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

[fantastic_four]

On 10/7/2019 at 2:35 PM, Hollywood1892 said:

On 10/7/2019 at 1:47 PM, Bosco685 said:

Joker Star Addresses if SPOILER Is Really Arthur's Father

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.

[RonS2112]

12 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

"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.

I suggest you not read any of the interviews he's currently taking on the movie's end, then.........

[Martin Sinescu]

6 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

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.

Even as just straight Joker, one of the (dare I say) "endearing" things about the character is his unpredictability and the way he can toy with the "will I kill you? will I be nice to you?" tension, so I think that aspect was perfectly on-target.

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

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.

Maybe the details are getting lost here what Cullen hints was the backstory shared with him by Todd Phillips. Though the final answer is left open-ended to keep people guessing.

Quote

Now Thomas Wayne actor Brett Cullen has opened up about his role in Joker during an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, revealing some new details about some of the mysteries surrounding the film as he himself understood them.

 

"The backstory was that Arthur’s mother had worked for Thomas in his home, and she was a beautiful woman who Thomas was attracted to and it led to a physical relationship," Cullen explained about his conversations with director Todd Phillips. "Later in life, she’s in and out of mental institutions. And in my mind, Thomas Wayne put her there."

 

So does that mean that Thomas is Arthur's father, and that the Joker and the future Batman are actually brothers in this timeline? Well, not exactly, but it's great motivation for Arthur in his proposed rise as a Gotham City crime lord.

 

"The idea that the Joker is an illegitimate child that didn’t get anything from the Wayne family is a very compelling motivation for his character’s hatred," Cullen said. " This movie makes you feel for Arthur, when you see him struggling with his mother."

That's a lot to dismiss with a 'What' when the actor seems to be repeating what was shared with him versus "Well, I assumed that was my motivation'.

[jsilverjanet]

Has Nolan commented on the film or Phoenix performance 

i plan to see the movie again 

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

Has Nolan commented on the film or Phoenix performance 

i plan to see the movie again 

I was wondering that myself.

A number of celebrities have posted very positive reviews online. But nothing from Nolan yet. That would be interesting.

[zhamlau]

7 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

"Things like that weren't typical so it definitely didn't happen" is not a solid argument, my friend.

The movie suggest that Wayne is not his father more than anything else.

The odds that a mentally unstable 20 year old single low income woman with apparently no external family to help support her, would be allowed to adopt a child in the 1940s would be exceptionally low...like approaching zero type low.

Most social services and church organizations back then actively worked to encourage young single women like Penny to give up their children for the welfare of both mother and child...why Than would they let this poor mentally unstable 20ish single woman then come around to adopt one back?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Scoop_Era

 

I mean honestly this is all just speculation of an unknown based on a work of fiction that could go either way if there is a sequel. But if this occurred in the real world and she lived in say NYC 1948 not Gotham 1948, she just would not have been allowed to adopt the child on her own. 
 

Edited October 9, 2019 by zhamlau

[WeR138]

18 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

The odds that a mentally unstable 20 year old single low income woman with apparently no external family to help support her, would be allowed to adopt a child in the 1940s would be exceptionally low...like approaching zero type low.

Most social services and church organizations back then actively worked to encourage young single women like Penny to give up their children for the welfare of both mother and child...why Than would they let this poor mentally unstable 20ish single woman then come around to adopt one back?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Scoop_Era

 

I mean honestly this is all just speculation of an unknown based on a work of fiction that could go either way if there is a sequel. But if this occurred in the real world and she lived in say NYC 1948 not Gotham 1948, she just would not have been allowed to adopt the child on her own. 
 

I've only seen it once, but this seemed way out of place when it was disclosed. Like, jarringly unbelievable out of place.

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

 

[Artboy99]

5 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

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.

It also has to be said that Thomas Wayne is portrayed as a villain because that is how Arthur sees Thomas in his mind: just like his relationship with the girl down the hall. Not reality but what he makes it.

[newshane]

Saw it today. Brilliant performance by Phoenix. 

[newshane]

On 10/4/2019 at 1:39 PM, comicginger1789 said:

Two questions:

1) As a comic fan, will I enjoy this movie? I love 40's-50's era Joker and 80's era Joker. I like him crazy but intelligent. For me, his actions always had purpose, even if the actions and plans to achieve his purpose were off the wall

2) Is this the best DC related film (in your opinion) since the Dark Knight film?

Answers to these questions will sway me to take it all in for myself. Otherwise, it will simmer on the backburner like countless other films and maybe someday I will watch it. 

1. If you are expecting another "comic" movie, you will be disappointed. The film is a study of insanity. You will definitely get crazy, but I'm not sure if you'll be pleased with his "purpose". 

2. By far this is the best DC related film since the Dark Knight. The acting is spectacular. 

[newshane]

On 10/4/2019 at 11:24 AM, Hollywood1892 said:

That aspect of his psychology disappointed me...it showed insecurity and weakness, something you didnt get with Heaths joker or even Jared's and definitely not with Jack's, it isnt the marking of a supervillain.

 

I think we are just seeing the beginning...the road that led to his snap. 

Obviously, there is a lot of room for him to develop into something more...self-assured. 

[jsilverjanet]

I think the idea that he’s not the joker or that it’s all in his mind Makes the movie seem pointless 

Todd is thinking too hard 

[jsilverjanet]

That dance scene in the stairs maybe one of my favorite scenes across all movies 

[fantastic_four]

11 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

It also has to be said that Thomas Wayne is portrayed as a villain because that is how Arthur sees Thomas in his mind: just like his relationship with the girl down the hall. Not reality but what he makes it.

Argh...maybe so, good point.  So was the ENTIRE movie a back story that he has manufactured for himself?  

[fantastic_four]

17 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

On 10/7/2019 at 2:35 PM, Hollywood1892 said:

WOW!!!!!

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.

[theCapraAegagrus]

13 hours ago, zhamlau said:

The odds that a mentally unstable 20 year old single low income woman with apparently no external family to help support her, would be allowed to adopt a child in the 1940s would be exceptionally low...like approaching zero type low.

Most social services and church organizations back then actively worked to encourage young single women like Penny to give up their children for the welfare of both mother and child...why Than would they let this poor mentally unstable 20ish single woman then come around to adopt one back?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Scoop_Era

 

I mean honestly this is all just speculation of an unknown based on a work of fiction that could go either way if there is a sequel. But if this occurred in the real world and she lived in say NYC 1948 not Gotham 1948, she just would not have been allowed to adopt the child on her own.

She was apparently stable when working for the Waynes - which is when she adopted. She worked for one of the wealthiest families in Gotham/Fake America... And it's unthinkable to you that she could have adopted if she wanted to?

Okay.

[Hollywood1892]

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

Argh...maybe so, good point.  So was the ENTIRE movie a back story that he has manufactured for himself?  

I hope not.

What a waste of $20.00