Joker: Folie à Deux

[jye4ever]

Where are people getting the idea that this is Heath Ledgers Joker origin

C’mon you very well know that WB approved this young inmate cutting his mouth and laughing like Ledger so that the audience would instantly think that.

The audience wasn’t going to think of Nicholson Joker.

His mouth comes from bad surgery by a doctor, not self inflicted.

We wouldn’t think of The Batman Joker because his mouth looks like it comes from a bad infection or chemical injury.

We wouldn’t think of Ledo Joker because his mouth was normal.

So who else is left?

Who cut their own mouth with a knife?

WB knew what they were doing so don’t now blame the audience for pointing out the obvious call back connection.

Why even make him cut his mouth with a knife if you’re not trying to evoke Ledger’s Joker?

 

[jye4ever]

I hope Phillips directs the next Alien movie.

“In Space You Won’t Have to Scream”

 

[chrisstbh]

C’mon you very well know that WB approved this young inmate cutting his mouth and laughing like Ledger so that the audience would instantly think that.

The audience wasn’t going to think of Nicholson Joker.

His mouth comes from bad surgery by a doctor, not self inflicted.

We wouldn’t think of The Batman Joker because his mouth looks like it comes from a bad infection or chemical injury.

We wouldn’t think of Ledo Joker because his mouth was normal.

So who else is left?

Who cut their own mouth with a knife?

WB knew what they were doing so don’t now blame the audience for pointing out the obvious call back connection.

Why even make him cut his mouth with a knife if you’re not trying to evoke Ledger’s Joker?

Sure it may be a nod to it, but just because it makes you think of that doesn't mean it is his Joker though. Timelines wouldn't even add up at all.

It's astonishing that WB even approved this story at all.

 

[jye4ever]

Sure it may be a nod to it, but just because it makes you think of that doesn't mean it is his Joker though. Timelines wouldn't even add up at all.

It's astonishing that WB even approved this story at all.

But then why even go there.

I agree it’s not him but for a second there I thought I saw a military special forces patch in the background on the table in his room…

 

[chrisstbh]

But then why even go there.

Todd Phillips

 

[R_R_X]

Yeah, no one went into this movie expecting Arthur to fight the Batman, that's not why people don't like it. It's because it's a spiteful temper tantrum in the form of a musical, tearing down everything the first film accomplished.

It literally ends with Arthur in the exact same position he started out in, except he's been raped and murdered after admitting on live TV he's just the same pathetic loser he's always been and that he regrets ever standing up to the system and committing those murders.

And if the sole purpose of the sequel existing, from a creative point of view, is to confirm that Arthur's Joker would never face off against Batman and would just serve as inspiration for the "real Joker" then that makes it even more pointless than it already is.

The first film already accomplishes that because Bruce is a child and no one expected nor wanted a sequel in the first place!
The ending sets Arthur on journey of self destruction but also self fulfillment into becoming an inspirational and somewhat god like image to the disfranchised people of Gotham, setting him up as the inspiration for the would be Prince of Crime in this universe.

It was a self contained exploration of one's psyche with commentary on society culminating in the birth of a cult of personality, leaving the audience not exactly agreeing with Arthur's actions but at the very least, understanding them.

All of it is undone in this disgusting sequel because Warner Brothers wanted money but was stupid enough to greenlight this pathetic and miserable insult to anyone that enjoyed the first one.

 

[jye4ever]

Yeah, no one went into this movie expecting Arthur to fight the Batman, that's not why people don't like it. It's because it's a spiteful temper tantrum in the form of a musical, tearing down everything the first film accomplished.

It literally ends with Arthur in the exact same position he started out in, except he's been raped and murdered after admitting on live TV he's just the same pathetic loser he's always been and that he regrets ever standing up to the system and committing those murders.
View attachment 730883

And if the sole purpose of the sequel existing, from a creative point of view, is to confirm that Arthur's Joker would never face off against Batman and would just serve as inspiration for the "real Joker" then that makes it even more pointless than it already is.

The first film already accomplishes that because Bruce is a child and no one expected nor wanted a sequel in the first place!
The ending sets Arthur on journey of self destruction but also self fulfillment into becoming an inspirational and somewhat god like image to the disfranchised people of Gotham, setting him up as the inspiration for the would be Prince of Crime in this universe.

It was a self contained exploration of one's psyche with commentary on society culminating in the birth of a cult of personality, leaving the audience not exactly agreeing with Arthur's actions but at the very least, understanding them.

All of it is undone in this disgusting sequel because Warner Brothers wanted money but was stupid enough to greenlight this pathetic and miserable insult to anyone that enjoyed the first one.

Epic post is….well….Epic!

 

[ironwez20]

Dude is def gonna get black listed after this

 

[Nyro]

I always hated Harley from the moment she was conceived for the animated series.

Created only to help sell tissue paper to young boys.

I think she was created for BPD girls to have a character they can identify with. Judging by all the Harley cosplays or Halloween costumes I’ve seen, it seems to me women relate to her far more than to Catwoman, Wonder Woman, or any other comic female

 

[GaryPool]

Yeah, no one went into this movie expecting Arthur to fight the Batman, that's not why people don't like it. It's because it's a spiteful temper tantrum in the form of a musical, tearing down everything the first film accomplished.

It literally ends with Arthur in the exact same position he started out in, except he's been raped and murdered after admitting on live TV he's just the same pathetic loser he's always been and that he regrets ever standing up to the system and committing those murders.

That's the point of the first film people keep on missing, he even explained it in this film.

 

[jye4ever]

My wife doesn’t need Harley to relate with someone who is insane she’s doing just fine all by her lonesome!

 

[jye4ever]

Yeah, no one went into this movie expecting Arthur to fight the Batman, that's not why people don't like it. It's because it's a spiteful temper tantrum in the form of a musical, tearing down everything the first film accomplished.

It literally ends with Arthur in the exact same position he started out in, except he's been raped and murdered after admitting on live TV he's just the same pathetic loser he's always been and that he regrets ever standing up to the system and committing those murders.
View attachment 730883

And if the sole purpose of the sequel existing, from a creative point of view, is to confirm that Arthur's Joker would never face off against Batman and would just serve as inspiration for the "real Joker" then that makes it even more pointless than it already is.

The first film already accomplishes that because Bruce is a child and no one expected nor wanted a sequel in the first place!
The ending sets Arthur on journey of self destruction but also self fulfillment into becoming an inspirational and somewhat god like image to the disfranchised people of Gotham, setting him up as the inspiration for the would be Prince of Crime in this universe.

It was a self contained exploration of one's psyche with commentary on society culminating in the birth of a cult of personality, leaving the audience not exactly agreeing with Arthur's actions but at the very least, understanding them.

All of it is undone in this disgusting sequel because Warner Brothers wanted money but was stupid enough to greenlight this pathetic and miserable insult to anyone that enjoyed the first one.

Now while I do absolutely think your post is epic I wouldn’t have had any problems with this Joker from part 1 building up towards eventually going up against Batman.

He was pretty agile while running with those clown shoes and showed great skill when hit by a moving 1970’s heavy automobile lol

Besides I prefer a physically weaker Joker than Batman as it forces him to be more cunning due to that disability.

 

[crows]

Does Joker even kill anyone at any point in this film?

Khev,

Not one single kill

But he does kiss a guy!

he does kill the judge with a hammer, in a musical dream sequence he has lol.

 

[Frenchy]

That's the point of the first film people keep on missing, he even explained it in this film.

Yes some people don't understand the point of certain films like Scarface, Tony Montana loses everything that is most important in life: his sister, his best friend, and his life, but all people remember is his financial success and his ascension into the world of crime.

But I ask if it was necessary to make a 200 million film to explain that...

Was Phillips afraid of a new John Warnock, the guy who thought he was Travis from Taxi Driver and who tried to kill Reagan on top of his obsession with Jodie Foster.

 

[KitbashOfficer]

borderlands
the crow remake
megaflopolis
M. nights TRAP
joker 2 the musical....

feels like a revenge against moviegoers lol and how
what a weird year. All these terrible movies one after the other

I've only been to and seen 1 good movie this year: Dune part 2. Hope all this nonsense strengthens its grip for best picture.

 

[crows]

I've only been to and seen 1 good movie this year: Dune part 2. Hope all this nonsense strengthens its grip for best picture.

the razzies are gonna be on fire lol

 

[crows]

Yes some people don't understand the point of certain films like Scarface, Tony Montana loses everything that is most important in life: his sister, his best friend, and his life, but all people remember is his financial success and his ascension into the world of crime.

But I ask if it was necessary to make a 200 million film to explain that...

Was Phillips afraid of a new John Warnock, the guy who thought he was Travis from Taxi Driver and who tried to kill Reagan on top of his obsession with Jodie Foster.

yes definitely. absolutely he was afraid

the media did that, when first joker came out even the FBI was on warning about joker screenings. news keep warning people to not go.

 

[R_R_X]

That's the point of the first film people keep on missing, he even explained it in this film.

No, I feel that's the point the second film wants to make.

The first film clearly ends with him fully embracing the clown persona and the movement he started, even if he doesn't believe it, relishing in the chaos he created and the fact he's finally noticed.

In fact, him finding out he isn't even really Arthur Fleck but some "unknown child" who was adopted by a crazy woman who abused him and let her partners also abuse him is what makes him snap and become "The Joker" hell the entire final act is the death of Arthur Fleck and the birth of the clown, the movement, the inspiration for copycats and eventually, even heroes, hence the cut the little Bruce standing over his dead parents and Arthur, or the clown laughing at the absurdity of it all at the end of the movie.

The second film is just a spiteful destruction of the first one, that makes a mockery of the audience by forcing a musical upon it, because the director didn't like the fact his creation resonated with "the wrong crowd" and a detached studio just wanted to make more money off a billion dollar sleeper hit.

 

[jye4ever]

he does kill the judge with a hammer, in a musical dream sequence he has lol.

Which doesn’t even count because Zazie Beetz character returns from the last movie so it’s a wash lol

 

[jye4ever]

No, I feel that's the point the second film wants to make.

The first film clearly ends with him fully embracing the clown persona and the movement he started, even if he doesn't believe it, relishing in the chaos he created and the fact he's finally noticed.
View attachment 730890

In fact, him finding out he isn't even really Arthur Fleck but some "unknown child" who was adopted by a crazy woman who abused him and let her partners also abuse him is what makes him snap and become "The Joker" hell the entire final act is the death of Arthur Fleck and the birth of the clown, the movement, the inspiration for copycats and eventually, even heroes, hence the cut the little Bruce standing over his dead parents and Arthur, or the clown laughing at the absurdity of it all at the end of the movie.

The second film is just a spiteful destruction of the first one, that makes a mockery of the audience by forcing a musical upon it, because the director didn't like the fact his creation resonated with "the wrong crowd" and a detached studio just wanted to make more money off a billion dollar sleeper hit.

Brilliant absolutely freaking brilliant!

So brilliant even Wor-Gar will be like…