Only asked eighty-four people. Doesn’t mean anything. Probably find that people who watched ‘Joker’ all wear shoes and use both left and right eye at the same time in most cases of looking at things.
I have not seen this movie, but it's now on sale OnDemand for $2.99. Is it possible this film is not about "The Joker" from Batman, but is about "Joker," a character unrelated to Batman lore? Or does the movie clearly indicate "Joker" is the villain of Batman comics?
Sort of. Gotham City and the Wayne family are present in this film, so it's in the Batman universe, no doubt.
It's a DC Comics branded film depicting Gotham City and the Wayne family. It is, despite the presence (or lack thereof) of the Batman character, still the Batman universe.
It was meant to be its own stand-alone film that yes references what will be future Batman lore but as a film could stand outside of it. The line is that Phoenix is not expected to ever reprise the role alongside an actor as Batman.
Not going to invest a lot of time in this debate, but just because the Wayne family is in this doesn't mean that it is in The Batman universe, especially given the age difference in the characters. Plus, this Joker just doesn't seem to be master criminal material. A lot of folks see this movie as a great character study and not a prequel to a superhero story, notwithstanding similarities with some DC material. It works fine as a study in a basically decent human turning into a feral savage, with no need for context of a man dressed as a flying mouse. But, it COULD be a Batman movie, as well-open to interpretation. Think I'm right but not for certain.
I mean, I suppose you could just call it a DC universe movie. Not necessarily a "Batman universe" or a "Superman universe".
And that makes sense, too. I just see this as such an achievement that it can exist on its own merits without having to come to grips with how to force it into where it might fit in superhero land. And I'm not demeaning that genre: I think Batman vs Superman is a powerful film, so I'm not prejudiced against those films.
I think the movie's definitely in the "Batman universe". The question becomes whether or not this Joker becomes the Joker. But it takes place in Gotham and involves the Waynes and whatnot - I don't see it can be taken as something outside of the "Batman universe"...
And again, I don't know for certain, and I haven't gotten around to research whether the creative forces have held court or even hinted on this issue. If it IS taken as being in The Batman's universe, I can't see this Joker as being THE Joker...the age is problematic but not insurmountable...but this guy just doesn't seem capable of any ability to be anything more than a savage and unsophisticated killer. Easily captured, no plans, no objective. And, again, it works better for me as being an "alternative universe" from the already alternative DC superhero universe.
You could argue there are a lot of "alternative universes" given how many different iterations of various characters have existed. "Gotham" played semi-fast and loose with a lot of them - and gave us Jerome, a pre-Joker non-Joker, too! "Joker" gives us the Batman origin basics, so I don't see a strong reason to believe it's not set in the traditional Gotham. Of course, we could really go down the rabbit hole into the question of how much of the story is reality and how much is in Arthur's head. If you wanted, you could argue the whole thing is a fabrication of a mental patient and he invented the Waynes, Gotham, etc.!
Maybe I'll try to track down some info on this by the lead or the director, maybe not, because this movie is on its own the best I've ever experienced and for me needs no baggage from The Batman or the supervillain Joker. he's a pitiful human and that's what's scary and important. Unless somebody in the film convinces me otherwise, that's my point and that's where I respectfully stay.
I have this feeling it's not about "The Joker," but more about a James Holmes character, the man who shot up the Aurora Theatre.
This seems to be the case. Todd Phillips Wants to See a ‘Batman’ Movie from His ‘Joker’ World – Variety So this is an alternate universe purely for the purposes of telling this story, much like the Elseworlds stories from DC's past. Good enough for me. Seems we're unlikely to see another movie set in this continuity.
Writer/director Todd Phillips has been evasive about it, but the movie very clearly has young Bruce Wayne, his parents, and Alfred the Butler in it, and they're all together in a dark, scary-looking Gotham City. Is the Joker in the movie the Joker that becomes the head of a huge criminal empire? I think they left it open to interpretation. What's remarkable about the film that, while Joker is not the hero by any means, you do walk away feeling empathy for the character and you understand why he's so F'in' crazy. It's also a great looking film, and worth watching just for that.
What would be interesting would be a film pitting a plausible, non-criminal mastermind Joker against Batman as a Phoenix Jones style real-world superhero/nuisance vigilante in above average physical condition but with access only to plausible contemporary technology.
This movie seems like a lot of fun. It's dark and weird. Joker dances, a skeleton. His laughter is torment. This whole thing is appealing and a breath of fresh air. Many Joker lovers state,"I can't believe people allowed this film made." Metacritic reviews mention "pathological laughter." Could this film be a sympathetic, beguiling look at how spree killers form? I am looking forward to watching this even though, or because, many here say "it's so dark and depressing." Dark and depressing? On my TV screen are death tolls and billionares accused of rape. This film may be fitting and reasonable comment. I wonder when Bruce Wayne appears in this movie, is he safe, warm, rich and pampered? Is Joker beaten, mocked, molested, and rejected? I'm won't say I identify with Joker, but will admit it would be more fun to wear a Joker t shirt than a Batman.
We've disagreed on some discussion of the film, but we agree that "ooookay" is the appropriate response to that post!
Spoiler From what I have read in this excellent thread, the director seems indicate that the movie is simply Arthur's dream. The psycopath in the mental institution was obviously a Batman fan and we experience the ramblings of his twisted mind. His mind is caught up in the Batman universe, not the film. He comes out of it at the end in that white room and massacres the psychiatrist - the only real violence that we see in the movie). We then see him enacting another Joker fantasy as he is chased around the corridors of the asylum. However, part of the genius of "Joker" is that one can also easily read it as a full-on Joker origin movie. Initially, I took the cut from the street riots to the last scene as a simple fast-forward, finding Arthur in the asylum for the criminally insane and murdering the doctor who reminded him of the social worker who failed to help him when he was struggling in Gotham City. Revenge, just like his slaying of the De Niro character.
