to know someone a bit better to know why they're acting the way they act. If people just had more compassion none of this would've happened probably and yes we should take care of people with mental disorders. Sadly I've heard of the homeless having mental disorders as well and often they are left behind. Speaking of I used to know a schizophrenic dude that was mentally slowed and always drank and used to end up homeless because of his situation and depression. Once again though it needs someone that tries to fix themselves up as well.
This is also hard to watch. The depressing nature of the film, the constant downward spiral of Arthur's life and the psychotic moments when he's unable to receive medication anymore feel often real and it's just a trainwreck watching it all fall apart. Like I mentioned with the trainwreck you wanted to turn away but you couldn't stop watching. I'll admit some of it was hard to stay in the theater for and i'm not easily offended. It just often feels too real. The part where he kills his mom feels like a stretch given what happened though.
I watched the Joker yesterday and Phoenix did a great job by portraying a mentally disturbed character. One of the compelling things of the movie was that it didn't come off as a cartoon performed by actual people.
I sincerely hope that there will be a sequel with Phoenix on board. Great actor for sure.
Disciple of Fate wrote: There is a theory about him not being freed after his arrest, that this is actually just another part of his imagination, like his girlfriend. That his need for validation and recognition projects the idea of him being freed by a cheering mob while in reality he is just taken away by those cops and put into an institution. This is why he survives supposed internal injury that makes him cough up quite a bit of blood and leaves two cops dead. The reason why he seems free one moment but locked up the very next scene.
Pretty neat theory to me, even though it is unlikely to be true.
Plausible. I like this theory, it fits in perfectly with what we saw and him being an unreliable narrator.
So just saw it! Haven't read any posts in this thread so I can give an untainted reaction.
Wow, Phoenix was incredible. The movie was a long slow burn to the end but it paid off. Very dark and very believable. The laugh didn't really turn me on like Jack or Ledger. But I do like how they explained the laugh. I also feel like they tied it into the overall Batman lore well. I think it set up Joker as a persona at the end that could be taken on by anyone. Maybe that's just me.
I liked it. Wouldn't really re-watch it but it was really good once. I think it was kind of a artsy take on a comic film and a good one-off. Not sure I want more comic characters done like this. It was a very long and slow build up.
Yeah I think it was definitely set so that someone else could take up the joker mantle, in order to allow for the other jokers and the time line Canon.
Jack vehicles were just painted bright colours and he on several occassion bemoaned that Batman had the "best toys" Otherwise it was just carnival balloons and "that" gun.
(pity the following films declined in quality...)
The main thing isn't the money though, but keeping Phoenix on board. It sounds like he had a blast working with the director and on the film, so it's awesome that he's open to it. Still need a script that everyone likes, though.
