Arthur Fleck as this Joker persona in the first film was always a loser though?
An audience can empathise with and root for losers though, and they aren’t wrong for doing so- especially when the first movie set out to portray indifferent institutions, political corruption, and cruel or apathetic attitudes to our fellow man in society as the primary antagonists.
Phoenix’s performance alone was worthy of admiration and appreciation even if he isn’t actually THE Joker and even if the character was utterly assassinated later on.
The first movie should stand alone and feelings towards it would ideally be contained to the context of that movie alone, but it’s not always easy to compartmentalise like that, and we’d have to take human psychology out of the equation to suggest everyone simply ignore what came next both regarding the events of the sequel and the comments and attitudes of the people involved in making it.
They don’t want us to like or root for Arthur anymore. You’re wrong for enjoying his transformation and the revolt he began; not just wrong but bad and dangerous. He’s pathetic and, if you like what he stood for, you’re pathetic and defective as well.
Some are just going to say ‘You condemn me for liking the character you intentionally wrote as a type of anti-hero and now go out of your way to deconstruct, undermine, and belittle them because you’ve become convinced that I’m guilty of wrong-think and supposed ‘people like me’ must be put in our place and exposed for the cretins we are- well fine- I wash my hands of this. Enjoy not selling any merchandise.’
That’s not my view, but I don’t fault anyone who comes to that conclusion and wants nothing more to do with Joker or anything Todd Phillips does again.