fantastic_four

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    42,108
  • Joined

3 Followers

About fantastic_four

  • Boards Title
    Just far far too long without a custom title. Really. Seriously
  • Birthday 03/03/1971

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

1,885 profile views
  1. So I guess there are a few ways to take Todd Phillips's comments about the final scene of the film: You could discount his comments and take the film at face value. Given that it was demonstrated several times that on-screen events were told from his perspective and not true such as his relationship with Zazie Beetz or that scene where Robert DeNiro's character brought him up on stage from the audience, this likely isn't the way to think of the film. You could take his comments to mean that EVERYTHING in the film was a product of the Joker's imagination. That's the kind of film that pisses everyone off, however, so I doubt that this is it. You could take his comments to mean that most things in the film happened somewhat like they're shown on-screen, but that the Joker has warped most or all of them to paint his past in some semi-random way that amuses him. If it's the third possibility I'm not sure there's much value in talking about how likely it is that his mother could have adopted him, whether or not Thomas Wayne is his father, or anything else, really, because we can't take anything the film showed at face value. Maybe he never did murder that clown colleague or the talk show host, or maybe he never saw Bruce Wayne as a pre-teen and just completely inserted that memory into his tale of himself, who knows. Phillips specifically referred to these panels from Moore's "Killing Joke" in that interview, so this is probably the way to interpret the film:
  2. Fleck is the protagonist of the film. Protagonists don't have to be heros, just the central character. Merriam-Webster is the oldest and most widely-accepted dictionary, and it doesn't use heroism as a part of any of its connotations of the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protagonist He's certainly not heroic, but a fringe of people will look at him that way. Many mass killers consider previous mass killers heroes. I find it difficult to imagine anyone thinking of him as anything approaching heroic; he seemed mostly pathetic to me. But I'm sure a small minority will find him appealing. Ledger's Joker probably has a wider appeal as a hero since he's a far more polished and capable version of the character than Phoenix's Joker is.
  3. What? That's just him giving his hypothesis. By the way...my "what" above wasn't meant pejoratively, it was meant specifically as a question. As in "what are you amazed at," not as in "PREPOSTEROUS!" Just a question mark at the end with no implied exclamation points to go along with it.
  4. Argh...maybe so, good point. So was the ENTIRE movie a back story that he has manufactured for himself?
  5. I'm a huge fan of Stan, but an action figure of him seems weird. He'd make a good random person in a display for heroes to save, I suppose, which is the same way he was often used during his dozens of film cameos.
  6. WOW!!!!! What? That's just him giving his hypothesis. It's not him confirming that's the way the screenwriters intended it to be. It seems clear their intent was to make it open-ended for viewers to decide for themselves. I have no opinion myself, it could have been either way, but I've never seen Thomas Wayne depicted as such a villain before, so I'm assuming he's not lying, didn't cover anything up, and isn't Fleck's father until they show more information to contradict that.
  7. Not all psychological disorders are genetic. The entire idea they were going for seems to be that Joker is a product of one of the most awful possible environments to raise a kid in. Something like the one Francis Dolarhyde was raised in during Thomas Harris's book or the movie for "Red Dragon."
  8. "It was all just a dream!" movies are a huge stereotype for lazy screenwriting that is infamous in Hollywood. I doubt that Phillips is unfamiliar with that stereotype, so I doubt he would've ever wanted to base a film on that idea.
  9. Completely moral-less has no long game which spares the innocent. Yes, but he's not fully the Joker at this point. He's still transitioning from his normal life, so his compassion for someone who helped him makes sense. He just probably won't even have the chance to form those types of relationships from now on.
  10. Maybe, not sure yet. But for now I still rank Dark Knight Rises higher than this one. I may decide differently later. I did like Joker better than all the others since 2008 though including Wonder Woman. I enjoyed Man of Steel more, but that was before Dark Knight. But that's a personal preference/bias, Joker was a better film than Man of Steel from an objective perspective.
  11. I heard some laughs in my theater and while I wasn't sure what motivated them, I found the scene absurd so I assumed they did too. Two hours of watching him build up into a killer and how he's just a total loon now, eh, whacking everyone around him on a whim?
  12. They left that open, but the film implied strongly that's not the case. Or I suppose you can assume Thomas Wayne really is a monster and was lying. If so, that's the most unsympathetic version of Batman's dad I've ever seen.
  13. I'm more likely to enjoy a sequel than this film, so I hope they do it. In my mind I'm envisioning something with Batman that works well in a similar way that Dark Knight did, but I don't particularly trust Phillips to do that well so meh, I sorta hope that doesn't happen. Phoenix is 44...did they ever establish how old Arthur Fleck was in the film? Bruce looked to be about 10, so what's the age difference between them? 35 years? Nicholson is only 14 years older than Michael Keaton, and Caesar Romero was 21 years older than Adam West. If they do Joaquin and a 10-year old Bruce 10 to 20 years in the future that's the biggest age gap between the characters yet on screen, probably also in the comics.