JOKER: THE MOVIE spoilers thread (anything goes) 1 1

[Hollywood1892]

7 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

If the Batman doesn't exist, then the host cannot be mocking the Batman.

Murder is not vigilantism.

This 3rd paragraph makes literally no sense. Those 3 Wayne Enterprise employees have nothing to do with Bruce Wayne. There is no correlation. They're the tools that represent the disparity between empathy of the upper and lower classes. Nothing more.

 

The host is not mocking Batman!

The writers are!

Your right, Murder is not vigilantism, than how come the Punisher is considered a good guy? Deadpool, Batman?

There are certain acts of violence that will trigger empathy in the human psyche, like hurting pedophiles, defending your family ect ect or even so far as Robin Hood, people loved the story of Robin Hood.

I personally didn't loathe the Joker up until the scene with the girl in the apartment, and they didn't even show what happened to her.

Granted what happened on the subway was tragic, the circumstances are at least mitigating. There is a divide between harming the innocent and harming the guilty, and arguments too which are which are endless.

And the tools that represent disparity between the upper and lower classes are the same tools that provoke confrontation between the two classes, which are a direct correlation to Bruce Wayne, who is the Jokers greatest adversary.

The Joker always goes after Bruce Wayne or those closest to him, so how can you write a story about one of the greatest villains in all of comic books and not at least minutely mention his greatest antagonist?

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

The host is not mocking Batman!

The writers are!

Your right, Murder is not vigilantism, than how come the Punisher is considered a good guy? Deadpool, Batman?

There are certain acts of violence that will trigger empathy in the human psyche, like hurting pedophiles, defending your family ect ect or even so far as Robin Hood, people loved the story of Robin Hood.

I personally didn't loathe the Joker up until the scene with the girl in the apartment, and they didn't even show what happened to her.

Granted what happened on the subway was tragic, the circumstances are at least mitigating. There is a divide between harming the innocent and harming the guilty, and arguments too which are which are endless.

And the tools that represent disparity between the upper and lower classes are the same tools that provoke confrontation between the two classes, which are a direct correlation to Bruce Wayne, who is the Jokers greatest adversary.

The Joker always goes after Bruce Wayne or those closest to him, so how can you write a story about one of the greatest villains in all of comic books and not at least minutely mention his greatest antagonist?

That makes no sense in the context of this movie.

Batman also doesn't murder outside of TDKR. That's why TDKR helped revolutionize comics. Punisher is an anti-hero. So is Deadpool. They have "heroic" motives, though. Joker doesn't.

Again - Joker is a straight-up villain. There are no "mitigating circumstances" leading to him murdering 3 people. You can brandish a gun to establish self-defense. This is why Joker is a villain.

There is literally no correlation to Bruce Wayne. Fact: Bruce Wayne grows up with empathy for the lower-class. Literally. Nothing. To. Do. With. Bruce. Wayne.

Simple - you don't need to portray Bruce Wayne in a film in which he does nothing. His inclusion was pointless and I rest my case.

[Darkga]

Unpopular opinion: Thomas Wayne WAS actually JOKER's father.

1. Joker obviously inherited his psychosis from his mother (even though he was abused too), so he is not adopted.
2. Why would a single woman adopt a child anyway.
3. The picture that said "I love your smile. - TW"
4. Powerful rich men have affairs all the time with "the help", and they will do anything to cover it up (even have stories made up). They are powerful enough to be believed over the women.
5. The "handicap" park of the "parking" joke. Subtle hint.

I think TW being the daddy add so much to this Joker's universe. Think about how cool it would be that Joker is Batman's brother and Alfred knows the truth, but never tells Bruce. Of course Joker would never know that Batman is Bruce either. A perfect reason for them to be enemies, but they never even know it, and they are enemies for other reasons instead!

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, Darkga said:

Unpopular opinion: Thomas Wayne WAS actually JOKER's father.

1. Joker obviously inherited his psychosis from his mother (even though he was abused too), so he is not adopted.
2. Why would a single woman adopt a child anyway.
3. The picture that said "I love your smile. - TW"
4. Powerful rich men have affairs all the time with "the help", and they will do anything to cover it up (even have stories made up). They are powerful enough to be believed over the women.
5. The "handicap" park of the "parking" joke. Subtle hint.

I think TW being the daddy add so much to this Joker's universe. Think about how cool it would be that Joker is Batman's brother and Alfred knows the truth, but never tells Bruce. Of course Joker would never know that Batman is Bruce either. A perfect reason for them to be enemies, but they never even know it, and they are enemies for other reasons instead!

I don't think any of this holds water:

1. Arthur suffers from more than delusions. Just because 2 people have delusions in common does not make them related.
2. Who's to say she was single when he was adopted?
3. Likely manufactured by Fleck's delusion.
4. This doesn't matter.
5. What?

Joker being related to Wayne makes his character much less interesting. Not everything/everyone has to be relative in stories. Joker's status as an independent villain makes him more compelling than Al Ghul being his martial arts master, or Bane being what's left of that, or Riddler being an ex-employee, etc etc etc.

[RonS2112]

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 12:02 PM, valiantman said:

I'll start (IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THIS TOPIC IS FOR SPOILERS BUT SOME PEOPLE FIND A WAY TO WHINE ANYWAY)... 

The bloody shoes at the end of the movie imply he killed the doctor, but there's no blood anywhere else (unlike when he killed that guy in his apartment), so are we supposed to assume the final scene is a fantasy?

My take was that EVERYTHING ELSE was a fantasy and that the final scene was him finally taking steps to realize that fantasy.  But the folks I saw the film with didn't all agree with me....

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

9 minutes ago, RonS2112 said:

My take was that EVERYTHING ELSE was a fantasy and that the final scene was him finally taking steps to realize that fantasy.  But the folks I saw the film with didn't all agree with me....

Are you assuming that the entire movie was delusion?

If so - I don't see how that makes sense.

[Darkga]

56 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

I don't think any of this holds water:

1. Arthur suffers from more than delusions. Just because 2 people have delusions in common does not make them related.
2. Who's to say she was single when he was adopted?
3. Likely manufactured by Fleck's delusion.
4. This doesn't matter.
5. What?

Joker being related to Wayne makes his character much less interesting. Not everything/everyone has to be relative in stories. Joker's status as an independent villain makes him more compelling than Al Ghul being his martial arts master, or Bane being what's left of that, or Riddler being an ex-employee, etc etc etc.

1. But what are the chances of his "adoptive" mother suffering from such a similar condition without heredity? It's too much of a coincidence in my opinion.
2. There is was no mention either way, but it's a decent assumption.
3. I think Penny was delusional about Thomas really loving her, but that the sexual part of the relationship was real. Also he had already killed his mother when he balled up that picture. He did not believe Thomas was his dad anymore, but the note on the picture was for us the audience.
4. It does matter because it fits the rich vs poor narrative of the movie.
5. Listen the joke the comedian that goes on before Authur says about men, sex, and parking. "Handicap? I hope nobody sees this." I think it's a really subtle hint about Thomas hooking up with Penny.

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, Darkga said:

1. But what are the chances of his "adoptive" mother suffering from such a similar condition without heredity? It's too much of a coincidence in my opinion.
2. There is was no mention either way, but it's a decent assumption.
3. I think Penny was delusional about Thomas really loving her, but that the sexual part of the relationship was real. Also he had already killed his mother when he balled up that picture. He did not believe Thomas was his dad anymore, but the note on the picture was for us the audience.
4. It does matter because it fits the rich vs poor narrative of the movie.
5. Listen the joke the comedian that goes on before Authur says about men, sex, and parking. "Handicap? I hope nobody sees this." I think it's a really subtle hint about Thomas hooking up with Penny.

1. Delusion is quite common. Arthur suffers from worse conditions that he didn't inherit from her and couldn't have inherited from Wayne. The movie plays out that he's unrelated to them. We kinda need to take that at face value otherwise we are suffering from delusion, too...
2. You know what they say about assumptions?
3. It's likely that Penny wrote it based on her own delusions.

The other 2 are some of the biggest reaches I've ever read. People are reading in between lines when there's nothing but paper there. The movie has transparent messages.

[Bosco685]

 

[valiantman]

5 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Things I didn't like:

• The Waynes. Joker isn't supposed to be 30 years older than Batman.

Arthur was 30, Bruce was 10.  That's 20 years of difference.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, valiantman said:

Arthur was 30, Bruce was 10.  That's 20 years of difference.

He looks younger than 10. Regardless, a 45+ year-old Joker isn't gonna cause a 20-25 year-old Batman many problems...

I didn't care for any of the Wayne family connection at all. Wayne Enterprises, employees? Fine. Wayne running for Mayor? Fine. Interacting with Fleck? Accomplished nothing.

[Darkga]

8 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

1. Delusion is quite common. Arthur suffers from worse conditions that he didn't inherit from her and couldn't have inherited from Wayne. The movie plays out that he's unrelated to them. We kinda need to take that at face value otherwise we are suffering from delusion, too...
2. You know what they say about assumptions?
3. It's likely that Penny wrote it based on her own delusions.

The other 2 are some of the biggest reaches I've ever read. People are reading in between lines when there's nothing but paper there. The movie has transparent messages.

I think the director put in some elements to make us look beyond the surface though. For instance there are two sides on the adoption issue:

1. Thomas'/Alfred's accounts and the adoption paperwork
2. Penny's account and the picture

One comes from a place of power, money, and authority. The other comes from a marginalized woman. Our society has a natural inclination to believe the former, but that is being challenged in our present day. I think it is yet another part of the class warfare sub-theme of the movie.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Darkga

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Darkga said:

I think the director put in some elements to make us look beyond the surface though. For instance there are two sides on the adoption issue:

1. Thomas'/Alfred's accounts and the adoption paperwork
2. Penny's account and the picture

One comes from a place of power, money, and authority. The other comes from a marginalized woman. Our society has a natural inclination to believe the former, but that is being challenged in our present day. I think it is yet another part of the class warfare sub-theme of the movie.

And only 1 of those individuals is delusional. So...?

[faster friends]

3 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

He looks younger than 10. Regardless, a 45+ year-old Joker isn't gonna cause a 20-25 year-old Batman many problems...

I didn't care for any of the Wayne family connection at all. Wayne Enterprises, employees? Fine. Wayne running for Mayor? Fine. Interacting with Fleck? Accomplished nothing.

45 is not that old. Even in my 20's I wouldnt mess with The Rock or Batista now in their late 40's.

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, faster friends said:

45 is not that old. Even in my 20's I wouldnt mess with The Rock or Batista now in their late 40's.

Pfffffffffft.

Something only an old person would say.

[Darkga]

1 minute ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

And only 1 of those individuals is delusional. So...?

A broken clock is right twice a day too... What if a person who is locked up in a mental institution reports they are being abused by the guards? Should they never be believed because they are already crazy?

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Darkga said:

A broken clock is right twice a day too... What if a person who is locked up in a mental institution reports they are being abused by the guards? Should they never be believed because they are already crazy?

Well, Arthur didn't take his mom's word at face value. He confronted Wayne and there was no indication that they're related. No part of their interaction appeared to corroborate what she said. He investigated, and the story tells us that he's not Wayne's son.

And then there's the adoption papers. The story tells us that she's delusional. She lied to herself and to her adopted son. Arthur lied to himself, too.

[RonS2112]

4 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Um... What...? If you take Bruce Wayne out of the movie, nothing changes... So, there literally does not "have to be a mention of him".

The lie of Thomas Wayne being his father doesn't need to exist. At all. His adoption is what threw him over another edge. She could've lied about anyone being his father. The Waynes ultimately have no place in the movie other than an "ah, I get this reference, he's part of the Batman universe!"

The second bold statement is wrong on every level. You can reference those losers working for Wayne without having the Waynes in the movie. It would change nothing.

He did not kill his mother because of Thomas Wayne.

People don't want a Lex Luthor origin story. See: Batman v Superman outrage. Casual fans want the same old BS. Superman origin? "Nope, Man of Steel sucked!" Nobody has patience or an open mind anymore.

I think there's more to it than that.  The whole subtext of the film is that Arthur (and by extension, his mother) has fallen through the cracks of society.  The notion of Thomas Wayne deliberately scheming to keep Arthur's mother from letting the world know that she has borne Thomas Wayne's son reinforces the denial of Arthur being "let in" to a normal life.  This is reinforced by the employees of Wayne Enterprises literally kicking the out of him at the mere sight of him.

Take away Thomas Wayne and that entire subtext is lost.

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, RonS2112 said:

I think there's more to it than that.  The whole subtext of the film is that Arthur (and by extension, his mother) has fallen through the cracks of society.  The notion of Thomas Wayne deliberately scheming to keep Arthur's mother from letting the world know that she has borne Thomas Wayne's son reinforces the denial of Arthur being "let in" to a normal life.  This is reinforced by the employees of Wayne Enterprises literally kicking the out of him at the mere sight of him.

Take away Thomas Wayne and that entire subtext is lost.

Thomas Wayne being replaced by any schmo doesn't change anything. The story would be the same.

Delusional man. Delusional adopted mother. Deluded into thinking a man is his father. Etc. Wayne being that man isn't important. The story would've been better had he not been that man IMO. Tried too hard to make a Batman connection.

[RonS2112]

42 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Are you assuming that the entire movie was delusion?

If so - I don't see how that makes sense.

Short answer, yes.  Longer answer provide here by CinemaBlend in a better way than I could write it up:

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2481483/joker-ending-explained-what-really-happened

Note the link to a Joaquin Phoenix interview where he basically hints at the same thing.  He said he deliberately did not answer the question as to what's real and what isn't.

Edited October 7, 2019 by RonS2112