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

[Hollywood1892]

16 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I'm only vaguely aware of Batman who Laughs, and I'm an active comic guy, so no, there's no way he'll trump Joker in anything, if you're asking about overall (general) recognition across Batman mythology. Harley Quinn is still a minor Batman-adjacent character (or completely unknown) to the general public.

Totally agree about Harley Quinn

Been around for a long time and only made famous by movies...

BWL has only been around for 2 years...

I'm only asking because he possesses Batmans intellect and methodology while Jokers immorality 

[bentbryan]

11 hours ago, Xenosmilus said:

Maybe but if true wouldn't he have kill the little guy (I forget his name) too to be completely moral less? 

Gary (had to look it up on IMDb). The one part where I heard audible laughs was when Gary goes to leave and can’t reach the door lock 

[bentbryan]

The score was perfectly haunting alongside Arthur’s hopeless existence. 

[Bosco685]

7 hours ago, bentbryan said:

Gary (had to look it up on IMDb). The one part where I heard audible laughs was when Gary goes to leave and can’t reach the door lock 

That was when my theater laughed.

Until Phoenix got up, opened the door for him, and then closed it on him. Then you heard 'OH NO!' It looked like he was going to kill him. But of course he let him go, with a kiss on the head.

[Bosco685]

This scene...

...that blew me away. When Todd Phillips said it was a slow burn with the payoff in the end, he wasn't kidding.

[Hollywood1892]

3 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

This scene...

...that blew me away. When Todd Phillips said it was a slow burn with the payoff in the end, he wasn't kidding.

The dance before the chase too...totally

[Martin Sinescu]

FINALLY a movie that got DC Noir right!

I loved it..... but not in the way I love something like the feel-good Marvel movies or even Dark Knight. This was pretty much not a "comic book" movie. Taking Joker, one of the most instantly-recognizable villains in our modern culture, down to "street level"  and using him as a vehicle to expose painful, traumatic social issues was gutsy, but it freaking worked. This movie was.... uncomfortable.... like Cuckoo's Nest or Taxi Driver. There was very little in it that was pretty and warm; it felt like an aspect of real life for millions of people.  As a Batfan, I thought this was the best, most believable, and easily the most realistic, portrayal of the character (never saw SS, but that's a chapter I'm happy to leave out), while still continuing the natural progression built up by the previous interpreters: Romero - Nicholson - Hamill - Ledger.  It was a truly powerful, vulnerable and complex performance from Phoenix -- that guy's depth is phenomenal. One of my favorite scenes from Gladiator was the deleted scene were he goes bats&*t crazy on the bust of his father. When I heard he'd been cast as Joker that was the first thing I thought of and it gave me hope that this just might work. I'd say maybe a 9 out of 10. I'm not sure that I'd say I like this better than Dark Knight (although I've become much more critical of its flaws recently, I'd still say it's one of the best all-out action/suspense movies), but I'd say I appreciate the Phoenix Joker better than the Ledger Joker and that's kind of surprising as I thought Ledger set the highest possible bar.

[oakman29]

On 10/4/2019 at 9:24 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.

Marvel tried to do it with Thanos, make him have cracks in the armour, and they failed. But that was in Endgame, the villain I would have rather witnessed the Avengers defeat than the one when they went back in time.

I think what they are trying to convey is he was a frail individual who tried to genuinely make people laugh, and due to society, and personal troubles made him what he has become.

I personally thought that Heath Ledger's interpretation made me truly believe in the insanity of the Joker. I would have to see this movie. It does seem to be a cool type of prequel. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Things I didn't like:

• The songs. The movie music itself was perfect.
• The Waynes. Joker isn't supposed to be 30 years older than Batman.
• Portrayals of an anti-hero. Joker is a villain.

Things that I liked/loved:

• Everything else.
• In particular, the fact that he killed his adopted mother. I thought he was gonna be a momma's boy the whole movie.

[Hollywood1892]

24 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Things I didn't like:

• The songs. The movie music itself was perfect.
• The Waynes. Joker isn't supposed to be 30 years older than Batman.
• Portrayals of an anti-hero. Joker is a villain.

Things that I liked/loved:

• Everything else.
• In particular, the fact that he killed his adopted mother. I thought he was gonna be a momma's boy the whole movie.

Overall I felt the same.

What did you think of Alfred?

[theCapraAegagrus]

7 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

Overall I felt the same.

What did you think of Alfred?

What's there to think about? He was in the movie for less than a minute.

[Hollywood1892]

10 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

What's there to think about? He was in the movie for less than a minute.

The dance before the car chase was less than a minute....

Sometimes people and scenes that last less than a minute have a profound impact on the movie...

Take No Country for Old Men...that scene with the coin toss, massive scene, less than a minute.

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

The dance before the car chase was less than a minute....

Sometimes people and scenes that last less than a minute have a profound impact on the movie...

Take No Country for Old Men...that scene with the coin toss, massive scene, less than a minute.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Alfred has ultimately nothing to do with the movie. No thought required. He's part of the "Waynes shouldn't be in this movie" point I posted.

[Hollywood1892]

2 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

You're comparing apples and oranges. Alfred has ultimately nothing to do with the movie. No thought required. He's part of the "Waynes shouldn't be in this movie" point I posted.

I disagree with you saying the Waynes shouldn't be in the movie.

Granted it is a Joker origin story, Bruce Wayne had a profound impact on Jokers career. There has to be a mention of him, and the whole route about Thomas Wayne possibly being his father was genius and only increased the Jokers decent into madness.

Also the clown rioting based on Waynes comments, very intelligent direction.

If you took that entire plot out than there would be about 15 minutes of film.

The reason he killed his mother was because of Thomas Wayne and her lies.

I think next up for DC should be a Lex Luthor origin story.

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, Hollywood1892 said:

I disagree with you saying the Waynes shouldn't be in the movie.

Granted it is a Joker origin story, Bruce Wayne had a profound impact on Jokers career. There has to be a mention of him, and the whole route about Thomas Wayne possibly being his father was genius and only increased the Jokers decent into madness.

Also the clown rioting based on Waynes comments, very intelligent direction.

If you took that entire plot out than there would be about 15 minutes of film.

The reason he killed his mother was because of Thomas Wayne and her lies.

I think next up for DC should be a Lex Luthor origin story.

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.

[Hollywood1892]

16 minutes 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.

You think the storyline would have had the same impact if it wasn't Thomas Wayne.

I imagine that kept audiences captivated wondering if he was Bruce Waynes brother.

Also the scene at the end with the talk show host confronting him on Vigilantism was a mockery to Batman and the entire argument on how the poor don't get away with anything and the rich do.

Joker was a vigilante and a villain

Batman was a vigilante and a hero

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

You think the storyline would have had the same impact if it wasn't Thomas Wayne.

I imagine that kept audiences captivated wondering if he was Bruce Waynes brother.

Also the scene at the end with the talk show host confronting him on Vigilantism was a mockery to Batman and the entire argument on how the poor don't get away with anything and the rich do.

Joker was a vigilante and a villain

Batman was a vigilante and a hero

Yes, because it would've been better. The Waynes don't need to be part of a Joker movie. In fact, having them involved in his "origin" waters down the quality of storytelling. Not everyone has to be related in every comic book movie.

I don't think that a single sane person thinks Joker potentially being related to Wayne is remotely interesting. I rolled my eyes when I heard the rumor, and the movie was almost ruined when it seemed like it was possibly true.

How can the host mock Batman when Batman doesn't exist in this movie...? That makes no sense.

Joker is not a vigilante. He's a historic villain. Joker doesn't fight crime. He causes it.

[Hollywood1892]

16 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

 

How can the host mock Batman when Batman doesn't exist in this movie...? That makes no sense.

Joker is not a vigilante. He's a historic villain. Joker doesn't fight crime. He causes it.

The game show host is an instrument of the writers. Despite it predating Batman, the actual people writing the -script have knowledge of Batmans existence, or why would there be all those tie ins? That's why they can mock the entire vigilante argument.

The Jokers initial kills of those 3 wall street rich dudes bullying him and harassing that woman are vigilantism.

How come they didnt put three poor guys harassing him? Bruce Wayne is rich, Joker is not.

Despite alot of original stuff, they kept to the basic premise, which can at least tie in with Heaths Joker and the lack of interest in wealth. At the end of the day People hate what they envy.

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

The game show host is an instrument of the writers. Despite it predating Batman, the actual people writing the --script have knowledge of Batmans existence, or why would there be all those tie ins? That's why they can mock the entire vigilante argument.

The Jokers initial kills of those 3 wall street rich dudes bullying him and harassing that woman are vigilantism.

How come they didnt put three poor guys harassing him? Bruce Wayne is rich, Joker is not.

Despite alot of original stuff, they kept to the basic premise, which can at least tie in with Heaths Joker and the lack of interest in wealth. At the end of the day People hate what they envy.

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.

This movie doesn't exist to tie-into The Dark Trilogy. This movie occurs in the 1980's. TDKT occurs in the 21st century.

[theCapraAegagrus]

People don't hate what they envy. Hate and envy are 2 different emotions.