Joker: Folie à Deux
- Thread starter The Buffinator
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
GaryPool
Super Freak
Why? They haven't, only this one has, that logic is arbitrary.
In regards to what's the point, well, it's interesting? What's the point to make a story what if Superman landed in Russia? Fair, it might not be interesting to all, but at least to me that's far more interesting than here's an unhinged man that likes to tell jokes and kill people.
It's also not shrugging it off. That is the whole concept, that is the whole point of the films - which is why I don't understand if you were onboard with the first one suddenly this is too much?
Heather Ledger watching Arthur:
ironwez20
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 27,856
- Reaction score
- 5,882
Like I said cause it was a waste of time. I wanted to see the joker become joker not some sad man who doesn’t want to be the joker anymore. The first film is quite literally a decent into mad ness which is entertaining. This movie is him on trial and being pushed around the entire film. Of course that’s not interesting or compelling.
Superman landing in Russia is interesting cause he’s still Superman just a different Superman with different morals. This movie had no inkling of joker and when it did he got raped and renounced it. What kinda character arc is that?
Especially for two hrs. Don’t call it joker if that is your message. Call it Arthur.
Better title:
Wannabe
Wannabe
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 488
- Reaction score
- 1,154
The thing that confuses me about this duology is: why are these DC films? The first one made sense being a DC property in that he became the "Joker" by film's end. Now with the second one released, and giving additional context to the first film, why even bother associating with DC. Arthur was never the "Joker". While I am totally for character reinvention, this Harley has barely anything in common with the Harley we know and isn't really a reinvention, but rather a character that is relatable in name only and barely that imo.
The first was good on its own merit, but now I just kind feel like-what was the point? To me it feels like the DC association(in hindsight) was made to put butts in seats. It's totally fine do do stories of side characters for big universes like DC has, but this was always gonna be its own thing and(again with context of the second film) just kinda feels like a waste to put all this effort into a character this secluded from a larger story that ultimately went nowhere. If this was the plan they would have been better off making something at a much smaller scale i.e. The Penguin show, but even that has better connections to a larger world.
The first was good on its own merit, but now I just kind feel like-what was the point? To me it feels like the DC association(in hindsight) was made to put butts in seats. It's totally fine do do stories of side characters for big universes like DC has, but this was always gonna be its own thing and(again with context of the second film) just kinda feels like a waste to put all this effort into a character this secluded from a larger story that ultimately went nowhere. If this was the plan they would have been better off making something at a much smaller scale i.e. The Penguin show, but even that has better connections to a larger world.
Yeah by Todd Phillips' logic I guess "Adventures in Babysitting" was an MCU flick because the little girl walked around pretending to be Thor.
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 19,880
- Reaction score
- 287
Ah yes, the character in this DC Comics movie referred to as “Joker”, in Gotham City, who dresses as a clown with green hair and makeup, who gets sent to Arkham after a murder spree, who constantly laughs, isn’t the Joker, and it’s silly to infer as much. My mistake.
There’s not even a DC logo or credit at the start of the film. There’s nothing that says this is a DC comics based story or production besides the title and maybe something in the credits.
It’s silly to completely ignore the entire third act and head cannon that this was The Joker no matter what the film states and tells you. I mean it flat out tells you he was not ever The Joker, twice.
Wait -- the DC logo tells you whether you're watching an actual Joker or not?
Someone tell Caesar Romero. Also, Batman animated series Joker.
Someone tell Caesar Romero. Also, Batman animated series Joker.
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 19,880
- Reaction score
- 287
The Joker, the actual batman villain and clown prince of crime in Gotham isn’t even in this movie.
You can complain all you want about it, but you’re reaching pretending like this is THE JOKER. The title of the films aren’t even “THE” Joker. It’s just JOKER.
Again, I am not a fan of it either, but people are reaching on these complaints when the film isn’t even about the actual joker.
A much better complaint is the fact that they gave us a two and a half hour film about essentially a bum that doesn’t matter.
What the hell is the difference between a criminal who wears clown makeup, causes violent riots, is linked to Bruce Wayne, and calls himself Joker and the "actual Joker?" 
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 19,880
- Reaction score
- 287
Go look at the covers of the volumes for BTAS and tell me there’s not a DC logo slapped on it.
Go look at the posters for Joker 2 and let me know if you see a DC logo on any of them.
ironwez20
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 27,856
- Reaction score
- 5,882
Ah yes people are reaching. Dresses the guy up in clown makeup, green hair , make him crazy, and have it set in gotham. Yea I can see why nobody would think this isn’t a joker movie nowThe Joker, the actual batman villain and clown prince of crime in Gotham isn’t even in this movie.
You can complain all you want about it, but you’re reaching pretending like this is THE JOKER. The title of the films aren’t even “THE” Joker. It’s just JOKER.
Again, I am not a fan of it either, but people are reaching on these complaints when the film isn’t even about the actual joker.
A much better complaint is the fact that they gave us a two and a half hour film about essentially a bum that doesn’t matter.
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 19,880
- Reaction score
- 287
The fact that the first one you described clearly states that he’s not the Joker.What the hell is the difference between a criminal who wears clown makeup, causes violent riots, is linked to Bruce Wayne, and calls himself Joker and the "actual Joker?"
ironwez20
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 27,856
- Reaction score
- 5,882
Guy is in a black alien suit, has teeth and looks like Spider-Man . It’s not venom cause it’s not called THE venom. Don’t know why people think it’s the actual venomWhat the hell is the difference between a criminal who wears clown makeup, causes violent riots, is linked to Bruce Wayne, and calls himself Joker and the "actual Joker?"
So Superman in Superman 2 was not "actual Superman" and Tobey Maguire in Spider-Man 2 was not "actual Spider-Man?"The fact that the first one you described clearly states that he’s not the Joker.
Quitting equals "you never were that in the first place?"
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 19,880
- Reaction score
- 287
You can think all you want, but it’s not my problem that you can’t understand that he’s not actually the joker.
Inspired the guy at the end who cut his face to maybe be the joker? sure, but arthur was never the joker. It’s not a concept i’ve come up with, Arthur and the film clearly state it.
ironwez20
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 27,856
- Reaction score
- 5,882
Ok well then…. Don’t call it the jokerThe fact that the first one you described clearly states that he’s not the Joker.
ironwez20
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 27,856
- Reaction score
- 5,882
lol yea the back tracking is hilarious isn’t it. So again I guess it’s my fault they called the movie joker and he looks like joker but he’s not THE joker. Yea ok lolYou can think all you want, but it’s not my problem that you can’t understand that he’s not actually the joker.
Inspired the guy at the end who cut his face to maybe be the joker? sure, but arthur was never the joker. It’s not a concept i’ve come up with, Arthur and the film clearly state it.
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 19,880
- Reaction score
- 287
Where are you even getting that from? Where did I say it was your fault?
That’s just what the movie did.
Similar threads
