I liked that movie but Keaton's Vulture was so-so. Just didn't buy the character.
Joker Origin Story Announced
- Thread starter Starbreaker
- Start date
I liked that movie but Keaton's Vulture was so-so. Just didn't buy the character.
The MCU's success should speak for itself and require no defending.
I personally don't have any more interest in the MCU but that's because it is exhausting to keep up on. Same with comic books. I have enjoyed a lot of them but there are too many for me to keep going with.
Each to their own, obviously. It was unusual to see a working class (blue collar) bad guy and I liked his family dynamic too. Plus I always enjoy Keaton.
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here, the MCU does a pretty good job of recreating what I like in the comics, the big epic adventures, with great characters. Now obviously they don't recreate every type of superhero comic, but I definitely don't feel that they represent the worst of them.
So, why is it so hard to understand that "Joker" is basically another AU? Because, as the tagline to Alan Moore's "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow" said: "This is an Imaginary Story, but then, aren't they all?" Was it really necessary for you to have a label like "Elseworld" or "Black Label" put underneath the DC logo in the end credits?
Maybe, but being in love with Death, that was really his thing in the comic, wasn't it? Like, the whole reason he snapped in the comics was to impress Death. So, why did they change that? Why change such a core aspect of the character? Was it that they were ashamed of that aspect? Did they think that having Death as an actual character was too out there for a mainstream audience? Did they think that, if his motivation was not romantic feelings for Death, but a trauma about his home world, the Saturn moon Titan (wait, they didn't include that in the movie either. I wonder why), being struck by famine, would be more relatable to people? That that would be grounded enough?
Is an R-rated alternative origin movie of the villain out of the box enough for you?
Now, I don't frequent the MCU threads, so I can't talk about that. But I do see your behaviour in the DC movie threads (as well as this summer's Sony-vs-Marvel thread), and what you accuse others of here, you are guilty of yourself.
Also, there's always criticism of any new DC movie, including the Batman movies. Fuck, Dark Knight Rises was ripped apart by a lot of people. Joker, as I mentioned before, was smeared long before it was released. And I'm not even start on the DCEU films.
On the other hand, Black Panther was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Picture category. Have you actually let that one sink in? A popcorn flick. Nominated in the Best Picture Category. At the fucking Oscars.
So, I'm a DC guy, but I do enjoy a lot of Marvel movies. Also a lot of MCU movies. Keep that last part in mind, please. Because I need to tell you, your perception seems to be incredibly slanted.
And even if there are a few people who can't wait for the next MCU movie in order to bitch about it online, so what? It's not like there aren't more than enough fellow fans of the MCU, online and in RL.
You are part of probably the biggest fandom in the world right now, with a near-flood of new installments coming for years to come, with more merch than you could ever buy, and with millions of like-minded people all around the world.
So, why do you take it so hard and so personal when some people don't like the MCU? Or even if they merely don't hold it in as high regard as you do? Relax. Enjoy your favorite movies. Let those who like other approaches enjoy those. Live and let live. It really is that easy.
I definitely agree that there's been TONS of changes in the MCU. It's one of the biggest reasons why I laugh at the entire idea that 'faithfulness' to the source material is necessarily a virtue, because, imo, tons of the MCU changes are clear improvements to the source material.
Have to disagree about the villains, though. Maybe it was true once upon a time with Loki being the main exception, but in the meantime we've had Alexander Pierce and the Winter Soldier, Nebula (not main, but still great), Ultron (yes, I found Ultron a very fun and interesting villain), Ego, Zemo, Vulture, Killmonger, Thanos, and Mysterio. And Hela certainly seemed to strike a nerve for a lot of people, too, though I didn't care for her as much.
Some of these may be debatable to some extent, and there are some others who certainly don't qualify as anything more than 'guy for the hero to fight at the end', but I think we have plenty right here to put this idea that the MCU villains are 'consistently' weak to bed.
I think the MCU's reputation for weak villains is largely a product of phase 2. I had no problems with Stane, Ross, Blonsky, Red Skull or Loki. Only Justin Hammer and Vanko can be said to be weak villains in phase one.
Todd Phillips confirms Joker sequel rumours to be bullshit.
Personally, I think Joker was perfect and a sequel would only drag it down.
Personally, I think Joker was perfect and a sequel would only drag it down.
Yeah, I don't want a sequel. The only way I'd see it working would be with Batman as a background character, but Batman is kinda pointless to this Joker's origin story. TDK Joker worked so well because he was a natural inverse to what Bruce wanted Batman to be - a symbol, something elemental. Joker turns that on its head and is intelligent enough to match wits with Batman. Nolan movies always bordered on the ridiculous once Batman started talking, but pulled it off. Be hard to do that again.
On a similar note, I'd like to see a Luthor movie in a similar vein to that. With Superman being a background character we don't see much of.
On a similar note, I'd like to see a Luthor movie in a similar vein to that. With Superman being a background character we don't see much of.
The point about the MCU--
The worst being that senseless, "This is THE biggest!" (Until next week/month/year),over the top blasts & noise sans strong stories with rational motivations for what happens. That was so much a problem with a good deal of the printed Marvel comics of the 80s and 90s, and the MCU takes most of its inspiration from that with few exceptions..
Because its easier to just hate it because its DC, successful and critically acclaimed. One of this member's oft-posted reason for hating the Nolan Batman trilogy.
It would seem so, and that's odd, considering the MCU's biggest defender around here is of the belief that the MCU's handlers are not "ashamed" of comics, so why did they completely rip that metaphysical aspect away from Thanos and his motivation? It cant be a belief that movie audiences cannot or would not accept/understand it, since in a general, pop culture / audience awareness sense, they have spent 42 years watching Star Wars movies, which--more than anything else--was an exploration into / story about a galaxy playing host to an ancient religious war (and its oft-stated philosophies) using the rest as their backdrop / combatants. So an alleged aversion to something like Death as a real character could not be it...unless the MCU handlers have a low opinion of its audience. Either way, the MCU ended up with a villain with a mission not making a whit of sense.
QFT.
Apparently, having a large group to support beliefs is not enough for some.
I finally got around to watching this movie, and honestly, I thought it was overrated. I felt that this movie didn't work as a comic book movie at all, and I couldn't see Arthur being the same Joker as the one that would be Batman's top nemesis.
If they do a sequel, I would do a swerve and have Arthur die but be an inspiration to the actual Joker. They did something similar on Gotham.
This movie seemed to want to be "realistic," which for me, is the death knell of comic book movies. Comic book movies are not realistic. They aren't supposed to be realistic. This was my big problem with the Nolan Batman movies. I didn't feel like I was watching Batman. I felt I was watching Batman if he were real. Batman isn't real.
This was similar.
If you are going to make a movie about a certain character, especially a legendary one like the Joker, I feel that the source material is vital, and you have to be logical about it.
So let's start with a logical issue.
Arthur is about 45 years old. Even if you call him 40, he's no younger than that.
Arthur's mom worked for the Waynes 30 years prior, and Arthur was old enough to remember that, and she seemed to stop working when she went nuts, and he a good 10 years old at that point.
Arthur is also a chain smoker -- to the point where you wonder if the producers had a smoking fetish.
Smoking, as we all know, is not so good for your health.
Bruce's parents die when he is 8 years old, and the movie has that right.
So Arthur is somewhere between 32-37 years older than Bruce, or definitely in that range.
Let's say Bruce trains for 20 years. That would be about right because he has to develop both his mind and body to be Batman.
Arthur will be somewhere between 65-70 years old when Batman debuts.
By the time Batman is in his true prime, Arthur will be in his late 70s/early 80s.
With a lifetime of smoking.
Even if Arthur doesn't have lung cancer, he will be coughing more than laughing, and likely will have other smoking related health issues.
He certainly wouldn't be a match for an Olympic level athlete in his 20s/30s who also happens to be one of the 5 smartest people on the planet.
Batman would be able to easily take Arthur out based on the sheer age difference between the two men.
And of course, if this is a real world scenario, then Arthur would never get out of jail.
So this movie only makes sense if Arthur is not the actual Joker.
If a sequel establishes this as reality, I think this movie goes up a notch because it would be an intelligent twist.
If they do a sequel, I would do a swerve and have Arthur die but be an inspiration to the actual Joker. They did something similar on Gotham.
This movie seemed to want to be "realistic," which for me, is the death knell of comic book movies. Comic book movies are not realistic. They aren't supposed to be realistic. This was my big problem with the Nolan Batman movies. I didn't feel like I was watching Batman. I felt I was watching Batman if he were real. Batman isn't real.
This was similar.
If you are going to make a movie about a certain character, especially a legendary one like the Joker, I feel that the source material is vital, and you have to be logical about it.
So let's start with a logical issue.
Arthur is about 45 years old. Even if you call him 40, he's no younger than that.
Arthur's mom worked for the Waynes 30 years prior, and Arthur was old enough to remember that, and she seemed to stop working when she went nuts, and he a good 10 years old at that point.
Arthur is also a chain smoker -- to the point where you wonder if the producers had a smoking fetish.
Smoking, as we all know, is not so good for your health.
Bruce's parents die when he is 8 years old, and the movie has that right.
So Arthur is somewhere between 32-37 years older than Bruce, or definitely in that range.
Let's say Bruce trains for 20 years. That would be about right because he has to develop both his mind and body to be Batman.
Arthur will be somewhere between 65-70 years old when Batman debuts.
By the time Batman is in his true prime, Arthur will be in his late 70s/early 80s.
With a lifetime of smoking.
Even if Arthur doesn't have lung cancer, he will be coughing more than laughing, and likely will have other smoking related health issues.
He certainly wouldn't be a match for an Olympic level athlete in his 20s/30s who also happens to be one of the 5 smartest people on the planet.
Batman would be able to easily take Arthur out based on the sheer age difference between the two men.
And of course, if this is a real world scenario, then Arthur would never get out of jail.
So this movie only makes sense if Arthur is not the actual Joker.
If a sequel establishes this as reality, I think this movie goes up a notch because it would be an intelligent twist.
It’s fine to not enjoy a less fantastical adaptation of a “comic book” but your personal dislike doesn’t make such adaptations wrong in and of themselves. There’s no “supposed to be” in any art, commercial or otherwise. There’s just a willingness to do something and the risk of acceptance or rejection (or a muddled middle). The attempt itself—more or less fantastical—is not illegitimate on its face.
Agreed. The Nolan Batman films proved--beyond the shadow of a doubt--that over the top noise was not necessary to be a great adaptation of a comic book character.
A comic story is a comic book story. Yes, they took a risk, and it's beyond illogical that Arthur could be any kind of threat to Batman, let alone someone who could consistently escape prison.
As for the Nolan movies, they also don't really work as Batman movies. These characters were not conceived as real world characters. Batman could never exist in the real world. Never. The Joker would never escape in the real world, and would likely have been killed several times over.
But the idea of Batman's biggest nemesis being a chain smoker in his 70s is utterly ridiculous.
Coming in 2020: the crossover event of the year: Batman v Keith Richards
Don't give them any ideas! After the last post, I did a little googling and it seems I am far from the only one who feels that Arthur can't be THE Joker.
In addition to his age, let's face it, he's just not smart enough. The Joker, for all his lunacy, is a genius level intellect capable of going toe to toe with Batman. Arthur isn't nearly that bright.
Plus, there is also the Inception factor. The makers of this movie purposefully left a lot of "what is real and what isn't" to the viewer.
We saw that he never had a relationship with his neighbor even though the movie swerved there. What else wasn't real?
The only thing we truly know is Arthur was insane.
But what if the whole movie was a lie? What if Arthur was just imagining a life based on The Joker? What if none of it actually happened and instead of being The Joker or an inspiration for the Joker, ARTHUR was the one inspired by the real Joker?
About the only scenes which we can safely assume are real are the ones in Arkham.
Funny thing happened with Joker. I went to the theater and had an enjoyable experience.
Congratulations?
Congratulations?