Messages

I always found it telling how quickly Batman rebounded from huge mega storylines like Knightfall and No Man's Land. Yes, you could argue that 1995 and 2000 were... not great years for Batman comics. Not terrible. Not great either tho. But the character found his groove again fairly quickly, all things considered.

Compare that to the Superman titles, which needed a full year to recover from Krisis Of The Krimson Kryptonite (which wasn't a huge storyline by any means except for the final chapter) and arguably never fully recovered from the Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign Of The Supermen storylines.

Ages ago, I read somebody on reddit claim that Laurie's arc in the Blumhouse films would actually make more sense if it happened in reverse.

Ends shows Laurie determined to live a happy and comfortable life. But then, Michael Myers comes knocking.

Kills shows Laurie sacked out in the hospital recovering from her injuries but convinced she got Michael. She then discovers how mistaken she is.

2018 shows Laurie hiding out in her own isolated compound as she prepares for her final showdown. This time, she snares Myers in a trap and leaves him for dead.

I don't mind the Blumhouse films as they are. But I do think that redditor has a point when he suggests reversing her arc. In retrospect, that might've been the better way to go.

The most I ask of any Halloween sequel is to not make me wish I was watching the original film instead. Most Myers-oriented Halloween sequel have some kind of redeeming quality for me. Something that draws me in. The only real exceptions to that are Halloween 05, Zombie's H2 and, to a lesser degree, either cut of Halloween 06. The rest of the Myers films all have SOMEthing about them that I can enjoy.

For everything else, there's the original.

Because of Hamill (to whatever degree), Ledger, Phoenix and Leto (to whatever degree), something that These Dang Kids today seem to be forgetting is how big a deal Nicholson playing the Joker was back in the day.

But a tremendous part of B89's success owes back to the casting announcement of Nicholson playing the Joker. That single element alone gave the film a LOT of mystique and interest.

It's safe to say that the hype around B89 would've been greatly diminished (or maybe even completely eliminated) if Nicholson hadn't been involved in the film.

For as good as Ledger might've been, he still had to prove himself in the role. In the early days, he had skeptics and doubters.

But literally nobody questioned Nicholson's ability to play the character. Which says something, I think.

I was going to mention the All-Star Superman thing if you didn't.

The good will for this movie is apparently unabated. People seem fairly open to whatever this movie is shaping up to be.

What I've seen of it, the art looks like a cross between Tim Sale and Frank Miller. The two great tastes... that don't taste great together, sadly.

I believe Robin Williams' name was associated with Batman movies no less than three times.

1. Essentially used as bait to persuade Jack Nicholson to sign on as the Joker. (Batman 1989)

2. Pursued for the role of the Riddler by Joel Schumacher. Williams (per Schumacher) remained cordial, but ultimately noncommittal. Role eventually was offered to Jim Carrey instead. (Batman Forever)

3. Williams openly opined that he would like a "role" in Chris Nolan's followup to "Batman Begins" around 2006. I can't remember if "The Dark Knight" title was settled at that point, but this sparked speculation that Robin Williams might appear as Nolan's version of the Joker. (The Dark Knight 2008)

I vaguely remember Robin Williams was also brought up somewhat when there was online speculation on which villain was going to be used for "The Dark Knight Rises" prior to Bane being announced. Riddler was one for sure. I think Hugo Strange was also another.

His absence from the Batman films will always be one of the great misfortunes of cinema history. I love Carrey's performance. But I'd trade it in a heartbeat for Williams.

"The things we could've done together..."

She was 30 on the nose when she filmed the first Wonder Woman film. She looked 25.

To put it delicately, Gadot, um, doesn't exactly look 25 anymore these days. Hell, she doesn't even look 30, frankly.

Now, I like her portrayal of Wonder Woman as much as the next guy. But are we supposed to pretend like we're surprised that a ~40 year old woman has been disqualified from playing the character? Even if WW84 had been a masterpiece (which it wasn't), there would still be a VERY strong argument that Gadot has just plain aged out of playing an immortal/eternally young character.

On a more practical level, I just love Connie Nielsen's girl math. "Herpa derpa the first one made $800 million!" Apparently, the second one making (at best) -$30 million shouldn't matter to anyone.

Batman & Robin brought the franchise to a screeching halt... even tho it technically turned some kind profit at the box office. Nobody calls WB's decision to close out the old franchise and reboot with a new one a narcissistic business decision. On the contrary, their decision to do so is generally considered to be one of the greatest masterstrokes in the history of cinema.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the spoiler thread. So, I don't really see much of a point in masking spoiler info. If you're trying to avoid that, go someplace else.

It's a real deal sequel and a good one. It's undeserving of the strong hate and it seems a lot of people are buying into that without actually seeing it themselves. Or not approaching it from the right perspective when they do. They are way too hung up on 'who is the real Joker' and the ending. The crux of the movie is the cult of celebrity worship and the pressure of expectation.

IMO Arthur is absolutely the Joker of this universe regardless if we want to take that road, it's just that the legend outgrew him and took on a life of its own. I don't think he wanted to create a movement but he nonetheless was at the centre of it. Joker is mostly a construct in Arthur's mind for escapism, and a fantasy the followers fell in love with. It took too much of a toll on the real man behind it. When he gave them what they wanted he took the full brunt, especially away from the cameras. It didn't benefit him personally in the long term.

Philips and Phoenix should be getting praise - segments of the audience rejecting Arthur is proving the film's point. I love this movie the more I think about it. It's a different look at the character and I'm glad it exists.

Once more, I never needed this film to exist. I was perfectly content for the original JOKER to be a one-and-done triumph. But a $1 billion box office has a funny way of making people reconsider the idea of sequels that seemed unnecessary.

No, this movie does not stack up to the original. Not for me anyway.

But having said that, I do like the idea of the Joker struggling to live up to his own legend. I do see that as a reasonable interpretation of the character. Hell, post-A Death In The Family, there was an arc in the comics where the Joker truly was afraid of himself.

Plus, my interpretation of the Joker is that deep down inside, he knows he's a wannabe showman who isn't as funny or as clever as he pretends. There's a reason his trademark is murder rather than punchlines.

On that basis JFAD shows us a Joker who is living that struggle out a lot more openly. Is he Arthur, the loser? Or the Joker, the icon?

Depending on how you want to bend the spoons, you could see Arthur's struggle in the film, esp the pivotal "it was me" moment in the courtroom as his Come To Jesus moment, his last attempt to be accepted for who he truly sees himself to be rather than the monster he has occasionally transformed into.

Sadly, even the only "true love" he's ever experienced wants nothing to do with Arthur The Man and everything to do with Joker The Murdering Celebrity. Lee doesn't actually care about Arthur the man.

And in a way, Arthur really only has himself to blame. His attorney laid it all out for him. She told him exactly what Lee's agenda is. But Arthur made the wrong choice anyway.

It wouldn't have changed the jury's verdict, of course. But at least Arthur would've been found guilty of being a murderer rather than being found guilty for trying and failing to be something other than himself.

If I didn't need a second film, I certainly don't need a third one. But if a third one does somehow get made, then a film where Arthur finally learns his lesson and becomes the Joker as much because it's own dark side as well as because it's only refuge could be fascinating.

A third film seems highly unlikely at this point. Especially if you take the final shot of the movie purely at face value. Still, I don't think this was entirely a waste of time. Granted, I've only seen the movie once. But it looks like the creators all had their hearts in the right place and the fandom menace contingent are overreacting.

Or maybe I'm underreacting?

Time will tell.

That's one remake I'm not entirely averse to, simply because there hasn't been a proper Gill-man movie since 1956

Same. And if it was any other director, I'm not sure I'd be so enthusiastic. But Wan has a lot of cred in my world.

And as you say, it's been so long since his last appearance in cinema that there could be some genuine demand from existing fans as well as potential new fans who have zero preconceptions on what this character can be. There's a real chance that this movie could be huge if the factors line up properly.

On the one hand, this does look sort of interesting. Yes, Keanu helps.

But on the other hand, do women need their own version of EVERYTHING?