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

241 posts in this topic

82,918 posts
Just now, theCapraAegagrus said:

Fixed that for ya...

Something must have challenged us all from this film. Look at all the discussion going on here because of the experience.

:whee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,367 posts
8 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Based on what Brett Cullen shared in that interview, it could hint at the adoption papers were fake so as to throw Arthur or anyone else off the Thomas Wayne trail if they happened across this.

That's deep!

I wondered if the handwriting on the back of the old photo of Penny might have matched Penny's own handwriting from the letter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 posts

Ooooo, we need screen captures of both now! :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,918 posts

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,982 posts

I just dismissed the possibility of TW being Arthur's father as Penny's delusion and I think it emphasizes the true hopelessness of the Flecks' situation. She was hanging on to this one chance at getting her and her son out of poverty and the whole thing was based on a complete fabrication. There was never any hope there. Anyway, I generally dislike all of those sort of "long lost relative" revelations (aside from "Luke, I am your father", which is the king of them all). In fact, that's kind of what put a damper on Court of Owls for me. That plot device is so played out and it just smacks of un-creative writing. Joker and Batman don't need to be brothers to somehow intensify their rivalry. At least, not for me. I do like that Wayne was kind of a jerk (he's always made out to be such a saint, but people are rarely so one-dimensional), just don't think it really would be to the extreme that he would have an affair that produced a child which he covered up to such an extent. I don't mind that they played around with the possibility within her mania, but ultimately it's a little too "Days of our Lives" for this movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,918 posts
Quote

In the Joaquin Phoenix movie serving as an origin story for the character in his first solo big screen outing, director and writer Todd Phillips intentionally left a heavy bit of Joker's origin story up for interpretation or mystery.

 

"That was the idea, the idea that all of 'My past is multiple,'" Philips said. "I like to think of my past as multiple choice, it's a little bit of like, 'Wait, did that happen? Did this?' It's really kind of fun when you make a movie with an unreliable narrator. There is no greater unreliable narrator than Joker. He's an unreliable narrator and he's Joker, so it's sort of like a double whammy, and so I think that lends to people's reaction to the movie and I like that people don't really know what happened. There are certain things if you see it again, on a second viewing, you'll notice about that white room at the end that kind of picks up at the beginning, and you go, 'Oh, wait a minute, that's interesting.' Its kind of one of those."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,354 posts
3 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

 

i read that on yahoo i think. i still didn't understand what he meant (shrug) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,918 posts
19 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

i read that on yahoo i think. i still didn't understand what he meant (shrug) 

If you read the quote above, it sounds like Todd Phillips didn't want the story to end all clear-cut and easy to take in. It was left to the viewer's interpretation if what they just experienced was all in Arthur's head, a false story he told someone else or reality. And very fitting to the Joker's backstory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,354 posts

i guess just one where it could all be fantasy....

him putting his thesis at the end of the article threw me for a loop

i thought maybe the white room suggests or closes the possibilities of the fantasy.....

i thought he was saying the white room solved all my questions lol :ohnoez: 

i guess the white room PROVES that some or all was fantasy... :sorry: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,918 posts
10 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

i guess just one where it could all be fantasy....

him putting his thesis at the end of the article threw me for a loop

i thought maybe the white room suggests or closes the possibilities of the fantasy.....

i thought he was saying the white room solved all my questions lol :ohnoez: 

i guess the white room PROVES that some or all was fantasy... :sorry: 

He really does make it confusing at times with some of his statements. Including 'No it isn't based on comic books - I mean't yes it is!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,367 posts
19 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

 Anyway, I generally dislike all of those sort of "long lost relative" revelations (aside from "Luke, I am your father", which is the king of them all).

Vader never said that. :foryou: :kidaround:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,367 posts
15 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

He really does make it confusing at times with some of his statements. Including 'No it isn't based on comic books - I mean't yes it is!'

Well, you can't call him "Joker" and not have it based on comic books... the Joker is from the comic books.  So it's at least based on Batman (1940) #1.  However, it can't be set in 1980 and be from 1940, so we're deviating from the comics immediately.

If there has never been a Joker origin story for Arthur Fleck set in 1980, then it's not based on comic books.  But if it's the Joker, from Gotham, with Thomas and Bruce Wayne included, then it's based on comics.

Simple. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,982 posts
3 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Vader never said that. :foryou: :kidaround:

Yeah, and I knew that when I typed it out, but the actual quote would've taken up more space to get the full context or would've been too vague if I'd just done the one line, so I did some editorializing. Kind of like Rick saying "Play it again, Sam" except that he didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,918 posts
3 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Well, you can't call him "Joker" and not have it based on comic books... the Joker is from the comic books.  So it's at least based on Batman (1940) #1.  However, it can't be set in 1980 and be from 1940, so we're deviating from the comics immediately.

If there has never been a Joker origin story for Arthur Fleck set in 1980, then it's not based on comic books.  But if it's the Joker, from Gotham, with Thomas and Bruce Wayne included, then it's based on comics.

Simple. :grin:

Oh, I know. It definitely is a character with a semi-clean slate to play with without people holding a comic book to the screen while shouting 'THAT'S NOT MY JOKER ORIGIN I LOVE!'

But at least Phillips came back and noted his two sources from comic books was Batman: The Killing Joke and other stories without 100% retelling these comics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,982 posts

As far as the specific year, I had a bit of a hard time pinning it down exactly. Felt more like late 70's, but I saw 1981's "Zorro, The Gay Blade" (that other Summer of '81 movie about a swashbuckling guy with a bullwhip) on a theater marquee. Didn't feel like '81 to me though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,918 posts
Just now, Martin Sinescu said:

As far as the specific year, I had a bit of a hard time pinning it down exactly. Felt more like late 70's, but I saw 1981's "Zorro, The Gay Blade" (that other Summer of '81 movie about a swashbuckling guy with a bullwhip) on a theater marquee. Didn't feel like '81 to me though

I think it did. When you look at the clothes worn and the drabness of the entertainment - the atmosphere was there.

I need to see it again now so I can get a better feel for what Phillips was conveying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,982 posts
1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

I think it did. When you look at the clothes worn and the drabness of the entertainment - the atmosphere was there.

I need to see it again now so I can get a better feel for what Phillips was conveying.

It's posible we have different impressions of 1981 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1