Joker: Folie à Deux

[ZaCHw117]

lol yea the back tracking is hilarious isn’t it. So again I guess it’s my fault they called the movie joker and he looks like joker but he’s not THE joker. Yea ok lol

Where are you even getting that from? Where did I say it was your fault?

That’s just what the movie did. 🤷‍♂️

 

[ZaCHw117]

Ok well then…. Don’t call it the joker

I’ve already stated that they should have just called it “Arthur”.

 

[ironwez20]

Where are you even getting that from? Where did I say it was your fault?

That’s just what the movie did. 🤷‍♂️

lol you said “ I don’t know what you are getting the idea that people think it’s the actual joker” like bro they called it joker had it set in Gotham and made him a clown. Like why wouldn’t people not think it’s the joker

 

[ironwez20]

I’ve already stated that they should have just called it “Arthur”.

But they didn’t they called it joker . So it’s not weird that dudes here are mad that the guy isn’t the actual joker.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Go look at the covers of the volumes for BTAS and tell me there’s not a DC logo slapped on it.

I watched the opening -- no DC reference.

Just saying... maybe the DC logo isn't the end-all authentication for people who grew up with various Jokers.

 

[GaryPool]

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.

META META META META.

Yeah the film directly speaks of this. It would be dishonest and jarring if the first film promised and delivered a fully complete Joker. The audience in the film and outside of it were like hey, he just became Joker! Time to see some more violence and carnage and anarchy inspired by what he did... womp womp, because the whole entirety of the first film is him just making a cascading series of unfortunate mistakes in response to people pushing him.

His persona he creates and some mannerisms and features he has are reminiscent of the Joker, and he inspires anarchy indirectly. This puts the spotlight on him, so not only is he seen but he feels confident. In reality, he was a product of circumstance and misfortune for how he became Joker, so it is interesting to see his persona picked at with the lens of people propping him up.

It's also interesting because you can take characters from the real world and see how the inspire rabid fanbases despite their history and their audience is always hungry for more.

Fleck gets redemption in a small way at the end, but the Joker persona and what that represents is out in the ether of Gotham.

 

[Wor-Gar]

No DC logo should tell us this is not The Joker, yet it's the story of a dangerous clown in Gotham City who meets Thomas and Bruce Wayne and wants to call himself 'Joker'. I feel like there's enough indication here that one could believe Fleck is becoming the notorious Joker in a variant storyline.

 

[i_amjam]

There’s not even a DC logo or credit at the start of the film. There’s nothing that says this is a DC comics based story or production besides the title and maybe something in the credits.

It’s silly to completely ignore the entire third act and head cannon that this was The Joker no matter what the film states and tells you. I mean it flat out tells you he was not ever The Joker, twice.

Go look at the covers of the volumes for BTAS and tell me there’s not a DC logo slapped on it.

Go look at the posters for Joker 2 and let me know if you see a DC logo on any of them.

This movie is a sequel to the 2019 movie Joker right? Ya know, that first movie with a DC logo on the movie poster and DC logos on the imagery if you search for it on Max? Though it may not matter to you, but the sequel definitely has DC listed in the credits. Like I said in my prior post, this shouldn't have been a DC property-with this added context the sequel gives. Todd Phillips could have done this exact duology without the DC connotations and it could have done well still. I mean Scorsese's own films still do well, so I imagine the first one could have done alright at least on it's own minus the DC stuff.

 

[ironwez20]

META META META META.

Yeah the film directly speaks of this. It would be dishonest and jarring if the first film promised and delivered a fully complete Joker. The audience in the film and outside of it were like hey, he just became Joker! Time to see some more violence and carnage and anarchy inspired by what he did... womp womp, because the whole entirety of the first film is him just making a cascading series of unfortunate mistakes in response to people pushing him.

His persona he creates and some mannerisms and features he has are reminiscent of the Joker, and he inspires anarchy indirectly. This puts the spotlight on him, so not only is he seen but he feels confident. In reality, he was a product of circumstance and misfortune for how he became Joker, so it is interesting to see his persona picked at with the lens of people propping him up.

It's also interesting because you can take characters from the real world and see how the inspire rabid fanbases despite their history and their audience is always hungry for more.

Fleck gets redemption in a small way at the end, but the Joker persona and what that represents is out in the ether of Gotham.

Nah buddy the first film is literally him accepting the role of the joker and him going deeper deeper into madness cause he felt the world was wrong and crazy so he goes crazy with it. At the end he is fully seen and heard and paints a bloody smile on his face.

But hey look if you guys think that the joker movie that was called the joker isn’t really bout the joker it’s about the inspiration of the joker and following some rando named Arthur throughout then ok I guess.
I don’t see joker an an inspiration that’s passed around from guy to guy but that’s me.

 

[ZaCHw117]

lol you said “ I don’t know what you are getting the idea that people think it’s the actual joker” like bro they called it joker had it set in Gotham and made him a clown. Like why wouldn’t people not think it’s the joker

Like bro, maybe people need to watch the film where the person you’re wanting to be The Joker clearly states that he was never Joker and that his name is Arthur, and then gets shanked by someone who may or may not be the actual Joker. You know, the one who wears a purple suit and fights Batman?

Arthur is not the Joker. You can be mad at Phillips for deceiving you, or WB for marketing or whatever. But in the context of the film and whatever Batman universe it’s set in, he is not the actual Joker.

It’s really not that complex of an idea/twist - and was heavily theorized even when the first film came out that Arthur was not the actual Joker.

If you’re having a hard time understanding that, then it’s on you.

 

[Wor-Gar]

A lot of energy spent on most people's "3rd or 4th favorite" Joker, at best.

 

[i_amjam]

Nah buddy the first film is literally him accepting the role of the joker and him going deeper deeper into madness cause he felt the world was wrong and crazy so he goes crazy with it. At the end he is fully seen and heard and paints a bloody smile on his face.

But hey look if you guys think that the joker movie that was called the joker isn’t really bout the joker it’s about the inspiration of the joker and following some rando named Arthur throughout then ok I guess.
I don’t see joker an an inspiration that’s passed around from guy to guy but that’s me.

That's the problem the sequel gives the first movie. The first on it's own can be watched and viewed that way, but now we have to go back and say, no no no, akshually this guy is just using the Joker persona the media and public has created for him temporarily before he rejects it. They aren't one and the same. Arthur is some shmuck the world chews up and may inspire someone to actually take on this Joker namesake. Guess we'll never know though since the person that killed him was unimportant other than his killing of Arthur and now Arthur's story is finished.

 

[GaryPool]

Nah buddy the first film is literally him accepting the role of the joker and him going deeper deeper into madness cause he felt the world was wrong and crazy so he goes crazy with it. At the end he is fully seen and heard and paints a bloody smile on his face.

But hey look if you guys think that the joker movie that was called the joker isn’t really bout the joker it’s about the inspiration of the joker and following some rando named Arthur throughout then ok I guess.
I don’t see joker an an inspiration that’s passed around from guy to guy but that’s me.

Ehh, not entirely. He's still the Joker, with a small t for the, because he's what inspires it. But he's clearly not THE JOKER.

Batman was inspired by a bloody bat... I'm sure it's okay for another Joker more in line with Comic book Joker being inspired by a social outcast that caused anarchy is fine.

 

[ZaCHw117]

No DC logo should tell us this is not The Joker, yet it's the story of a dangerous clown in Gotham City who meets Thomas and Bruce Wayne and wants to call himself 'Joker'. I feel like there's enough indication here that one could believe Fleck is becoming the notorious Joker in a variant storyline.

These events happen in Joker 2?

 

[Khev]

Batman was inspired by a bloody bat...

But was he inspired by THE bat..?

 

[Wor-Gar]

These events happen in Joker 2?

No, the first one -- the same character we follow in Joker 2, yes? Where there is yet more 'sign posts' -- Harvey Dent and Harley Quinn.

 

[GaryPool]

But was he inspired by THE bat..?

Khev, don't give Philips ideas!

 

[ZaCHw117]

No, the first one -- the same character we follow in Joker 2, yes? Where there is yet more 'sign posts' -- Harvey Dent and Harley Quinn.

Why are you fixated on the first film, when the second throws that out of the window? What point are you trying to make? That this is the Joker, and he’s gonna come back to life, dawn the persona and fight Batman? Is that really what the film told you will happen?

 

[ironwez20]

Like bro, maybe people need to watch the film where the person you’re wanting to be The Joker clearly states that he was never Joker and that his name is Arthur, and then gets shanked by someone who may or may not be the actual Joker. You know, the one who wears a purple suit and fights Batman?

Arthur is not the Joker. You can be mad at Phillips for deceiving you, or WB for marketing or whatever. But in the context of the film and whatever Batman universe it’s set in, he is not the actual Joker.

It’s really not that complex of an idea/twist - and was heavily theorized even when the first film came out that Arthur was not the actual Joker.

If you’re having a hard time understanding that, then it’s on you.

lol again it was a theory presented to people. It was never confirmed until the second movie. It was a different take on the joker. I don’t know why people are getting up and arms about people thinking it was the joker and getting upset that it actually wasn’t. Like you said it wasn’t called Arthur it was called…. JOKER. The clown who laughs and has green hair and make up. Causes chaos in gotham. Soooooo like I’m having a hard time understanding why dudes are acting weird that we I don’t like that we spent several hrs on a guy who wasn’t the joker?

It was tounted from the beginning as a joker Irgun story not a inspiration origin joker movie lol

 

[ironwez20]

Ehh, not entirely. He's still the Joker, with a small t for the, because he's what inspires it. But he's clearly not THE JOKER.

Batman was inspired by a bloody bat... I'm sure it's okay for another Joker more in line with Comic book Joker being inspired by a social outcast that caused anarchy is fine.

Batman was inspired by a bat and his parents death. Joker was inspired by another joker. Not the same but whatever. You guys do you.

I don’t understand why some here are acting like it’s crazy we wanted to see joker doing joker things in a freaking joker movie. But I guess the subversion of stuff is what’s in now.