The Joker

[ZoSoRose]

Dropped to the 60s on RT. God damn wow

[The Holographic Universe]

16 hours ago, appetite4illusions said:

I’ve seen so many people say this is a “love it or hate it film,” but I disagree.

I don’t love it and I don’t hate it, but its exercise in trying to give the Joker a proper backstory...just doesn’t quite do it...because even at the very end of the movie...I don’t feel like this is the Joker.

Joker is a force so fierce, that he’s like a part of nature...Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker is the equivalent if the lucky loser. He commits random acts of violence and then gets away with it because there’s already so many fires to put out.

This film really, should have been called “Arthur,” because it’s so much more appropriate. It’s not about the clown prince, it’s about a sad, delusional man that is almost completely hapless.

Again, great acting work but not Joker to me, because I never saw Joker as such a pathetic, pathetic creature. There’s a real confidence to the Joker that Arthur will never have. 

It’s no clown prince - it’s clown punk.

A good friend of mine echoed your view of the film. He said the guy was a pussy and the Joker And never a Pussy, so I get you’re take on it.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

I read it broke box office records. Some said it showed how mental illness can effect someone and cause them to do horrible things. DUH! 

If movies like this disturb you, don't go see it, but don't condem a movie for the violence in the world. That's not the cause.

[Iron MikeyJ]

On 10/4/2019 at 12:25 PM, appetite4illusions said:

I was an English major, so you’ll forgive me if I use my useless degree on the internet.

But no man, it’s not coming from a pretentious place. Go back and read what I’ve said earlier in the thread- long before I saw the film or knew of any controversy surrounding it.

My point is telling a a Joker origin is a self-defeating premise. No origin will do for me, particularly one where he’s an average Joe.

I just never expected the character to be such a pathetic worm. I don’t see the Joker that way and if you do, I question how you can call him the most successful criminal diva.

I saw a decent movie about a loser who gets away from his crimes because the script gives him an emergency exit whenever necessary. That’s fine for what it is, but when you’re telling a story about (capital letters) JOKER and your character is as minor and hapless as the lower case, it really should be called “Arthur.”

Just wasn’t Joker for me man, sorry if that’s not what you want to hear.

 

I have NO interest in this film, and you hit the nail on the head here... Giving backstories to villians NEVER turns out well. Have we learned NOTHING from the SW prequels? Sometimes being evil for the sake of being evil is ALL we need. Too much explaining does HARM to villians, not help. On top of that, I HATE it when films try and sympathize with villains (especially famous villians like the Joker). I dont want to find sympathy for the Joker, it takes away from the character. 

Name a film franchise, and I will point out the moments where explaing too much about the villian HARMED the franchise, not helped it. Freddy, Michael Myers, Jason, Darth Vader, etc all suffered from over explaing of the backstory (or films dedicated to it). I could go on, but I think I've made my point. 

[RussTCB]

Saw today and really enjoyed it. 

[Stiff Competition]

I thought it was great. I think it could have been a little longer to let some of the events breathe a little. Joaquin is fantastic.

 

It’s really less about the origins of a particular villain and more about him becoming a symbol of the rebellion, or uprising of the lower class in Gotham. It shows why Gotham will need Batman, not necessarily the story of a villain Batman will encounter because in this particular universe it’s not completely likely that he ever will given the ages of the characters.

[Padme]

16 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I have NO interest in this film, and you hit the nail on the head here... Giving backstories to villians NEVER turns out well. Have we learned NOTHING from the SW prequels? Sometimes being evil for the sake of being evil is ALL we need. Too much explaining does HARM to villians, not help. On top of that, I HATE it when films try and sympathize with villains (especially famous villians like the Joker). I dont want to find sympathy for the Joker, it takes away from the character. 

Name a film franchise, and I will point out the moments where explaing too much about the villian HARMED the franchise, not helped it. Freddy, Michael Myers, Jason, Darth Vader, etc all suffered from over explaing of the backstory (or films dedicated to it). I could go on, but I think I've made my point. 

But in the case of Dath Vader, he die as Anakin Skywalker, the hero he used to be. At the end he fulfilled the prophecy. He brought balance to The Force. This is not the case with Jason or Freddy. Besides those are horror movies. I don't think I can compare those movies and villains with Star Wars or Joker.

11 hours ago, Stiff Competition said:

It’s really less about the origins of a particular villain and more about him becoming a symbol of the rebellion, or uprising of the lower class in Gotham. It shows why Gotham will need Batman, not necessarily the story of a villain Batman will encounter because in this particular universe it’s not completely likely that he ever will given the ages of the characters.

And that's my problem with Joker. Joker is a comic villain, not the leader of the French Revolution taking place in Gotham. If Batman is fighting against this kind of Joker. Then Batman becomes the symbol of the rich, the oppressors and the corrupted establishment.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Padme

[Jw224]

I don't understand people getting upset at different interpretations of the character. The comics don't even give him an origin so it is not as if they are betraying anything. Just go watch it and enjoy it or don't lol. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, Jw224 said:

I don't understand people getting upset at different interpretations of the character. The comics don't even give him an origin so it is not as if they are betraying anything. Just go watch it and enjoy it or don't lol. 

Well that's more or less my position. I'm not upset that the film exists, it's just not something I have any interest in watching. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, Padme said:

But in the case of Dath Vader, he die as Anakin Skywalker, the hero he used to be. At the end he fulfilled the prophecy. He brought balance to The Force. This is not the case with Jason or Freddy. Besides those are horror movies. I don't think I can compare those movies and villains with Star Wars or Joker.

As for SW and Darth Vader, it is a valid point that it shows the characters redemption, and as such, I'm not upset that the prequels exist (I was just using it as an example to make my point, because I know a lot of people dont like the prequels. Which I am not one of them, I prefer the prequels over the Disney films all day, but that's a different story). 

As for the horror characters I disagree with your stance though. I think they VERY much do count for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, you will be hard pressed to find more iconic villians (from the 80s to today) than Freddy, Jason, and Myers. So when talking about what to do and NOT do with a villian, they very much provide a solid (well known) examples. Secondly, being as they were from horror franchises, they suffer MORE so from the good film and bad film problems. All 3 of those characters have amazing well done films, as well as absolute pieces of garbage. So it provides a REALLY clear and understandable template of what you should NOT do with a villian. Which rule #1 is do not over explain the backstory. A moderate amount of backstory for a villian is fine (it can even be a good thing), but going too in depth ALWAYS ruins a film. Rule #2 is the villian should NEVER be the main character. There should always be a protagonist that we (the viewers) become emotionally attached to. The villian (antagonist), is what we the viewer should be afraid of. Humanizing the villian by over showing them (horror), giving them an oversaturated back story or making them the protagonist only lessens the impact of the character.

The film could be an absolute oscar worthy film, really well done. But it will ONLY do harm to the character that is the Joker. Why? The next time we see the Joker in a film, he is going to become less and less intimidating, and will eventually become non threatening at all (a parody of what the character was originally).

[Jw224]

I don't agree that it will do harm to the character at all. This is a one off film. Someone else will portray him and we will either love it or hate it. It's just how this stuff works. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

45 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

I don't agree that it will do harm to the character at all. This is a one off film. Someone else will portray him and we will either love it or hate it. It's just how this stuff works. 

Its watering down the character though, that's my point. You could argue it started with Leto's Joker, but the fact remains. Nicholson and Ledger will ALWAYS be the best Jokers, and no one else will ever touch those performances, it'll just be a slow progression of worse and worse portrayals. All while the character slowly gets watered down.

Think about it like this Dracula/vampires were at one point considered really frightening. Over time, as they were portrayed less and less scary, they became extremely watered down. Now we have vampires that shimmer and sparkle (twilight). They in no way resemble the characters created by Bram Stroker or in Nosferatu. 

[Stiff Competition]

53 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

5 hours ago, Padme said:

And that's my problem with Joker. Joker is a comic villain, not the leader of the French Revolution taking place in Gotham. If Batman is fighting against this kind of Joker. Then Batman becomes the symbol of the rich, the oppressors and the corrupted establishment.

I'm sorry you need clean cut good vs bad, but the entire point of Batman is that he lies in the middle between the rich and the poor (even though, he is clearly the rich). And as I said, Batman won't be fighting this Joker but rather dealing with the gotham that this joker helped create. Not to spoil things, but Batman is a young child in this film.

 

The point of making films like this is to take these characters out from being silly comic villains and heroes. Otherwise, you get shit films like the MCU.

[Padme]

3 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

As for SW and Darth Vader, it is a valid point that it shows the characters redemption, and as such, I'm not upset that the prequels exist (I was just using it as an example to make my point, because I know a lot of people dont like the prequels. Which I am not one of them, I prefer the prequels over the Disney films all day, but that's a different story). 

As for the horror characters I disagree with your stance though. I think they VERY much do count for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, you will be hard pressed to find more iconic villians (from the 80s to today) than Freddy, Jason, and Myers. So when talking about what to do and NOT do with a villian, they very much provide a solid (well known) examples. Secondly, being as they were from horror franchises, they suffer MORE so from the good film and bad film problems. All 3 of those characters have amazing well done films, as well as absolute pieces of garbage. So it provides a REALLY clear and understandable template of what you should NOT do with a villian. Which rule #1 is do not over explain the backstory. A moderate amount of backstory for a villian is fine (it can even be a good thing), but going too in depth ALWAYS ruins a film. Rule #2 is the villian should NEVER be the main character. There should always be a protagonist that we (the viewers) become emotionally attached to. The villian (antagonist), is what we the viewer should be afraid of. Humanizing the villian by over showing them (horror), giving them an oversaturated back story or making them the protagonist only lessens the impact of the character.

The film could be an absolute oscar worthy film, really well done. But it will ONLY do harm to the character that is the Joker. Why? The next time we see the Joker in a film, he is going to become less and less intimidating, and will eventually become non threatening at all (a parody of what the character was originally).

And I agree with you. The difference is that Freddy or Jason always carry the main role. When it comes to any Joker we've seen. He is in a supporting role. The main role is for Batman with or without a deep back story for a given Joker. If you want to make a movie about Joker's back story. I think you better stick with the gansters. We've seen it with Jack Nicholson, with the T.V. series Gotham or with Batman Begins and The Dark Night. Here we have a drama. The movie deals with very serious issues. On top of that  This Joker is a charater based of previous movies like for example Taxi Driver. So my here is my question. Is this the begining of a new trend in the DC Universe? I think DC is entering into a territory where they don't belong.

 

 

[soon]

According to right wing YouTube "the left" is slamming The Joker. So I come here to see whats up and theres no hint of that what so ever! What a world. I think I might go see this.

[Jw224]

24 minutes ago, soon said:

According to right wing YouTube "the left" is slamming The Joker. So I come here to see whats up and theres no hint of that what so ever! What a world. I think I might go see this.

Right wing YouTube likes you to think that everyone is offended at everything when it is actually them finding reasons to be offended. 

[RussTCB]

2 hours ago, soon said:

According to right wing YouTube "the left" is slamming The Joker. So I come here to see whats up and theres no hint of that what so ever! What a world. I think I might go see this.

I went in with no expectations or agenda and I really enjoyed it. 

[Amir]

I thought it was pretty good, but could have used a bit more subtlety/a defter touch in certain moments.

Don't need the psychiatrist reading out what's shown on screen, don't need the flashbacks of the girl not being there because we already know when she says "You're Arthur, right?", just need to see the clown follow Thomas and Martha Wayne, don't need to see the actual killing/pearls flying etc. Also should have just ended there.

[moreblack]

Saw this today, the hype is well deserved. 

[The Holographic Universe]

On 10/7/2019 at 11:06 AM, Iron MikeyJ said:

Its watering down the character though, that's my point. You could argue it started with Leto's Joker, but the fact remains. Nicholson and Ledger will ALWAYS be the best Jokers, and no one else will ever touch those performances, it'll just be a slow progression of worse and worse portrayals. All while the character slowly gets watered down.

Think about it like this Dracula/vampires were at one point considered really frightening. Over time, as they were portrayed less and less scary, they became extremely watered down. Now we have vampires that shimmer and sparkle (twilight). They in no way resemble the characters created by Bram Stroker or in Nosferatu. 

Have you rewatched Jack’s Joker performance recently? It’s absolutely stupid. And, it’s not even  a performance, It’s Jack being Jack.

[Padme]

7 hours ago, The Holographic Universe said:

Have you rewatched Jack’s Joker performance recently? It’s absolutely stupid. And, it’s not even  a performance, It’s Jack being Jack.

Yes you're right, but that whole movie is stupid. This Joker movie is far from being stupid. The problem is that a very popular Batman comic charater is the only way to drive people to see a drama dealing with serious social issues. Nobody would go to see this movie if it was called The Joe Smith Story.

[The Holographic Universe]

1 hour ago, Padme said:

Yes you're right, but that whole movie is stupid. This Joker movie is far from being stupid. The problem is that a very popular Batman comic charater is the only way to drive people to see a drama dealing with serious social issues. Nobody would go to see this movie if it was called The Joe Smith Story.

I agree with everything you stated. However, I believe Heath Ledgers performance in The Dark Knight is the reason the new Joker film exist. Without that performance the character of the Joker would not have attained the status to warrant making this current film. 

[Dazey]

On 07/10/2019 at 5:06 PM, Iron MikeyJ said:

Its watering down the character though, that's my point. You could argue it started with Leto's Joker, but the fact remains. Nicholson and Ledger will ALWAYS be the best Jokers, and no one else will ever touch those performances, it'll just be a slow progression of worse and worse portrayals.

Bit of a silly thing to say really. What were you thinking when Tim Burton announced the cast for 1989 Batman? Were you complaining that Caesar Romero was the ultimate Joker? Likewise what was your reaction to the news that the guy out of Ten Things I Hate About You was going to be desecrating the legacy of Nicholson?

Point is that the Ledger's Joker is only the best until the next guy does it better and so on and so forth.

[Jw224]

Saw it today and it was very good but also an uncomfortable watch, obviously intentionally so. 

[F*ck Fear]

I'm going to see it tonight, finally.

Went out Friday night, but all the screenings were sold out for the day.