Joker: Folie à Deux

[ironwez20]

I’d agree if Arthur was the Joker, but he’s not the Joker. The film is clear on that, he’s not the Joker and never was going to be the Joker. Arthur literally tells us this in the courtroom. The ending tells us this when he gets shanked.

The Joker did not get raped, Arthur did.

Nah the joker got raped buddy. He went into Arkham acting like the joker full on once they raped him he didn’t want to be joker anymore and renounced it live on tv. So yea they raped the joker out of him.

 

[Khev]

Nah the joker got raped buddy. He went into Arkham acting like the joker full on once they raped him he didn’t want to be joker anymore and renounced it live on tv. So yea they raped the joker out of him.

 

[GaryPool]

Cause it’s literally a waste of time lol. Like if you see a character grow and in the next one he becomes the same or even worse than what’s the point.
Also I don’t understand why people believe you should just shrug it off cause “joker is a moniker”
Nah imagine if every joker just did that. Heath joker wasn’t the real joker he inspired the actual joker . He dressed as a clown for no reason.

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?

 

[Khev]

Heather Ledger watching Arthur:

 

[ironwez20]

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?

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.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Better title:

Wannabe

 

[i_amjam]

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.

 

[Khev]

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.

Yeah by Todd Phillips' logic I guess "Adventures in Babysitting" was an MCU flick because the little girl walked around pretending to be Thor.