Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 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.

When did I ever say people are watching this to see batman? The rest of what you say is legit on topic of what I said though.

I was more talking about this showing bruce wayne. At most we'd probably get the reasons for bruce becoming batman.

One page ago, but never mind.

I’m just not excited for another depressing look at blossoming insanity.

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

 Ouze wrote:

 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?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49927216

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?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49927216

Yup, that's a pretty fair review, even though I think his quibbles are really only nit-picks.

Great film.

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.

 Formosa wrote:
"normie"

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…

Well that was phenomenal.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
"normie"

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.

I do think he is a closet trekky though haha

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!

So it's more in the vein of Taxi Driver?

Taxi Driver meets King of Comedy.

 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

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Taxi Driver meets King of Comedy.

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

-

Terrible Joker origin movie.

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


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

eg https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/joker-convicted-pedophile-gary-glitter-set-to-earn-big-royalties.html

(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