Joker: Folie à Deux

[Mandible]

Congratulations Joker 2 you have joined a very prestigious list:

Speed 2
Aquaman 2
WW2
Jaws 2
Independence Day 2
Caddyshack 2
Airplane 2
Staying Alive
Grease 2
Jurassic Park 2
Die Hard 2
Highlander 2
Cannibal Campout 2
Exorcist 2
Blues Brothers 2

It's also joined the "already forgotten and don't care about it" list, one day after seeing it.

 

[TheClient]

He wasn’t pathetic at the end tho. And no one in this thread said they connected or related to the character.

I suppose it all depends on what you consider "pathetic". You could say he experienced some sort of catharsis or self-fulfillment at the end by lashing out with murder, but still pathetic to me. While the crowd of other pathetic people cheered him on. He ended the movie as Alpha of the Pathetics.

And if no one identified with him, why do so many seem to be taking this movie personally? Why are any of us offended by Arthur's lack of sexual prowess in the sequel? Dude is probably a virgin. I don't understand why this bothers anyone.

 

[Nick D]

Nothing will ever convince me otherwise.

Think about it, why on earth would someone invest time, money and a production on a completely weak Joker or Michael,
in what universe does an audience or director benefit from that movie?
F*cking ***** of directors.

The first hint should of been having Danny McBride on as a writer in a trilogy of Halloween films, great idea.

A deliberately weak version of these characters, we’re not talking about accidentally doing it, purposefully, meticulously crafted into a story no one on the face of the earth wants. The goal is to make any male character who was once seen as uncontrollable, controlled. It’s undeniable.

 

[Nick D]

Why are any of us offended by Arthur's lack of sexual prowess in the sequel? Dude is probably a virgin. I don't understand why this bothers anyone.

Do you not understand,

Why is this in the script?
Why is Todd spending time
on all of this if not with intent to embarrass?

Joker having *** has never been a thing in the movies, because it has zero to do with the character. So to further make him impossibly bad at it,
we’re talking mere seconds here. Come on.
Why am I watching this.

Why’s everybody all of a sudden
demonizing Joker fans?

You like one comic book character but not the other.

I guess it’s perfectly fine to watch Skywalker get ***** by Count Dooku since he became Vader.

Your main character should be treated with some kind of borderline respect in the script, if you don’t allow for this, one cannot follow the story you’re trying to tell here, which is the very reason it flopped, as well as any other sequel that deliberately did the same. People have eyes, piss em off, they vote with their wallet.

Arthur got treated poorly in the first film, but the director still allowed for some kind of borderline respect, which is why you see the mobs of people,
it’s not about being morally correct, what movie ever was?

 

[jye4ever]

I suppose it all depends on what you consider "pathetic". You could say he experienced some sort of catharsis or self-fulfillment at the end by lashing out with murder, but still pathetic to me. While the crowd of other pathetic people cheered him on. He ended the movie as Alpha of the Pathetics.

And if no one identified with him, why do so many seem to be taking this movie personally? Why are any of us offended by Arthur's lack of sexual prowess in the sequel? Dude is probably a virgin. I don't understand why this bothers anyone.

Because if you’re gonna name a movie called JOKER then the audience expects a movie about…are you ready…THE JOKER!t

Guess what the Joker isn’t, none of those character arc traits they put on his finality.

The audience never rejected his “pathetic” traits from part 1 because they were part of his character arc journey and it would’ve been a perfect character arc had they not destroyed him in that disgusting manner.

They ended part 1 with him as the Joker so the sequel makes zero freaking sense.

 

[GaryPool]

The mental gymnastics of thinking Arthur got treated with borderline respect in the first film is absurd.

At the end of the day the wedge that drives the split is people thinking he's The Joker or was supposed to be the Joker or was promised to become the Joker.

Everyone watched the first film, his true Jokierst Joker moment of all time was crying on a TV show after being belittled and ridiculed and shooting someone then dancing away.

The clue is in the music when he's on the car, it wasn't a celebration of him being the Joker.

This is a direct continuation of the first film, and that film very overtly put the Joker title as a concept piece of what the Joker is. The real fools are the people who thought the second film would be anything other than what the first one was.

 

[ZaCHw117]

Do you not understand,

Why is this in the script?
Why is Todd spending time
on all of this if not with intent to embarrass?

Joker having *** has never been a thing in the movies, because it has zero to do with the character. So to further make him impossibly bad at it,
we’re talking mere seconds here. Come on.
Why am I watching this.

Why’s everybody all of a sudden
demonizing Joker fans?

You like one comic book character but not the other.

I guess it’s perfectly fine to watch Skywalker get ***** by Count Dooku since he became Vader.

Your main character should be treated with some kind of borderline respect in the script, if you don’t allow for this, one cannot follow the story you’re trying to tell here, which is the very reason it flopped, as well as any other sequel that deliberately did the same. People have eyes, piss em off, they vote with their wallet.

Arthur got treated poorly in the first film, but the director still allowed for some kind of borderline respect, which is why you see the mobs of people,
it’s not about being morally correct, what movie ever was?

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 *****, Arthur did.

 

[Captain Clown]

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 *****, Arthur did.

Ah yes, the character in this DC Comics movie referred to as “Joker”, in Gotham City, who dresses as a clown with green hair and makeup, who gets sent to Arkham after a murder spree, who constantly laughs, isn’t the Joker, and it’s silly to infer as much. My mistake.

 

[GaryPool]

The mantle of Joker and the idea of it is also very much shown in the first one to be a response from Arthur's actions. Again, he only goes by the name because Murray called him a Joker. Arthur in the entirety of the first film is completely reactionary, The Joker as a character is completely proactive in plan and execution. What they did share was the concept of the Joker character, in which he can inspire other people to cause mayhem for him, along with other bits and pieces.

Throughout the first film he's shown and even says he doesn't care what his actions have caused. There's nowhere near enough evidence in it to suggest that he has become the type of Joker we'd expect.

 

[jye4ever]

The mental gymnastics of thinking Arthur got treated with borderline respect in the first film is absurd.

At the end of the day the wedge that drives the split is people thinking he's The Joker or was supposed to be the Joker or was promised to become the Joker.

Everyone watched the first film, his true Jokierst Joker moment of all time was crying on a TV show after being belittled and ridiculed and shooting someone then dancing away.

The clue is in the music when he's on the car, it wasn't a celebration of him being the Joker.

This is a direct continuation of the first film, and that film very overtly put the Joker title as a concept piece of what the Joker is. The real fools are the people who thought the second film would be anything other than what the first one was.

There is no mental gymnastics being used for part 1.

Did you not see the ending of the movie?

Ironwez literally mentioned this in his post, why are people not mentioning the ending of part 1, he became the Joker!

Of course he was pathetic and abused in part 1 that’s what made his character arc growth so perfect by the end of the movie!

Joker 2 went backwards!

 

[GaryPool]

There is no mental gymnastics being used for part 1.

Did you not see the ending of the movie?

Ironwez literally mentioned this in his post, why are people not mentioning the ending of part 1, he became the Joker!

Of course he was pathetic and abused in part 1 that’s what made his character arc growth so perfect by the end of the movie!

Joker 2 went backwards!

Yeah he embraced the Joker moniker put on him in all the aspects that bought him at the end, and that's it. His arc was embracing another part of his Psyche that unlocked and manifested in the bathroom.

This films arc is him coming to grips if that actually is him or a persona that is detrimental to himself.

You may not like it but they're a very similar arc, pretty much the same in reverse. So yes, you're correct, Joker 2 went backwards.

 

[jye4ever]

Yeah he embraced the Joker moniker put on him in the aspects that bought him at the end, and that's it.

Yeah, his arc was embracing another part of his Psyche that unlocked and manifested in the bathroom.

This films arc is him coming to grips if that actually is him or a persona that is detrimental to himself.

You may not like it but they're a very similar arc, pretty much the same in reverse.

I love that idea.

I fully support that idea.

I would love to see that in a movie NOT CALLED JOKER if that’s going to be his ending.

Go ahead keep Arthur Fleck being ***** as part of his character journey but there will be hell to pay once he becomes the Joker!

 

[GaryPool]

I love that idea.

I fully support that idea.

I would love to see that in a movie NOT CALLED JOKER if that’s going to be his ending.

Go ahead keep Arthur Fleck being ***** as part of his character journey but there will be hell to pay once he becomes the Joker!

I just don't understand how you're onboard with the first one but not the second - well I do as far in as you viewed his arc as culminating at becoming the Joker.

But... he's still that Joker in this film when the meds wear off. So my point is where the divide comes from the first portrayal being okay and this one not?

And again, it's clearly two concept films. In the same vain how the idea of Batman is more than just himself. It's almost the antithesis to that theology. And to be honest outside of concepts like those comic books are pretty naff and boring.

 

[TheClient]

Do you not understand,

Why is this in the script?
Why is Todd spending time
on all of this if not with intent to embarrass?

Joker having *** has never been a thing in the movies, because it has zero to do with the character. So to further make him impossibly bad at it,
we’re talking mere seconds here. Come on.
Why am I watching this.

Why’s everybody all of a sudden
demonizing Joker fans?

You like one comic book character but not the other.

I guess it’s perfectly fine to watch Skywalker get ***** by Count Dooku since he became Vader.

Your main character should be treated with some kind of borderline respect in the script, if you don’t allow for this, one cannot follow the story you’re trying to tell here, which is the very reason it flopped, as well as any other sequel that deliberately did the same. People have eyes, piss em off, they vote with their wallet.

Arthur got treated poorly in the first film, but the director still allowed for some kind of borderline respect, which is why you see the mobs of people,
it’s not about being morally correct, what movie ever was?

I understand this is a bad movie full of bad choices.

I will never understand taking it personally or feeling angry about it.

"My boy! Look at how they massacred my boy!"

This movie is a joke, and so is the backlash.

 

[Khev]

Because if you’re gonna name a movie called JOKER then the audience expects a movie about…are you ready…THE JOKER!t

Guess what the Joker isn’t, none of those character arc traits they put on his finality.

The audience never rejected his “pathetic” traits from part 1 because they were part of his character arc journey and it would’ve been a perfect character arc had they not destroyed him in that disgusting manner.

They ended part 1 with him as the Joker so the sequel makes zero freaking sense.

The end Joker 1 and TFA: Finally the Joker and Luke are revealed!

Joker 2 and TLJ: Joker tosses aside his identity, Luke tosses his saber and the teachings of the Jedi.

 

[ironwez20]

I suppose it all depends on what you consider "pathetic". You could say he experienced some sort of catharsis or self-fulfillment at the end by lashing out with murder, but still pathetic to me. While the crowd of other pathetic people cheered him on. He ended the movie as Alpha of the Pathetics.

And if no one identified with him, why do so many seem to be taking this movie personally? Why are any of us offended by Arthur's lack of sexual prowess in the sequel? Dude is probably a virgin. I don't understand why this bothers anyone.

It’s called invested in the character. Just cause you’re invested in the story doesn’t mean you idolize or relate to the character. My gosh lol

 

[Khev]

You know if WB had simply not screened it for critics the week before release they probably would have at least broken even on opening weekend before word of mouth kicked in.

 

[ironwez20]

I just don't understand how you're onboard with the first one but not the second - well I do as far in as you viewed his arc as culminating at becoming the Joker.

But... he's still that Joker in this film when the meds wear off. So my point is where the divide comes from the first portrayal being okay and this one not?

And again, it's clearly two concept films. In the same vain how the idea of Batman is more than just himself. It's almost the antithesis to that theology. And to be honest outside of concepts like those comic books are pretty naff and boring.

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.

 

[jye4ever]

The end Joker 1 and TFA: Finally the Joker and Luke are revealed!

Joker 2 and TLJ: Joker tosses aside his identity, Luke tosses his saber and the teachings of the Jedi.

Phillips would then have Luke ***** by the senators.

 

[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 *****, Arthur did.

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