• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Joker Origin Story Announced

Kai "the spy" said:
Okay, I've been out of this thread for a day or two, and the discussion has moved along, so I'm happy to drop almost all of my previous ongoing debates. However, I wanted to follow up on something, because it struck me as even odder than all the rest of @Anwar 's arguments.

To set the stage, when I pointed out that contrary to what he had claimed, Arthur doesn't get violent with Sophie on-screen, to which he then claimed that it was later implied that Arthur had killed her. When I asked how, this was his answer:



First off, no. Not obvious at all. At least not to me, as the thought hadn't even crossed my mind until some people brought it up afterwards. Which brings me to second, that's not an answer. Please, do point out to dimwitted old me where and how the movie implied that Arthur killed Sophie.
Click to expand...

He walks out, police sirens are blaring.

Pretty obvious what we'd get from that. Not showing it on-screen was just a manipulative way of keeping our sympathy with Arthur because the movie refused to own up and show we'd been cheering on a nutcase doing bad things. Showing him kill Sophie would have killed that sympathy. As opposed to Falling Down, which had the intelligence to deconstruct D-Fens at the end.

And then the director has to outright say "He didn't kill her" because he didn't have the courage to follow through and say "Yes, you were cheering on a murderous nutter." and instead went "Oh, don't worry. He didn't kill anyone who didn't deserve it one way or another, he's a good guy!"
 
Kai "the spy" said:
Please, do point out to dimwitted old me where and how the movie implied that Arthur killed Sophie.
Click to expand...


The movie doesn't. Claiming otherwise is either simply being provocative or demonstrating an inability to follow a film's narrative.

Neither of those are uncommon in fandom.

BTW, the film's cinematographer had a few words for this kind of nonsense:

In a chat with /Film, Sher said, "Todd [Phillips, the director] makes it clear she wasn’t killed. Arthur is killing people who’ve wronged him in a certain way, and Sophie never wronged him."
Click to expand...

You would expect fabrications like the Sophie-killing thing to arise from frustration at an inability to present and defend valid criticisms of the movie.
 
Anwar said:
And then the director has to outright say "He didn't kill her" because he didn't have the courage to follow through and say "Yes, you were cheering on a murderous nutter." and instead went "Oh, don't worry. He didn't kill anyone who didn't deserve it one way or another, he's a good guy!"
Click to expand...
Being able to sympathize doesn't make him a "good guy."

Good grief. This discussion acts like this is the first time morally ambiguous or anti-heroes have been protagonists in films before. Despite the popularity of films like "The Godfather" or shows like "Breaking Bad" people have somehow, some weird way, being able to sympathize with the protagonist, be entertained by the show, and not think that everything done is "good."

What a strange argument.
 
fireproof78 said:
Being able to sympathize doesn't make him a "good guy."

Good grief. This discussion acts like this is the first time morally ambiguous or anti-heroes have been protagonists in films before. Despite the popularity of films like "The Godfather" or shows like "Breaking Bad" people have somehow, some weird way, being able to sympathize with the protagonist, be entertained by the show, and not think that everything done is "good."

What a strange argument.
Click to expand...
Well, if your primary yardstick for the quality of characterization and narrative is the MCU, I suppose a lot of good films are confusing.
 
Serveaux said:
The movie doesn't. Claiming otherwise is either simply being provocative or demonstrating an inability to follow a film's narrative.
Click to expand...

If the movie made it clear, the director and cinematographer wouldn't have had to come out and spell it for anyone.

fireproof78 said:
Being able to sympathize doesn't make him a "good guy."
Click to expand...

Everything else in the movie does, though. Including the director saying he has a code and only kills those who deserved it, when Joker isn't supposed to adhere to that.
 
Serveaux said:
Well, if your primary yardstick for the quality of characterization and narrative is the MCU.
Click to expand...

Something with properly developed characters and avoiding artsy-fartsy nonsense or laziness like "Just think of much he hallucinated! Maybe the whole movie is a hallucination!"?
 
fireproof78 said:
Being able to sympathize doesn't make him a "good guy."

Good grief. This discussion acts like this is the first time morally ambiguous or anti-heroes have been protagonists in films before. Despite the popularity of films like "The Godfather" or shows like "Breaking Bad" people have somehow, some weird way, being able to sympathize with the protagonist, be entertained by the show, and not think that everything done is "good."

What a strange argument.
Click to expand...

It reads like someone needs simple ideas things spoon-fed to him like child-targeted cartoons...that the concept of the morally ambiguous and/or anti-hero in film--which is as old as the medium (and successful)--is somehow an incomprehensible thing...a head-scratcher or "wrong."

Nonsense.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
It reads like someone needs simple ideas things spoon-fed to him like child-targeted cartoons...that the concept of the morally ambiguous and/or anti-hero in film--which is as old as the medium (and successful)--is somehow an incomprehensible thing...a head-scratcher or "wrong."

Nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's not, it's just not what Joker is. And it's indicative of how this is just an INO movie the director made and how he hijacked the name to get funding and an audience.

Serveaux said:
Every movie narrative cannot be as honest and faithful to the material as the MCU.

Thank god.
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
I don't think Phoenix will do it. He strikes me as those kinds of people that would think sequels would taint their "art" or see it as some sort of "consumer trap"
 
Captaindemotion said:
I personally think they should leave it as a standalone. But then again, when I first heard about this I thought it was a bad idea, so I’m happy to be proven wrong again.
Click to expand...


Yeah, has Phoenix ever done a sequel to a film? He usually doesn't do the kinds of movies that spawn them, does he?

Samurai8472 said:
I don't think Phoenix will do it. He strikes me as those kinds of people that would think sequels would taint their "art" or see it as some sort of "consumer trap"
Click to expand...

He is an extraordinary talent, isn't he?

Ah well, I guess the descent of the industry into the whirlpool of the commercial toilet catches everyone eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top