If anything it follows the same ole same ole Batman origin story...witnesses his parents death as a child. Rinse later repeat.
Sure, but that's like 2 minutes out of the whole movie. It's not a Batman movie. We never see Batman and we only spend a few minutes with Bruce. Thomas is more of an integral role, but even he doesn't show up much of the time. I think a Batman "remake" would actually include, y'know... Batman.
Just wanted to say congrats to Joaquin Phoenix on winning the Baftas award. He is a great actor. Todd Phillips is a great director. I want to reiterate those two points: Joaquin is a great actor, and Todd Phillips is a great director, just in case I didn’t say that enough. I still agree with the Guardian’s opinion writers! But that doesn’t mean those two dudes aren’t great at what they do. Because they certainly are great. It was Joaquin who said in an interview, from a couple months ago, that he asked the writers to work on a ‘Joker2’ script. That’s why I brought that whole thing up. I’m just saying the ‘Joker2’ movie isn’t necessary, and maybe public opinion is changing, and more people are kind of agreeing with me on that. But I understand that those guy, Joaquin and Todd, probably feel like they’re hot right now, and maybe they want to capitalize on their success by following up with a sequel to the original movie. Again, I would suggest HBO. I bet HBO would pay more than they’ve ever paid to get a ‘Joker’ series on their channel. Am I right? And then you would have a lot more freedom to do the show the way you want to. And then maybe you can include the muse for a sign-on bonus or something? Think of me. This film has already changed me: I’ve stopped wearing an orange vest, and I’ve stopped talking so fast. Just joking, I never wore an orange vest. Seriously though, about that thing Todd said, that people have contacted him to say thank you for helping them to understand mental illness. I didn’t mean to discredit anything Todd said in my previous post. I’m just saying it’s kind of lame to say this film has helped ‘normal people’ understand their “mentally ill” relatives — as a general rule. I doubt the film does that, as an overall accomplishment. But that doesn’t mean Todd and Joaquin haven’t helped some people, and I applaud them for that. I seriously am not trying to take anything away from those guys. And just one other point, since I’m here, writing on this thread: IMHO Joaquin has already suffered enough, and perhaps too much, for his art. In the article I linked to in my previous post, they’re saying he had lost 52 pounds for the role. He didn’t need to lose that weight. He did it for the role. He lost the weight with the aid of a doctor. But still, that’s too much weight to lose if you don’t need to lose it. I’m reminded of the Bob Dylan line: “You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way.” You can go nuts if you want to. You can go nuts for a role. That’s your business. But just how nuts do you want to go, and how do you plan on repairing yourself from going nuts the first time? What if Joaquin lost another 52 pounds for the sequel, after gaining back the weight that he needed to gain back? I say that’s enough already. Don’t hurt yourself for the role. 1917 deserves Baftas' thunderous applause – Joker does not | Peter Bradshaw
I just want Madonna and everyone else to know that I was never arguing for the cause of censorship on this thread. And now two Guardian writers are saying Joaquin should win an Oscar. Ok cool, I agree with them, and with everyone else who thinks Joaquin’s acting is great. But will he win an Oscar for ‘Joker,’ because sometimes they give you a Golden Globe when they’re not going to give you an Oscar, right? Well, I hope he wins. He’s a decent dude, and censorship is wrong. Just think about HBO for part 2, and you shouldn’t lose all the weight again IMHO.
Saw it last night. I agree with both of these points. With this movie, Arthur seems to stumble through misfortune to become a leader of an anarchy movement... The Joker (criminal mastermind, occasional frienemy of Catwoman, and controller/tamer of Harley Quinn) is far smarter and wittier than Joker, from this movie. The age difference between Batman and Arthur is too large. When Bruce Wayne was a boy, The Joker would have been a teenage, small time criminal, honing his skills. The way this movie should have played out is Joker should have been a more experienced criminal just getting onto an immature, younger Batman’s radar.
In addition, it's unclear how much of the movie actually happened. It's entirely possible none of that "movement" really existed!
Considering how terrible the selections for Best Actor were this year, why not? In any other “normal” year, he would probably not have been nominated. Had to be one of the worst years for Best Actor. I look at the Best Supporting Actor category, and every one of them are better actors than Phoenix. Hanks, Hopkins, Pacino, Pesci, Pitt. To paraphrase Dr. John, Phoenix was in the right place and it must have been the right time.
I think that all of the violence that occurred, once Arthur accepted the role of Joker, existed and that he indeed became the faux leader of the movement.... if not, the whole movie was a waste of time as far as creating a credible villain.
Of course, maybe Fleck had those abilities, but they never came out until he found his calling as the Joker. This sort of thing isn't unheard of. Fodder for a sequel, should there be one...
The ending was set up perfectly for a live action of The Killing Joke.... except for the age difference of Batman. Also, what happened to Fleck’s “girlfriend”? I’m sensing a daughter growing up and wanting revenge.
It's about a character who calls himself "Joker". It remains unclear that this person is the Joker, though...
I admit it makes sense on the surface to believe Fleck becomes "The Joker". But that doesn't make it true!
He may or may not be. That gives them more freedom with the script and direction. They don’t have to really play by the DC universe’s rules. If they have any.
The Joker has always been a loosely defined character anyway. Just look at the movie versions pre-Phoenix, for instance. Whereas the 1989-2016 versions of Batman were all fairly similar, the 3 Jokers weren't much alike at all. There's a precedent for a Joker-ish character who's not actually Joker from "Gotham", so it's not even a new concept for "Joker" to follow that path...
Exactly - so why would her daughter seek "revenge"? There's zero indication that Arthur hurt/killed Sophie, so the notion the kid needs "revenge" implies Arthur did kill her but the movie didn't tell us. Seems like that would've been an awful big plot point to ignore!
Exactly--and we're talking about a comic character who, even after 75-some years in publication, doesn't have an agreed-upon origin. That leaves a lot of room open for differing takes in other media. Even when Alan Moore had Joker recalling his supposed past in The Killing Joke one-off comic, he had him saying "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another ... If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" Batman: The Killing Joke - Wikipedia
