Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Joker thread (spoilers, duh)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Joker thread (spoilers, duh)

    First, spoilers tags. They work like this:

    1. type an open square bracket, like so: [
    2. follow with the word spoiler and a close square bracket: spoiler]
    3. say something naughty
    4. type an open square bracket, like so: [
    5. follow with a forward slash, the word spoiler and a close square bracket: /spoiler]
    6. click the "Preview Post" button to see if you did it correctly.

    Spoiler:
    in practice, it looks like this




    OK, I enjoyed the movie. It was a drama piece, not really an action film. There were some mild action parts, though.

    Joaquin Phoenix did a great job, especially considering he was in basically every scene.

    The story didn't seem canonical in several respects. I'm not a huge Batman geek, but I already have multiple backstories; another which doesn't really satisfy any of them was not endearing. Not enough to make a huge difference, overall, because the character held more or less true.

    Some main points to consider/discuss:
    Spoiler:

    1. After a modicum of research, some sort of chemical bath seems to be the preferred event; there are differences in those, though. I was sorta disappointed to not see it play out in some way.
    2. WTF Thomas Wayne is Joker's dad? Or, is that just a ruse? Perhaps a sequel will focus on this, a bit more.
    3. I always thought Joker killed the Wayne parents; that one of his unintended sycophants did in this movie I found weird, but not especially off-putting
    4. The uncontrollable laugh thing was a neat new treatment
    5. My wife disagrees, but I thought they could have done a much better job at indicating this is a period piece. Younger audiences may not pick up on the clues.
    6. What was the Joker's original name? Jack Napier, or Arthur whatever the fuck?
    Consider for a moment that there is no meme about brown-haired, brown-eyed step children.

    #2
    The comics never settled on a real name for the Joker or what his true origin story was. In Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, Joker himself admits he remembers different origins for himself. Joker only killed the Wayne's in the 1989 Batman movie though. In the comics it was always Joe Chill.

    Comment


      #3
      I know just enough about Batman to say this was an interesting take. I like the subtle innuendo to TW, Bruce and the joker, while staying away from one shots and else world titles. I think this Origin is actually more legit.

      All the crying and dumbass controversy was made even more ridiculous by the actual movie.

      It is an actual indictment of certain real world issues not a way to set off more violence or trigger school shooters. Asinine people asking WB to put their money where there mouth is....

      They did IMO.
      Last edited by It is Fake; 10/06/2019 8:24pm, .

      Comment


        #4
        I can't tell if I'm happy with the movie, or just happy it pissed off wimps before it was even released.

        Anyway
        Spoiler:
        I like how he is broken and beaten down.

        I've heard other critics say the relationship thing was odd until it was revealed it was all in his head, but that was kinda interesting to me. Like, he's just capped a whole heap of people, why wouldn't he feel like his balls are big enough to go get some from his hot neighbour?

        It is this that makes want to see it again to see what else was in the movie that I may have missed the first time round. Were there tells? As in, can you go back through like in say, Fight Club, where there's things that pop up that indicate these points?

        I like how he kills people in the movie, I think it shows the realism of the descent of his mental state. He's not particularly calculated when it comes to the execution, the calculation seems to come well before the act. It takes you by surprise when he does kill, like there's still a way to go before he's at rock bottom, but he's been there before so knows if he pulls the trigger now, he won't get there. It's a really cool look at the psyche.

        I really enjoyed the film as a whole...

        But, I don't think I like the ending.

        I mean, when I was 11 and had written a "creative" piece in what was basically an exam for a scholarship, the timer went off for the last few minutes of the exam and I panicked and wrapped it up with the "it was all a dream" When I got back to school, I was told by my English teacher that doing that is lazy and "bad writing". The whole, "...we got you thinking this was all in real life but it is a fantasy hahaha" thing is really weak, in my opinion.

        Maybe I am wrong, maybe I misread that scene. It's entirely possible, I was high as a fucking kite at the time. But it felt like it was saying it was all in his head. The only other explanation is that he was captured after the ambulance scene and this is him in court appointed asylum. Again, stoned af, but it seemed like *misdirection*.



        As an aside, my short story had whales and a sunset in it, so it should have got me the scholarship.
        GET A RED BELT OR DIE TRYIN'.
        Originally posted by Devil
        I think Battlefields and I had a spirited discussion once about who was the biggest narcissist. We both wanted the title but at the end of the day I had to concede defeat. Can't win 'em all.
        Originally posted by BackFistMonkey
        I <3 Battlefields...

        Comment


          #5
          An interesting theory I heard, today:

          Spoiler:
          Joker is in Arkham when this whole story is related; he could be just trolling the shrink, and nothing we watched was real.

          I'm not sure I agree, but I do really like that theory.


          Also, my view is currently that there will be a second movie, detailing Joker's rise to power, culminating in the first (re)meeting of Bruce Wayne/Batman.
          Consider for a moment that there is no meme about brown-haired, brown-eyed step children.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by submessenger View Post
            An interesting theory I heard, today:

            Spoiler:
            Joker is in Arkham when this whole story is related; he could be just trolling the shrink, and nothing we watched was real.

            I'm not sure I agree, but I do really like that theory.


            Also, my view is currently that there will be a second movie, detailing Joker's rise to power, culminating in the first (re)meeting of Bruce Wayne/Batman.
            Wait, people think there is another option?
            GET A RED BELT OR DIE TRYIN'.
            Originally posted by Devil
            I think Battlefields and I had a spirited discussion once about who was the biggest narcissist. We both wanted the title but at the end of the day I had to concede defeat. Can't win 'em all.
            Originally posted by BackFistMonkey
            I <3 Battlefields...

            Comment


              #7
              He's no Heath Ledger.

              And definitely no Nicholson.

              Caesar Romero, maybe.
              '�I am no advocate of passivity,� Coffin Mott said in an 1860 speech. �Quakerism, as I understand it, does not mean quietism. The early Friends were agitators; disturbers of the peace; and were more obnoxious in their day to charges, which are now so freely made, than we are.�'

              My Glossary: https://www.bullshido.net/forums/sho...d.php?t=129294

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
                He's no Heath Ledger.
                Phoenix is better, if less emotive. Also, he's still above room temperature.
                Consider for a moment that there is no meme about brown-haired, brown-eyed step children.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by submessenger View Post
                  Phoenix is better, if less emotive. Also, he's still above room temperature.
                  They're all great actors, but Phoenix studied all the ones before him.

                  Romero and Nicholson had the campy Joker, Ledger had the edgy Joker.

                  This is the lonesome Joker. Possibly the most dangerous type of supervillain.
                  '�I am no advocate of passivity,� Coffin Mott said in an 1860 speech. �Quakerism, as I understand it, does not mean quietism. The early Friends were agitators; disturbers of the peace; and were more obnoxious in their day to charges, which are now so freely made, than we are.�'

                  My Glossary: https://www.bullshido.net/forums/sho...d.php?t=129294

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
                    They're all great actors, but Phoenix studied all the ones before him.

                    Romero and Nicholson had the campy Joker, Ledger had the edgy Joker.

                    This is the lonesome Joker. Possibly the most dangerous type of supervillain.
                    We haven't seen Phoenix's Joker. We've seen his proto-Joker. He definitely did good with many cues of his predecessors. You can stand on the shoulders of a giant, and still be no taller, but I don't think that's what happened, here.

                    From an acting perspective, Phoenix kills it, because he's in like every fucking scene of a 140 minute cut.
                    Consider for a moment that there is no meme about brown-haired, brown-eyed step children.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by submessenger View Post
                      We haven't seen Phoenix's Joker. We've seen his proto-Joker. He definitely did good with many cues of his predecessors. You can stand on the shoulders of a giant, and still be no taller, but I don't think that's what happened, here.

                      From an acting perspective, Phoenix kills it, because he's in like every fucking scene of a 140 minute cut.
                      He was great playing Johnny Cash. He's a character actor, and he's played some really out-there characters.
                      '�I am no advocate of passivity,� Coffin Mott said in an 1860 speech. �Quakerism, as I understand it, does not mean quietism. The early Friends were agitators; disturbers of the peace; and were more obnoxious in their day to charges, which are now so freely made, than we are.�'

                      My Glossary: https://www.bullshido.net/forums/sho...d.php?t=129294

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I loved the movie. I think it was great. I think the critics who didn't like it were over-analyzing it and trying to insist that every story tells the story they want the audience to hear. Aside from the fact that they're fucking wrong about what the story says anyway.

                        My favorite part was...
                        Spoiler:
                        the "joke" at the end where he's thinking about the Wayne family and how Bruce was left exactly the same way he was left. Traumatized and hollowed out to the point of having his happiness stolen from him. I think it was great drama.

                        It was not a "feel good" summer blockbuster. It was a gut punch and a back alley dirty needle.

                        There is a hole in the story though that defies canon, even if you erased the canon.

                        1. In the comics, nobody knows the Joker's real name. In this one, the only way for his name to have been suppressed is if the cops died and all records of their investigation were purged as well as his identity being purged from that nightclub. There's just too many loose ends for it to gel with the fact that Joker's background was always a great big mystery. Plus, the show even called him at home so they would have known his identity.

                        I kind of lean towards the joker making the story up or hallucinating part, or all, of it.

                        2. Sub: Bruce Wayne wasn't his father. The story was that he was adopted by Penny Fleck and she neglected him while her psycho drunk boyfriend abused him nearly to death. She told him a crazy lie to cover her own failures and the fact that his condition was caused by head trauma associated with that abuse.

                        3. One person who didn't get what was coming to them was the boyfriend that never made an appearance. If there's a sequel, I imagine that's one sub-plot that will get hemmed up.

                        You guys noticed that when he left the office with the counselor at the end he was leaving bloody footprints behind him right? That's not a hole in the story, but it was some savage shit. That also goes up there to one of the reasons I think people will be talking about this movie alongside things like Dog Day Afternoon and Deer Hunter. I can see why DeNiro took the part.

                        I also like that they made Thomas Wayne and Alfred a couple of pricks.

                        It was a great movie.


                        I give it 5 Stars because the brutality of the story and actions within the story it made me feel a little sick to my stomach.

                        "Pave the way for the little guy, Caligula!" Harry Solomon, September 28, 1999

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Dung Beatles View Post
                          I loved the movie. I think it was great. I think the critics who didn't like it were over-analyzing it and trying to insist that every story tells the story they want the audience to hear. Aside from the fact that they're fucking wrong about what the story says anyway.

                          My favorite part was...
                          Spoiler:
                          the "joke" at the end where he's thinking about the Wayne family and how Bruce was left exactly the same way he was left. Traumatized and hollowed out to the point of having his happiness stolen from him. I think it was great drama.

                          It was not a "feel good" summer blockbuster. It was a gut punch and a back alley dirty needle.

                          There is a hole in the story though that defies canon, even if you erased the canon.

                          1. In the comics, nobody knows the Joker's real name. In this one, the only way for his name to have been suppressed is if the cops died and all records of their investigation were purged as well as his identity being purged from that nightclub. There's just too many loose ends for it to gel with the fact that Joker's background was always a great big mystery. Plus, the show even called him at home so they would have known his identity.

                          I kind of lean towards the joker making the story up or hallucinating part, or all, of it.

                          2. Sub: Bruce Wayne wasn't his father. The story was that he was adopted by Penny Fleck and she neglected him while her psycho drunk boyfriend abused him nearly to death. She told him a crazy lie to cover her own failures and the fact that his condition was caused by head trauma associated with that abuse.

                          3. One person who didn't get what was coming to them was the boyfriend that never made an appearance. If there's a sequel, I imagine that's one sub-plot that will get hemmed up.

                          You guys noticed that when he left the office with the counselor at the end he was leaving bloody footprints behind him right? That's not a hole in the story, but it was some savage shit. That also goes up there to one of the reasons I think people will be talking about this movie alongside things like Dog Day Afternoon and Deer Hunter. I can see why DeNiro took the part.

                          I also like that they made Thomas Wayne and Alfred a couple of pricks.

                          It was a great movie.


                          I give it 5 Stars because the brutality of the story and actions within the story it made me feel a little sick to my stomach.

                          Go watch the movie again. There are two things that throw his parentage into question. Actually, three if I am really stretching.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by It is Fake View Post
                            Go watch the movie again. There are two things that throw his parentage into question. Actually, three if I am really stretching.
                            Don't mind if I do.
                            "Pave the way for the little guy, Caligula!" Harry Solomon, September 28, 1999

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Mrs Rabbit is questioning whether this movie is too violent for our sons.

                              Keep in mind they've seen The Dark Knight and both IT movies.

                              Thoughts?
                              '�I am no advocate of passivity,� Coffin Mott said in an 1860 speech. �Quakerism, as I understand it, does not mean quietism. The early Friends were agitators; disturbers of the peace; and were more obnoxious in their day to charges, which are now so freely made, than we are.�'

                              My Glossary: https://www.bullshido.net/forums/sho...d.php?t=129294

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X