Dazey Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: The Bruce scenes, more especially the murder of his parents, did seem that they were planted in order to establish a new franchise. I don’t know how a sequel works in this universe. Are they gonna make an R rated Batman movie? I watched this over Christmas and thought it was really good but wouldn’t say I enjoyed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appetite4illusions Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 It's just somewhat funny to me...that people thought that the "twist" of Joker creating Batman was something fresh to hang their hat on. It was done in 1989! It was part of the personal vendetta that Burton crafted around the characters of Joker and Batman. Hell, I predicted such an ending in this thread months before the film was released (the only difference - Joker doesn't personally pull the trigger). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lies They Tell Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 9.1.2020 at 12:51 AM, appetite4illusions said: I think that they will have a helluva time trying to decide if this character is the lonely, flawed, sad white guy who people can identify with out of frustration, or, the larger than life, supernatural essence of chaos. Quite a lot of room between those two extremes and I have a hard time believing that a character could be both. He's obviously not going to be any larger than life, supernatural essence of chaos. This is after all a realistic take on the Joker. People who become "evil" are pretty much always losers in real life. They always feel that the world has treated them unfairly and that's how they justify their selfishness. So if you're gonna make a realistic portrayal of the Joker, there's really no other way than to make him more or less a loser. This movie made a marvelous job in portraying how a mentally ill weirdo dressed as a clown could become a hero to so many. Not because he's such mastermind, but because he happened to be in the right place at the right time. At the end of the movie Joker has become a symbol of hope and rebellion to many people. Just like heroes in real life, Joker doesn't actually live up to his mythical status. They could easily make an interesting sequel to this. Now that Joker has this mythical status, he can easily assemble a gang of criminals. He only needs a couple of close henchmen who ever actually get to meet him. Everyone else just follow the orders of the henchmen. Because of the hierarchy, nobody ever gets to meet Arthur and so his mythical status stays intact. Obviously Arthur would become more experienced and confident throughout the years, but deep down he would always be the troubled mentally ill guy from this first movie. He just learns to cope with his problems better. Every legendary hero who's ever lived has masturbated alone in a dark room. Nobody is really as mythical as people imagine. This is a theme that these movies could explore even more. You don't need to be some kind of a mastemind or even super talented to become a legend. Sometimes you only need to be in the right place at the right moment. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padme Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 3 hours ago, Lies They Tell said: People who become "evil" are pretty much always losers in real life. They always feel that the world has treated them unfairly and that's how they justify their selfishness. So if you're gonna make a realistic portrayal of the Joker, there's really no other way than to make him more or less a loser. People like Bin Laden are far from being a losers. They came from a very rich family. And they became terrorists. History shows that we had Roman emperors, kings, presidents and dictators whose life had nothing in common with Arthur Fleck. And yet there were evil in real life. Those losers you mention follow charismatic leaders who want change. But those leaders are not losers themselves. For example Lenin and the Russian revolution. Marx wrote a book and those who read it lead the revolution. You could say that people who unfortunately were born in a dysfunctional family like alcoholic mother, abusive father and povertry have a bigger chance to be criminals. I give you that. But those losers won't inspire a revolution against the establishment. Jokers is a comic character. The real portrayal of Joker was created by Bob Kane back in 1939 when Batman was created. I think Joker is a very good movie. I'm interested in movies that deal with social issues. But in this case the word Joker is just the bait to sell tickets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lies They Tell Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 8 hours ago, Padme said: People like Bin Laden are far from being a losers. They came from a very rich family. And they became terrorists. History shows that we had Roman emperors, kings, presidents and dictators whose life had nothing in common with Arthur Fleck. And yet there were evil in real life. Those losers you mention follow charismatic leaders who want change. But those leaders are not losers themselves. For example Lenin and the Russian revolution. Marx wrote a book and those who read it lead the revolution. You could say that people who unfortunately were born in a dysfunctional family like alcoholic mother, abusive father and povertry have a bigger chance to be criminals. I give you that. But those losers won't inspire a revolution against the establishment. Jokers is a comic character. The real portrayal of Joker was created by Bob Kane back in 1939 when Batman was created. I think Joker is a very good movie. I'm interested in movies that deal with social issues. But in this case the word Joker is just the bait to sell tickets. Just because someone comes from a rich family doesn't mean he's not a loser. Rich people are often spoiled and completely out of touch with reality. They think that life is unfair cause they don't get everything that they want. Maybe their parents never had time for them. But they're often losers. Terrorists in general think that they've been treated unfairly and that's why they feel that they're terror attacks are justified. I never said that the life of these Roman emperors, kings and dictators would have been similar to Arthur Flecks. But they have all masturbated alone in a dark room. That's my point. They're not as mythical as people imagine them to be. They're not some genius masterminds, but a lot of the time they just happen to be born in the right family. In other words they're in the right place at the right time. What you don't seem to understand is that this movie never claimed that Arthur Fleck started a revolution. People were already rebelling and Arthur just became the face of the revolution because he happened to be in the right place at the right time. There's plenty of losers who inspire people though. Some people idolize school shooters. I really don't understand your point. The people who saw Arthur Fleck on TV have never seen any other side of him. They just see a man who says the right words and does something shocking to became the face of the rebellion. He becomes a mythical legend. When we talk about larger than life people, the public image of them is much more important than who they actually are. No legend in the history of mankind has ever actually lived up to their reputation. Some more than others, but that's besides the point. This is not a film about how Joker started a revolution. This is a film about how Joker became the face of a revolution. By accident. And they could make a very interesting sequel to this one, showing how Joker manages to keep the illusion that people have about him alive. I don't know what some people would have wanted from a Joker movie, so that they could call it a real Joker movie. A totally unrealistic movie about some mastermind who for some reason dresses like a clown doesn't sound exciting to me. I prefer realistic movies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appetite4illusions Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 I see where you're coming from and I totally agree, I just think that fundamentally the one thing that has always set Joker apart from other villains is the fact that he's an abstraction. He's devoid of form or reason and every time you think you've got a grip on him, he shifts. Its what makes him so fascinating - he's unknowable. Whether that exists in a grounded, reality-based plot like the Dark Knight or in a hyperbolic, comic-book world like Burton's Batman, it still stands out very much. The character is always larger than life, it's just part of the tradition. In trying to make Joker just like the rest of us, Todd Phillips undermined that central philosophy of being "unknowable." I have a hard time imagining the character of Joker masturbating alone in a dark room with whiskey tears. That's way too intimate and internal and just undermines the strength that the character should posses. I actually just don't want to imagine that sort of thing - it's ugly. 5 hours ago, Lies They Tell said: I don't know what some people would have wanted from a Joker movie, so that they could call it a real Joker movie. A totally unrealistic movie about some mastermind who for some reason dresses like a clown doesn't sound exciting to me. I prefer realistic movies. Well, I can give an answer to that but I thoroughly realize its unpopularity: this shouldn't have been a Joker solo movie, nor should one have been made on that premise. It shouldn't have been called "Joker." My perspective is that this was most definitely a story about "Arthur" and it would have been more appropriate to call it that and then surprise people by putting him in Joker makeup at the end - thus making it a story about Joker only in its closing moments. But I get that they wouldn't have made so many millions if this thing wasn't called Joker and it didn't rest on selling it on the image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lies They Tell Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 (edited) I mean I understand that the Joker in this movie doesn't please all the comic book purists etc. Then again the purists don't even want a backstory for the Joker to begin with so this movie could never have been their cup of tea. Personally I'm glad that we have so many different and great intepretations of this iconic character. I grew up with the cartoon Joker. As I've grown older I've started to appreciate realism more and more and I'm glad that I've got to see more and more realistic versions of my favorite villain. Hopefully the comic book purists will get a movie with a larger than life version of Joker in a not too distant future. Personally I'm more interested about Joker 2 honestly. Edited February 10, 2020 by Lies They Tell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontdamnmeuyi2015 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 (edited) Finally watched Joker yesterday. Such a sad movie. Joaquin played Arthur so well. He showed all the conflicting emotions a person with mental illness go through. The abuse as a child was terrible and so sad, but true in many real life cases. I know some people complained about this movie when it opened saying it incited violence. Honestly, I felt this movie reflected real life. I felt like I was watching the news of today. I did find it interesting how they had Wayne portrayed as a real dick. Most other Batman movies always had him as a wonderful man. I guess Bruce became a better man despite his father. Edited June 8, 2020 by dontdamnmeuyi2015 more 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.