Joker: Folie à Deux

[R_R_X]

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.

Walter White is one of TV's best written characters, he is also a massive piece of **** who is consumed by his own ego and criminal aspirations, and loses everything and everyone because of it, leaving a trail of misery and destruction behind him.

Yet people love him.

That didn't force Vince Gilligan to go out of his way and destroy that character because people liked him. Would Breaking Bad be remembered as fondly as it is now, had it ended with Walter White getting raped in prison, crying in trial saying he's just a loser and not Heisenberg and then shanked by a random inmate? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no.

 

[crows]

Walter White is one of TV's best written characters, he is also a massive piece of **** who is consumed by his own ego and criminal aspirations, and loses everything and everyone because of it, leaving a trail of misery and destruction behind him.

Yet people love him.

That didn't force Vince Gilligan to go out of his way and destroy that character because people liked him. Would Breaking Bad be remembered as fondly as it is now, had it ended with Walter White getting raped in prison, crying in trial saying he's just a loser and not Heisenberg and then shanked by a random inmate? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no.

he kind of did in season 5 with the skin head guys.
they kind of did. Walter loses all his money. loses his family. it's betrayed by his friend. loses hank. loses all respect he had. loses any status.
Walter is being hunted,

the only difference to this movie is that he doesn't like his personality and his pride
that's the problem.
Walter remains a little arrogant to the end. he remains Heisenberg, that stubborn intelligent jerk he always was.


this movie completely humiliates joker. and destroys all character development

 

[GaryPool]

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.

No, that is the exact point the first film makes, that the second film reiterates.

Even outside the film, the whole premise as described by Philips is a cautionary tale of what can happen with people who need help the most are neglected in every way the film shows, and then what can happen to those people as they fall through the cracks.

Fleck doesn't set out to kill anyone, aside from his mother and himself. The whole point of going on the show, shown through so many instances earlier, was to kill himself and only that - you see the exact moment it clicks for him that changes, and yes what happens earlier in the film allows him to carry out killing Murray. He kills Murray, but not as an embrace of what he created, he didn't care for it. The ending which you put in your post isn't him accepting being the Joker, it's him embracing being seen (Edit to add that yes, of course he's accepting being seen as the Joker, but I think with the films themes it's more him just accepting being seen and liked).

That's why a lot of people didn't like the first film, because he never was or really became the Joker. He never once intended to, through action or statement, make any of it political or to go against the system or to inspire anyone, he always was just Arthur Fleck.

He's already been abused as a kid, yeah, we see an even more-so implied version of him being sexually abused in prison, which all serves to remind him how small and little he actually is, coinciding with what Gary said. You can put on a mask and alter yourself and at the end of the day be that same person you always have been.

The second does nothing to ruin the first one apart from highlight everything the first has already said and done. I think it works even better that it's being panned.

 

[R_R_X]

he kind of did in season 5 with the skin head guys.
they kind of did. Walter loses all his money. loses his family. it's betrayed by his friend. loses hank. loses all respect he had. loses any status.
Walter is being hunted,

the only difference to this movie is that he doesn't like his personality and his pride
that's the problem.
Walter remains a little arrogant to the end. he remains Heisenberg, that stubborn intelligent jerk he always was.


this movie completely humiliates joker. and destroys all character development

That's what I said, Walter did lose everything because of his own actions but the writing never once betrayed or outright destroyed his character because Vince Gilligan didn't want people to resonate or feel inspired by Walt/Heisenberg.

 

[GaryPool]

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.

Was it necessary, no. Is it valid in the confines of the first film and the messaging it had outside of the film, yes. Personally I don't think it being panned takes that away - the first film already faced a battle of people expecting it to be one thing and it being another, this film did that again, so of course how many people are going to like it, it's intentionally an alienating film - although I disagree with it being written as an F you to anyone, it just doubles down on itself.

And did it need to be a musical? I'd rather it wasn't, but in relation to Arthur's character it makes sense, he loves music and musicals, to have the film as his perspective and a coping mechanism be to see the world in that way is also valid, with the responses, obviously that didn't work in terms of what people wanted and like.

 

[MarkKing]

I am just going to say it, No man wants to see their hero rear-ended.

That's what they did literally to the Joker.

The execs know this and still did it. Their job was to make money and sell merch. No one wants any Joker merch after this movie. I went to the Toy section on this site, and others agree and are wanting to Cacenl their Joker Hot Toys.

They clearly did this on purpose, and it probably does have to do with the fact men liked him. It's probably the most obvious reason why he had to be destroyed.

Imagine sacrificing 100's millions-billion(s) of dollars for the message and to stick it to your audience.

 

[jye4ever]

No, that is the exact point the first film makes, that the second film reiterates.

Even outside the film, the whole premise as described by Philips is a cautionary tale of what can happen with people who need help the most are neglected in every way the film shows, and then what can happen to those people as they fall through the cracks.

Fleck doesn't set out to kill anyone, aside from his mother and himself. The whole point of going on the show, shown through so many instances earlier, was to kill himself and only that - you see the exact moment it clicks for him that changes, and yes what happens earlier in the film allows him to carry out killing Murray. He kills Murray, but not as an embrace of what he created, he didn't care for it. The ending which you put in your post isn't him accepting being the Joker, it's him embracing being seen.

That's why a lot of people didn't like the first film, because he never was or really became the Joker. He never once intended to, through action or statement, make any of it political or to go against the system or to inspire anyone, he always was just Arthur Fleck.

He's already been abused as a kid, yeah, we see an even more-so implied version of him being sexually abused in prison, which all serves to remind him how small and little he actually is, coinciding with what Gary said. You can put on a mask and alter yourself and at the end of the day be that same person you always have been.

The second does nothing to ruin the first one apart from highlight everything the first has already said and done. I think it works even better that it's being panned.

And the 2 movies are called Joker WHY??

Just call the movie “Fred the Loser” who goes to jail for murder, apologizes, gets killed, the end!

Boy that sounds exciting doesn’t it!

 

[R_R_X]

Fleck doesn't set out to kill anyone, aside from his mother and himself. The whole point of going on the show, shown through so many instances earlier, was to kill himself and only that - you see the exact moment it clicks for him that changes, and yes what happens earlier in the film allows him to carry out killing Murray. He kills Murray, but not as an embrace of what he created, he didn't care for it. The ending which you put in your post isn't him accepting being the Joker, it's him embracing being seen.

That is literally what I said.

"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."

That's why a lot of people didn't like the first film, because he never was or really became the Joker. He never once intended to, through action or statement, make any of it political or to go against the system or to inspire anyone, he always was just Arthur Fleck.

A lot of people didn't like the first one because it's a very blatant rip-off of Taxi Driver and other movies, that didn't stop it from being an enjoyable exploration of a broken man into becoming the image of a movement and that's all it was, nobody wanted him to become a Joker that fights Batman because his story was done in the first one.

He's already been abused as a kid, yeah, we see an even more-so implied version of him being sexually abused in prison, which all serves to remind him how small and little he actually is, coinciding with what Gary said. You can put on a mask and alter yourself and at the end of the day be that same person you always have been.

The second does nothing to ruin the first one apart from highlight everything the first has already said and done. I think it works even better that it's being panned.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. If you think doubling down on the tragedy of an already abused character, by raping and murdering them, is some expertly crafted and nuanced exploration of mental illness then that's great for you.

I for one find it unnecessary and disgusting.

 

[GaryPool]

And the 2 movies are called Joker WHY??

Just call the movie “Fred the Loser” who goes to jail for murder, gets killed, the end!

Boy that sounds exciting doesn’t it!

Great question.

Philips has already answered that.

Just because the film doesn't follow THE Joker, doesn't mean it's not relevant, Batman media always talks about the symbol of being the Batman, the legacy of it what it means etc. it's an interesting concept that the mantle of the Joker can have a similar symbol, also interesting that the Joker villain could plague Batman throughout his career because just for everything Batman stands for f'ed up people use the Joker as a guise for their own purposes, therefore never being able to defeat Joker and him always being his arch-nemesis - can't kill an idea.

Definitely themes that these two films explore, in my opinion a great addition to the Joker mythology.

 

[crows]

No, that is the exact point the first film makes, that the second film reiterates.

Even outside the film, the whole premise as described by Philips is a cautionary tale of what can happen with people who need help the most are neglected in every way the film shows, and then what can happen to those people as they fall through the cracks.

Fleck doesn't set out to kill anyone, aside from his mother and himself. The whole point of going on the show, shown through so many instances earlier, was to kill himself and only that - you see the exact moment it clicks for him that changes, and yes what happens earlier in the film allows him to carry out killing Murray. He kills Murray, but not as an embrace of what he created, he didn't care for it. The ending which you put in your post isn't him accepting being the Joker, it's him embracing being seen (Edit to add that yes, of course he's accepting being seen as the Joker, but I think with the films themes it's more him just accepting being seen and liked).

That's why a lot of people didn't like the first film, because he never was or really became the Joker. He never once intended to, through action or statement, make any of it political or to go against the system or to inspire anyone, he always was just Arthur Fleck.

He's already been abused as a kid, yeah, we see an even more-so implied version of him being sexually abused in prison, which all serves to remind him how small and little he actually is, coinciding with what Gary said. You can put on a mask and alter yourself and at the end of the day be that same person you always have been.

The second does nothing to ruin the first one apart from highlight everything the first has already said and done. I think it works even better that it's being panned.

he should have never used the joker for this story.
that was disgusting. he took one of the strongest craziest villains and destroyed him

even if your post is correct,
he was disgusting for using joker.
it's a disgusting ( legitimately disgusting) experience.
congratulations Todd Phillips , you're making all your fans be depressed and wanna throw up.

 

[jye4ever]

Great question.

Philips has already answered that.

Just because the film doesn't follow THE Joker, doesn't mean it's not relevant, Batman media always talks about the symbol of being the Batman, the legacy of it what it means etc. it's an interesting concept that the mantle of the Joker can have a similar symbol, also interesting that the Joker villain could plague Batman throughout his career because just for everything Batman stands for f'ed up people use the Joker as a guise for their own purposes, therefore never being able to defeat Joker and him always being his arch-nemesis - can't kill an idea.

Definitely themes that these two films explore, in my opinion a great addition to the Joker mythology.

I’m not ok with the Joker taking on the “passing of the symbol” narrative that the Dark Knight Rises tried to create especially….

ESPECIALLY not by having an amazing actor like Phoenix being replaced by some unknown background extra actor taking on the mantle!!!

Are you serious you are onboard with that unknown actor now being the Joker!

Joker is not a viral disease you pass onto other criminals it’s a single genius character who stands above all else the others just follow like moths to a flame.

The idea/symbol of everyone being Batman is even dumb because not everyone is a billionaire ninja, hence my hatred of Rises lol

Nope don’t buy it, not for one second.

Phillips can kiss me *** if that’s his lame explanation for emasculating this great Joker!

 

[crows]

I’m not ok with the Joker taking on the “passing of the mythology” narrative that the Dark Knight Rises tried to create especially….

ESPECIALLY not by having an amazing actor like Phoenix being replaced by some unknown background extra actor taking on the mantle!!!

Are you serious you are onboard with that unknown actor now being the Joker!

Joker is not a viral disease you pass onto other criminals it’s a single genius character who stands above all else the others just follow like moths to a flame.

The mythology of everyone being Batman is even dumb because not everyone is a billionaire ninja!

the funny part is that this movie and JASON GOES TO HELL THE FINAL FRIDAY have the exact same premise

Jason/joker passes his evil spirit to a new person

just like Halloween ends. ............
Michael Myers is a spirit parasite.

 

[GaryPool]

I’m not ok with the Joker taking on the “passing of the mythology” narrative that the Dark Knight Rises tried to create especially….

ESPECIALLY not by having an amazing actor like Phoenix being replaced by some unknown background extra actor taking on the mantle!!!

Are you serious you are onboard with that unknown actor now being the Joker!

Joker is not a viral disease you pass onto other criminals it’s a single genius character who stands above all else the others just follow like moths to a flame.

The mythology of everyone being Batman is even dumb because not everyone is a billionaire ninja!

Well, that's the end of the film, so yeah I'm okay with it, we're never going to see another one. I'm okay with it because I never viewed the first film as him being the Joker.

Well, it's not a disease as such. If you stop and think how theology is spread and then used as a weapon then you could argue its similarities to virology, though.

The issue is exactly what Philips said about the first one that people didn't like - it's an art-house film in Comic book make-up. People just wanted a comic book Joker. They didnt get it and especially not with the second.

The fact that a poster even referred to Joker as a hero in an earlier post... lol.

 

[crows]

Well, that's the end of the film, so yeah I'm okay with it, we're never going to see another one. I'm okay with it because I never viewed the first film as him being the Joker.

Well, it's not a disease as such. If you stop and think how theology is spread and then used as a weapon then you could argue its similarities to virology, though.

The issue is exactly what Philips said about the first one that people didn't like - it's an art-house film in Comic book make-up. People just wanted a comic book Joker. They didnt get it and especially not with the second.

The fact that a poster even referred to Joker as a hero in an earlier post... lol.

it's not a movie to give money to. and it deserves to flop hard

todd Phillips can have his philosophical movie about crime all he wants, and that's fine

but people don't have to watch it. people don't have to give it money. no one is required to give it money.

exactly just like megaflopolis. they can make their little experimental movies

like matrix 4.

and audiences can reject them and ignore them. and I hope everyone hears our warnings. and reject this movie.

 

[jye4ever]

it's not a movie to give money to. and it deserves to flop hard
todd Phillips can have his philosophical movie about crime all he wants, and that's fine

but people don't have to watch it. people don't have to give it money. no one is required to give it money.

exactly just like megaflopolis. they can make their little experimental movies
like matrix 4.
and audiences can reject them and ignore them. and I hope everyone hears our warnings. and reject this movie.

I went

 

[GaryPool]

it's not a movie to give money to. and it deserves to flop hard
todd Phillips can have his philosophical movie about crime all he wants, and that's fine

but people don't have to watch it. people don't have to give it money. no one is required to give it money.

exactly just like megaflopolis. they can make their little experimental movies
like matrix 4.
and audiences can reject them and ignore them. and I hope everyone hears our warnings. and reject this movie.

Yes, they definitely can and they are. And that's exactly what Philips and Phoenix probably hoped for or at least expected.

 

[R_R_X]

 

[crows]

I went

you know how I said I was typing from the movie theater? and Wor-Gar was so upset that I was disturbing the people in the theater?

Spoiler

 

[R_R_X]

you know how I said I was typing from the movie theater? and Wor-Gar was so upset that I was disturbing the people in the theater?

Spoiler

 

[crows]

View attachment 730910