WB's JOKER: THE SEQUEL directed by Todd Phillips (TBD) 6 6

[Coverless 9.8]

There certainly was precedent to making the movie a musical! Jack Nicholson singing Hot Time In The Old Town Tonight while he fried Antoine with his joy buzzer! Dancing at the Flugelheim Museum to Prince's Party Man! 😏🍰

[Coverless 9.8]

I was at the movie, and people disliked it so much they were starting to Gaga! After that they were Joaquin out of the theater! 😏🍰

Edited October 8 by Coverless 9.8

[Coverless 9.8]

The movie was a Bad Romance and I was Bored This Way!  😏🍰

[Bosco685]

 

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/7/2024 at 8:33 PM, Buzzetta said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Yes.  
 

turns out he is not the joker but the murder clown that inspired the Joker… which is actually an interesting move to be fair.  It may infuriate the audience but that might be the point. 

 

Spoiler

I always thought that the main ‘inspiration’ for The Joker’s appearance was being bleached in a vat of chemicals, with the notable exception of the Ledger version.

That said, some psychiatric problems were also introduced in The Killing Joke.

 

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/8/2024 at 12:19 AM, chrisco37 said:

I don’t know if I’d call it a musical. It was a really boring story continuously interrupted by bad musical numbers.  
And that was just the first half!  

At least it sounds like it was consistent.

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/8/2024 at 12:31 AM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I stuck in a bit longer. They lost me at the judge blackout, hammer of justice or something.

They should’ve livened it up with Metallica’s classic ‘… And Justice For All’ song.

Even though it does go on a bit.

The first couple of verses would work.

Edited October 8 by Ken Aldred

[Ken Aldred]

I liked the first one.

Simply not feeling motivated to sit through another psychodrama, all in one go.

[Gatsby77]

On 10/8/2024 at 11:32 AM, Ken Aldred said:

  Reveal hidden contents

I always thought that the main ‘inspiration’ for The Joker’s appearance was being bleached in a vat of chemicals, with the notable exception of the Ledger version.

That said, some psychiatric problems were also introduced in The Killing Joke.

 

This. 100%.

[Gatsby77]

On 10/7/2024 at 6:30 PM, VintageComics said:

Haven't comic audiences yet accepted that comic movies aren't copies of the comic books anymore?

I mean, no movie is true to the comics anymore. 

The only thing that remains true is the essence of the character, and in that regard, they made the Joker look like a homicidal lunatic successfully. 

But...The Joker's being a homicidal lunatic is only *part* of his character.

The other key part is that he is so for *no reason.* He just... *is.*

This is why the portrayal of The Joker in The Dark Knight is so masterful. - Ledger's Joker is specifically devoid of an origin (how he got his scars, etc.) and has no true motive (as Alfred said, "Some men just want to watch the world burn.").

He's psychotic for the sake of being psychotic. He's just evil.

Another example of this? The best scene in Kubrick's The Shining: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Because that revelation shows Torrance was batsh*t crazy from the very beginning - the hotel had little to do with it.

 

The above also tracks with the first 60 years of The Joker's origin.

Detective 168, The Kiling Joke and Batman '89 are all consistent - he was a normal criminal, driven mad solely by the chemicals he was exposed to in the vat - an unfortunate victim of circumstance.

His creation was an accident - He's evil without any deeper societal reasons.

To go back and portray a version with a backstory that gives him a plausible reason for his psychosis betrays the true essence of the character.

So it's garbage.

But, okay, sure...this never was the Joker - it was just Arthur Fleck, blah blah blah. The age difference with him and young Bruce in the first film, etc.

Spoiler

We still (obstensibly) get the real Joker in the final scene, and learn how he got his scars.

 

$*%) off with that.

 

Edited October 8 by Gatsby77

[fantastic_four]

On 10/8/2024 at 12:36 PM, Gatsby77 said:

To go back and portray a version with a backstory that gives him a plausible reason for his psychosis betrays the true essence of the character.

So it's garbage.

I haven't seen the sequel and don't plan to, but you're referring to the first one so I don't think it matters. 

The first film wasn't an actual backstory.  That's somewhat evident throughout the film as there are elements of the plot that clearly aren't happening the way we're seeing them on-screen, but by the film's final scene in Arkham it becomes clear--some, most, or perhaps even ALL of what we're seeing isn't happening, we're just seeing Fleck's version of his past.  It was all a dream, or at least a lot of it was.

Todd Phillips admitted this explicitly in interviews.  He specifically referred in one interview to the panels below from "The Killing Joke" where Joker refers to how he can't even remember his own origin story so he just makes it up as he goes along.  "Joker" is him doing that to some extent that's difficult to guess, but I'm sure if you pore through the film it's possible to identify scenes that are real and scenes where Fleck is clearly making his past up.

[VintageComics]

On 10/8/2024 at 4:21 PM, fantastic_four said:

He specifically referred in one interview to the panels below from "The Killing Joke" where Joker refers to how he can't even remember his own origin story so he just makes it up as he goes along.  "Joker" is him doing that to some extent that's difficult to guess, but I'm sure if you pore through the film it's possible to identify scenes that are real and scenes where Fleck is clearly making his past up.

This would explain with Nolan's Joker keeps changing his origin story with Ledger's Joker. I could never understand why Ledger gave more than one different account of how he got his smile because I hadn't read Killing Joke in a long time and so forgot that aspect of it. 

Thanks for reminding me!

On 10/8/2024 at 12:36 PM, Gatsby77 said:

• Previous Page
• Next Page

But...The Joker's being a homicidal lunatic is only *part* of his character.

The other key part is that he is so for *no reason.* He just... *is.*

This is why the portrayal of The Joker in The Dark Knight is so masterful. - Ledger's Joker is specifically devoid of an origin (how he got his scars, etc.) and has no true motive (as Alfred said, "Some men just want to watch the world burn.").

He's psychotic for the sake of being psychotic. He's just evil.

Another example of this? The best scene in Kubrick's The Shining: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Because that revelation shows Torrance was batsh*t crazy from the very beginning - the hotel had little to do with it.

 

The above also tracks with the first 60 years of The Joker's origin.

Detective 168, The Kiling Joke and Batman '89 are all consistent - he was a normal criminal, driven mad solely by the chemicals he was exposed to in the vat - an unfortunate victim of circumstance.

His creation was an accident - He's evil without any deeper societal reasons.

To go back and portray a version with a backstory that gives him a plausible reason for his psychosis betrays the true essence of the character.

So it's garbage.

But, okay, sure...this never was the Joker - it was just Arthur Fleck, blah blah blah. The age difference with him and young Bruce in the first film, etc.

That is all very fair. 

They do take liberties sometimes with our beloved characters and change what some of us see as essential in order to fit better into their vision of the universe they're building - for example, a Superman that actually kills Zod out of necessity when it's something DC's boy scout Superman would never do. 

[Ken Aldred]

Also, just because Lady Gaga's in the film and she's a pop star, it isn't mandatory to have song-and-dance numbers.

She could just act.  I don't recall anything similarly musical in House of Gucci.  However, I could've forgotten, as it was a bit boring.

[Coverless 9.8]

On 10/8/2024 at 5:55 PM, VintageComics said:

This would explain with Nolan's Joker keeps changing his origin story with Ledger's Joker. I could never understand why Ledger gave more than one different account of how he got his smile because I hadn't read Killing Joke in a long time and so forgot that aspect of it. 

Thanks for reminding me!

That is all very fair. 

They do take liberties sometimes with our beloved characters and change what some of us see as essential in order to fit better into their vision of the universe they're building - for example, a Superman that actually kills Zod out of necessity when it's something DC's boy scout Superman would never do. 

Edited October 9 by Coverless 9.8

[Coverless 9.8]

On 10/7/2024 at 4:06 PM, AnthonyTheAbyss said:

So this has come up several times in one form or another...that Todd Phillips "intentionally" (I can't think of better wording so don't take it as the exact definition) made a bad movie to make some kind of statement, or to stick it to the superhero genre, to upset the studio, etc., etc., etc...

There would be precedent with Frank Miller's self described, "dope slap" sequel to The Dark Knight Returns, The Dark Knight Strikes Again.  

[Bosco685]

Sorry to break up the comedy routine. Keep your joke notebook handy nonetheless.

Joker: Folie à Deux ending explained: Director Todd Phillips breaks down Arthur's shocking choice, Joker's true identity
 

Spoiler

Quote

As Lady Gaga reminds us by crooning somber lyrics over the final frame of the Joker sequel, which sees Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) dying in a pool of his own blood following a brutal stabbing from a fellow Arkham State Hospital inmate, "that's life" for a man whose misdeeds range from starting a class war in Gotham City to shooting a TV host in the head on a live broadcast.

 

Outside of virtually confirming that Arthur won't return to terrorize Gotham again, the Joker: Folie à Deux ending also sums up the two-film series' central thesis: Arthur is no hero, villain, god, or even an anti-hero. He's nothing more than a lonely man, cast out by his family and the world. His evil-doing becomes his untimely undoing and merely bridges gaps to allow other, more powerful forces of change (for better or worse) to rise around him.

 

"He realized that everything is so corrupt, it’s never going to change, and the only way to fix it is to burn it all down," director Todd Phillips tells Entertainment Weekly when asked about Arthur's decision to confess his sins to the jury near the end of Folie à Deux. "When those guards kill that kid in the [hospital] he realizes that dressing up in makeup, putting on this thing, it’s not changing anything. In some ways, he’s accepted the fact that he’s always been Arthur Fleck; he’s never been this thing that’s been put upon him, this idea that Gotham people put on him, that he represents. He’s an unwitting icon. This thing was placed on him, and he doesn’t want to live as a fake anymore — he wants to be who he is."

 

Phillips admits that "the sad thing is, he's Arthur, and nobody cares about Arthur," pointing out that Gaga's Lee "never says 'Arthur'" in the film until she leaves him on the same steps he danced atop in the original movie. "[She's] realizing, I’m on a whole other trip, man, you can’t be what I wanted you to be," he explains. Phillips also confirms that, while boasting a dreamlike quality, the final exchange between Lee and Arthur is "actually, really happening" and isn't an imagined interaction like Arthur's fake romance with Sophie (Zazie Beetz) in the prior installment.

 

 

[koollectablz]

It wasn't 'The Joker' you !  It was just 'Joker'.

Gee thanks Todd, can I have my money and time back now?

 

[Chaos_in_Canada]

Why is Joker2, doing so poorly at the box office?

[chrisco37]

Because it's a bad movie.   

[Ken Aldred]

In one sense I can see that they might have been influenced by Lady Gaga in 'A Star is Born', which despite having some strong musical numbers got to be psychologically quite dark, especially at the end.

Still doesn't justify or explain why Joker 2 chose a similar path, but went completely tits up.