Messages

I'm finally reading this, and while it's early days, for what Miller went for I think it's a decent read so far. The general flavor of B89 is there regardless of how you feel about certain decisions, eg. Lawrence surviving. If Miller wanted another villain to appear Clayface does make sense with the cosmetic products poisoning carrying over from the first movie. I liked the appearance of BR's remote control batarang. Batman is too chatty even during the first encounter with Knox I've just read. But I feel this book is shaping up to be better than the comics.

I could be overthinking it/misinterpreting it, but a bad guy falling through the floor with a long scream meant the filmmakers probably intended for the character to die, not that he probably managed to save himself. Correct me if I'm wrong and it's mentioned in a primary source, like a script or a novel. But this has always been a pet peeve of mine when sequels bring back dead characters (especially tough as a Star Wars fan).

In my mind Lawrence died in the film and it's something I never questioned. He jumped through the floor and fell to the bottom. Making him survive lessens the meaning and absurdity of the moment: an exhausted Batman putting energetic foes down with no or minimal effort...before Ray Charles comes in with his greatest hits.

I no longer yearn for Burtonverse continuations. They just don't stack up, and the two films were all we ever needed. Keaton had his time and so did all the others who followed him. I'll hold on to those childhood memories, but after watching all eight episodes of The Penguin I'm looking towards the future.

Retconning Dead Reckoning Part One into just Dead Reckoning makes business sense to me. Not as many people saw the first part as expected, and those who didn't may not be interested in jumping in for a story they aren't up to date with. Final Reckoning still gives connective tissue but allows it to be sold as a final chapter style film that appeals to a broader audience. I think Dead Reckoning, while great, needed to be a bigger hit to create more positive momentum. It will be interesting to see if the required interest is there.

[after]

After all these years I would seriously still say Nicholson is my number one guy as the Joker. He provides a package that resembles my type of comics while retaining the required darkness. An aspect of B89 I like is how we get a glimpse into Jack's psyche after the transformation. He speaks about the trauma of falling into the chemicals and crying inside. His former self is still buried under there, providing depth, but it's not dwelt on. He's a brand new person who knows who he was and what happened, but moved on and embraced insanity. He's in character too much now for it to hurt him. For a one movie performance they packed a lot in there and a lot of it's right.

The thought occurred to me they're laying the groundwork/justification for Robin. I don't think it will literally be Vic, though. I'm not even sure he'll survive the series.

True! Penguin ascending to the throne as the Kingpin of Gotham is the hook, and what I previously thought would be the most interesting thing about the show by a mile (including Colin Farrell's performance), but again, Cristin Milioti as Sofia made this show more gripping, and it's better for it. We'll have to enjoy the time we get.

Without a doubt. The victory of The Penguin is the extended form of storytelling. The Falcone/Maroni/Penguin turf war hasn't been explored to this extent in live action and it's being done justice. It makes me think the next spinoff should focus on Harvey Dent and his descent into Two-Face. I think TDK did okay with that, but it couldn't compete with an in-depth miniseries. I think this model (film - television series - film - television series, rinse repeat) is excellent and would be wise to continue going forward even beyond the Reevesverse. Especially if we have great actors who deserve more time in their roles.

Thanks for the overview, Doc. I've accepted that nothing will feel like a legitimate continuation of the Burton duology and we don't need connective tissue in between the films anyway. The questions Resurrections seeks to answer never perplexed me and we can already answer them ourselves. Bruce simply being reclusive and not spending enough time with Vicki is enough reason why they separated. Also, Joker saying "I mean, I say "I made you" you gotta say "you made me." I mean, how childish can you get?" can be taken at face value if we want. I'll still read the book (it's on the way anyway) but my expectations have been tempered.

[Sofia Falcone, you have never done a thing wrong in your life.]

Sofia Falcone, you have never done a thing wrong in your life.

Very much enjoying her performance. You can definitely see things from her perspective. The end of the last episode was one of the most satisfying things I've seen in a while and gets the viewer supporting her vendetta. Which is great from the perspective Oz is a villain who we shouldn't really be liking all that much despite his unique charisma. He'd be the best Survivor player in existence if he went on the show, managing to talk his way out of anything. He's going to have to make some ugly choices to become the kingpin, and Farrell said a lot of people will probably hate him by the end of it all. As Joker said in '89, "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs."

Personally, my latitude with the sequel that seemingly everyone hates (except for myself, TDK, and perhaps a handful of other people! haha), is that there was never a franchise here. I am not really a fan of "subverting expectations" or taking big wild swings when it concerns formulaic franchises with entrenched fan expectations, but with Joker 2? I had none. It wasn't envisioned as a franchise, and it wasn't going to continue on as one either (atypical these days). Under that context, the news of it being something of a "musical", and statements from both Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix of wanting to do something that also brought the fear of failing in order to make it interesting, pretty much gave a intuitive indication that we were not going to get a by-the-numbers follow up.

I get the hate/dissatisfaction that Joker 2 has received, but at the same time, I'm very glad it exists.

 

I'm glad it exists too. The critical and financial response is disappointing of course, but that overwhelming negativity doesn't embarrass me to comply with the established narrative. Thinking more about it, I think Folie A Deux has a lot in common with the spirit of Last Action Hero. A fictional character stepping out of the big screen and into the real world. What happened after the events of the first movie is perfectly logical from that perspective. He killed, he was jailed, he went to court and then died. The movie people wanted (Joker breaking out, killing more people, eluding capture) was never going to happen in this construct. Arthur's life was always a tragedy. The way it ends up rings true to me. It feels nice and contained, and full circle.