Official JOKER Thread (SPOILERS)

[NobodyReally]

What’s sick about this that it perpetrates its own hate cycle. If the movie ends up a big success it justifies their disdain as if the movie was made in response to them.

Plus most incels aren’t mentally ill. They’re just dudes with a-hole personalities. But since everything has to have a medical diagnose....

I sort of get what she's saying. Male directors and writers have a terribly way of using women as props or worse gratuitously exploiting women and pocs to center white leads. A lot of people are getting tired of it and white male reviewers usually don't even notice it. Some people just don't want to throw money away on stuff like that, so it's really great when someone can give you a head's up about it. That being said, I think the only woc review so far said it's damn good and disturbing. I do think that this bit of her review is intriguing:

'Joker' With Joaquin Phoenix Is A Powerhouse 2019 Movie And That Should Scare The Sh*t Out Of You [Venice Review]


Comparisons with Heath Ledger’s Joker are inevitable, but the two interpretations are very different, with Ledger’s Joker always possessing a steely core of cunning, almost a sophistication running through his psychosis. But there is no grandeur in Phoenix’s Arthur, not even megalomania. He is pathetic and irritating and small, and when he becomes big, it is by accident, when this empty, ruined vessel is mistaken for an icon by the rioting and mutinous population of Gotham.

 

[Json]

I sort of get what she's saying. Male directors and writers have a terribly way of using women as props or worse gratuitously exploiting women and pocs to center white leads. A lot of people are getting tired of it and white male reviewers usually don't even notice it. Some people just don't want to throw money away on stuff like that, so it's really great when someone can give you a head's up about it. That being said, I think the only woc review so far said it's damn good and disturbing. I do think that this bit of her review is intriguing:

Grouping all these problems together is part of the problem.

Reviewers have no say on what gets made. They are the last stop on the train before the audience.

Now has the art of criticism devolved with more (non-diverse) voices? Sure. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what gets made. No one is making movies so Peter Travers will give it an A.

Then how some people are going about fixing the diversity problem is to tell people proactively that their opinion doesn’t matter is nonsense. It’s using your oppressors tactic to oppress.

 

[dangerranger]

I am willing to be proven wrong on this when the movie comes out, but I’ve been watching how people talk when it comes to this film and I noticed something extremely strange. The comic book heads are essentially giving this movie a pass that we’ve almost never seen with any other comic book movie. In this very thread I see people defending the Todd Phillips not using any of source material of Joker from the comics or previous movies to create this movie. The excuse used was we don’t know Jokers background. But I’m like wait a minute we know who Joker is and there’s no excuse to ignore all the history. It’s there for a reason. I remember reading Todd’s comments and I was like wow this dude is literally trying to make his own movie but Trojan horsing it with a Joker makeup.

Now you have the producer of the movie saying she doesn’t like comic book movies. She doesn’t watch them. This is confirming my suspicions. Then the reviews that dropped yesterday started to roll in and it was quite noticeable that there was an emphasis that it was a great movie not just a great comic book movie. I’m like why do they all keep saying that. CA:WS, TDK and BP were great movies but still comic book movies.

I see the fanboys just eating it up whatever is thrown at them. Mind you I read the details from the test screenings that were posted a few pages back. Let me just say there is no way that the Joker at the end of the film a contender to be a foe of Batman in any iteration. So is this a movie a great character study on a random man or is a great character study on the Joker? The joker is a character that is known and loved but how can this be a movie about the joker when the source material is abandoned and the people in charge have a bias towards comic book films? That’s what I’m seeing happening here. We will see officially in October but from what I’ve read it’s exactly as it sounds “how could someone become the joker” not how the joker we all know came to be and those are two very different things.

 

[Pinyapplesuckas]

i LOVE how she keeps WOC and Women separate

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

I am willing to be proven wrong on this when the movie comes out, but I’ve been watching how people talk when it comes to this film and I noticed something extremely strange. The comic book heads are essentially giving this movie a pass that we’ve almost never seen with any other comic book movie. In this very thread I see people defending the Todd Phillips not using any of source material of Joker from the comics or previous movies to create this movie. The excuse used was we don’t know Jokers background. But I’m like wait a minute we know who Joker is and there’s no excuse to ignore all the history. It’s there for a reason. I remember reading Todd’s comments and I was like wow this dude is literally trying to make his own movie but Trojan horsing it with a Joker makeup.

Now you have the producer of the movie saying she doesn’t like comic book movies. She doesn’t watch them. This is confirming my suspicions. Then the reviews that dropped yesterday started to roll in and it was quite noticeable that there was an emphasis that it was a great movie not just a great comic book movie. I’m like why do they all keep saying that. CA:WS, TDK and BP were great movies but still comic book movies.

I see the fanboys just eating it up whatever is thrown at them. Mind you I read the details from the test screenings that were posted a few pages back. Let me just say there is no way that the Joker at the end of the film a contender to be a foe of Batman in any iteration. So is this a movie a great character study on a random man or is a great character study on the Joker? The joker is a character that is known and loved but how can this be a movie about the joker when the source material is abandoned and the people in charge have a bias towards comic book films? That’s what I’m seeing happening here. We will see officially in October but from what I’ve read it’s exactly as it sounds “how could someone become the joker” not how the joker we all know came to be and those are two very different things.

Well DC Comics will sometimes do one shots that are completely different and separate from the canon material. In a way, they just brought that concept to the movies.

 

[Json]

I am willing to be proven wrong on this when the movie comes out, but I’ve been watching how people talk when it comes to this film and I noticed something extremely strange. The comic book heads are essentially giving this movie a pass that we’ve almost never seen with any other comic book movie. In this very thread I see people defending the Todd Phillips not using any of source material of Joker from the comics or previous movies to create this movie. The excuse used was we don’t know Jokers background. But I’m like wait a minute we know who Joker is and there’s no excuse to ignore all the history. It’s there for a reason. I remember reading Todd’s comments and I was like wow this dude is literally trying to make his own movie but Trojan horsing it with a Joker makeup.

Now you have the producer of the movie saying she doesn’t like comic book movies. She doesn’t watch them. This is confirming my suspicions. Then the reviews that dropped yesterday started to roll in and it was quite noticeable that there was an emphasis that it was a great movie not just a great comic book movie. I’m like why do they all keep saying that. CA:WS, TDK and BP were great movies but still comic book movies.

I see the fanboys just eating it up whatever is thrown at them. Mind you I read the details from the test screenings that were posted a few pages back. Let me just say there is no way that the Joker at the end of the film a contender to be a foe of Batman in any iteration. So is this a movie a great character study on a random man or is a great character study on the Joker? The joker is a character that is known and loved but how can this be a movie about the joker when the source material is abandoned and the people in charge have a bias towards comic book films? That’s what I’m seeing happening here. We will see officially in October but from what I’ve read it’s exactly as it sounds “how could someone become the joker” not how the joker we all know came to be and those are two very different things.

No offense but this is a bad take. More about how toxic comic culture tries to tell others what is and isn’t good even if it contradicts itself.

Not on its own but the criticism you’re laying against this adaptation of Joker could be laid into most comic movies.

The Winter Soldier who is in the MCU could be labeled a IN NAME ONLY character. Bucky was a teen sidekick. Bucky didn’t die that way in the comics. He wasn’t brought back that way either. He shares minimal connections to what that story was about but no one would come at that movie as a bad movie for not following the story more closely.

Even if this movie pulled from 1,500 comics down to chemical vats and prank laughing gas it wouldn’t matter. Cause all those stories have something this movie doesn’t. Batman. Without the version of Gotham that Batman inhabits, this will always be a looser adaptation of Joker than anything we’ve ever read.

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

I am willing to be proven wrong on this when the movie comes out, but I’ve been watching how people talk when it comes to this film and I noticed something extremely strange. The comic book heads are essentially giving this movie a pass that we’ve almost never seen with any other comic book movie. In this very thread I see people defending the Todd Phillips not using any of source material of Joker from the comics or previous movies to create this movie. The excuse used was we don’t know Jokers background. But I’m like wait a minute we know who Joker is and there’s no excuse to ignore all the history. It’s there for a reason. I remember reading Todd’s comments and I was like wow this dude is literally trying to make his own movie but Trojan horsing it with a Joker makeup.

Now you have the producer of the movie saying she doesn’t like comic book movies. She doesn’t watch them. This is confirming my suspicions. Then the reviews that dropped yesterday started to roll in and it was quite noticeable that there was an emphasis that it was a great movie not just a great comic book movie. I’m like why do they all keep saying that. CA:WS, TDK and BP were great movies but still comic book movies.

I see the fanboys just eating it up whatever is thrown at them. Mind you I read the details from the test screenings that were posted a few pages back. Let me just say there is no way that the Joker at the end of the film a contender to be a foe of Batman in any iteration. So is this a movie a great character study on a random man or is a great character study on the Joker? The joker is a character that is known and loved but how can this be a movie about the joker when the source material is abandoned and the people in charge have a bias towards comic book films? That’s what I’m seeing happening here. We will see officially in October but from what I’ve read it’s exactly as it sounds “how could someone become the joker” not how the joker we all know came to be and those are two very different things.

Fanboys eat up everything and then complain when it doesn't come out the way they wanted it to.

I am intrigued by this movie but I am also not expecting any comic book feel or connection. Which is a nice change coming from someone who is over comic book flicks for the most part. However I can see how the lack of the real joker mythology being ignored can be a hindrance and maybe not feel like the real deal many want to see.

We will see very soon wtf they did with this flick. But getting over excited or even not giving it a chance at all can equally backfire.

 

[duncanthetall]

Movie seems try hard as fukk. “WATTTTTCH ME ACCCCCCCCT” as Phoenix flails his body around and goes craaaaaaaaazy. We get it, Joaquin.

Freshman psych students and smart dumb nikkas are going to love this movie, I’m sure.

 

[dangerranger]

No offense but this is a bad take. More about how toxic comic culture tries to tell others what is and isn’t good even if it contradicts itself.

Not on its own but the criticism you’re laying against this adaptation of Joker could be laid into most comic movies.

The Winter Soldier who is in the MCU could be labeled a IN NAME ONLY character. Bucky was a teen sidekick. Bucky didn’t die that way in the comics. He wasn’t brought back that way either. He shares minimal connections to what that story was about but no one would come at that movie as a bad movie for not following the story more closely.

Even if this movie pulled from 1,500 comics down to chemical vats and prank laughing gas it wouldn’t matter. Cause all those stories have something this movie doesn’t. Batman. Without the version of Gotham that Batman inhabits, this will always be a looser adaptation of Joker than anything we’ve ever read.

I understand your point but I don’t think this is a fair comparison. Bucky as you mentioned was a side character that wasn’t known to many outside of comic heads. So they had to big him up to make him a cooler character and fit him into the movies. Joker is all time. He’s recognizable by name alone. He’s batman’s biggest foe and a criminal mastermind. You’re making an origin movie for this iconic character and playing it fast and loose. It’s an origin movie that should lead up to the character we know in the comics and movies but how can that be the case if you don’t use the comics and movies as a reference. It’s a bad recipe but because you’ll end up with something that looks like Joker but won’t actually be Joker and that’s what I fear and that’s what reading the test screening details confirmed to me.

 

[NobodyReally]

Grouping all these problems together is part of the problem.

Reviewers have no say on what gets made. They are the last stop on the train before the audience.

Now has the art of criticism devolved with more (non-diverse) voices? Sure. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what gets made. No one is making movies so Peter Travers will give it an A.

Then how some people are going about fixing the diversity problem is to tell people proactively that their opinion doesn’t matter is nonsense. It’s using your oppressors tactic to oppress.

So you're saying that warning POCs and women about content they may not want to see is now opressing big studio execs? You really think a few POCs and WOC reviewers are gonna kill the industry? I honestly don't understand why people who defend white males executives and actors always reach for the victimization and oppression argument but then complain about SJWs whining. It's like crazy hypocritical.

 

[jwinfield]

You’re making an origin movie for this iconic character and playing it fast and loose. It’s an origin movie that should lead up to the character we know in the comics and movies but how can that be the case if you don’t use the comics and movies as a reference

There have been multiple iterations of the Joker in comics and the movies.

 

[MartyMcFly]

There have been multiple iterations of the Joker in comics and the movies.

Right. Each comic writer decides how they want that origin to be. Or even if they want him to have an origin. So there’s no right or wrong way to do it

 

[ahomeplateslugger]

reviews for this are great so far. can't wait to watch this opening weekend

 

[dangerranger]

There have been multiple iterations of the Joker in comics and the movies.

Yeah exactly that’s my point. So how do you make a movie that has no intention of being connected to those because you didn’t reference any of them. If that’s the case then make your own movie about a new character all together. I’m just using the creators of this film’s own words. That’s my cause for concern. But I hope to be proven wrong. I just don’t want a movie that props up Joaquin’s good to great acting as a man who descends into madness while forgetting that this is a movie is supposed to be about an iconic character which is the Joker, not just a man who descends into madness and wears clown makeup. Does that make sense?

 

[MartyMcFly]

Yeah exactly that’s my point. So how do you make a movie that has no intention of being connected to those because you didn’t reference any of them. If that’s the case then make your own movie about a new character all together. I’m just using the creators of this film’s own words. That’s my cause for concern. But I hope to be proven wrong. I just don’t want a movie that props up Joaquin’s good to great acting as a man who descends into madness while forgetting that this is a movie is supposed to be about an iconic character which is the Joker, not just a man who descends into madness and wears clown makeup. Does that make sense?

No you’re losing me. If it’s a one off story, it doesn’t have to connect to anything. He’s clearly taking pieces of the killing joke (failed comedian turning to crime and becoming the joker) and making his own story. Which is what an adaptation is supposed to do. And when you make it a one and done story, you have more latitude. You get the character(s) right and you adapt the world around them and see how they fit.