I’m not a huge joker fan. I mean I’m a huge joker fan and a huge Batman fan, but the level of obsessiveness on joker has been pretty annoying to me over the years… more so with Ledger I guess. But still, I try not to hate on it, it keeps this community alive and the hobby alive and I think being a fan of almost anything is cool… but I’m not gonna lie, there was part of me that took a bit of sick satisfaction on how angry people were about the second film. I get being disappointed and let down, but I think that some just take this stuff a bit too seriously.
Why would it make you like the first film any less? To me( the first film is about a 6 or a 7 out of 10. But it’s still a very good film. It may rip off some films I think are actually better like Taxi Driver, but it’s still a cool film with an amazing performance and a take on a character I’ve been a fan of since I was a kid. I just don’t think the film or the sequel “important” enough to swear off the character or the first film just because the second was pretty bad.
To be honest, I didn’t even think the second one was nearly as bad as people said. To me it was just a bit boring and pointless, but it really wasn’t a train wreck.
I don’t get the swearing off of the character personally, like, would you not want a Michael Corleone because the godfather 3 exists? Or Han Solo because the sequel trilogy sucked?
Also this whole bit about “he’s not the joker”… according to who? He’s in a movie called the joker… he’s called the joker in the movie. How is he not the joker? The character has been around for over half a century. He’s been many different things in many different storylines over the years.
The Penguin in the Matt Reeves movie is not like any Penguin I’ve seen before, but it doesn’t make him less of the Penguin
What the hell is “Robin John Blake”? Yet people still love the Nolan movies…