Joker (2019)

[Wayne49]

My greatest concern with a standalone Joker film is whether they can construct a narrative that holds the viewers interest without any great payoff at the end (except the obvious approach of Batman). As interesting as his origin is, there's a decidedly anti-climatic quality to it without Batman trading wits with him in this cat and mouse chase. The old saying that you can't root for a hero without a great villain seems to still be in play here (only in reverse). How do we embrace the Joker if the only end game is to see him deliver revenge on those who contributed to his origin? It seems painfully predictable if not derivative of what has already been told in both movie and television (Gotham). To use a Star Wars analogy, it feels a bit like hearing Disney wanting to make a Boba Fett movie to which I ask, "Why?"

[Travesty]

I just don't get the point of this movie. At first, I was down for an Elseworld movie, but the more info, and the overall look for The Joker, I just don't get it. So this movie doesn't even have Batman(Thomas Wayne is still alive), as this is just a Joker origin movie. Ok, but then they give him the name Arthur Fleck. Ok, and then his Joker uses facepaint, that doesn't even look like The Joker. So I just have to ask, what's the point of doing a Joker movie, if it has little to no ties to The Joker? Batman isn't in it, Arthur Fleck is a made up character that has nothing to do with The Joker, and then they make "The Joker" look nothing like The Joker. I don't get it? The only thing tying it to Batman, is that this is based in Gotham City, and Thomas Wayne is running for mayor.

And as far as the descriptions go, I don't know how I feel about the overall themes they're putting into place. So Thomas Wayne is described as a Trump-like billionaire playboy who is running for mayor. People are carrying signs that call him a fascist, so they're protesting him, cause they hate him. The Joker seems to have a vendetta against him, and his followers have attacked him on the subway. So it looks like they're making The Joker out to be a good guy, who is standing up to the "fascist" Trump-like Mayor, Thomas Wayne. A little too on the nose there, but a weird way of making The Joker stand up against the "fascist" Right Wing guy running for mayor. I dunno...

And the weirder thing, is that I'm seeing people who I've personally seen get nitpicky with things in the DCEU, but are totally onboard for this. One second, they're complaining cause Superman's costume isn't the right shade of blue, or that he doesn't smile enough, but give them a Joker movie that has no Batman, and that looks nothing like The Joker, and they're all onboard. I don't get it?

[The Dark Knight]

I actually had an open mind about this film at some point early on. But after hearing the details and seeing the set pictures, I well and truly lost interest. From what I see, it's a love-letter to disruptive Antifa thugs who love socialism, hate capitalism and see the enforcement of laws that are already on the books as fascism. The face paint and the name Arthur Fleck says it all to me. This guy loosely resembles the comic character, but he's not the comic character. It's trying to be an 80s-era crime film/character study first and foremost. Anything they 'reveal' here about Arthur doesn't have any meaning or relevance. As I see Silver Nemesis post, it's basically a legacy film. This isn't even a spinoff. It's its own thing.

[thecolorsblend]

I just don't get the point of this movie. At first, I was down for an Elseworld movie, but the more info, and the overall look for The Joker, I just don't get it. So this movie doesn't even have Batman(Thomas Wayne is still alive), as this is just a Joker origin movie. Ok, but then they give him the name Arthur Fleck. Ok, and then his Joker uses facepaint, that doesn't even look like The Joker. So I just have to ask, what's the point of doing a Joker movie, if it has little to no ties to The Joker? Batman isn't in it, Arthur Fleck is a made up character that has nothing to do with The Joker, and then they make "The Joker" look nothing like The Joker. I don't get it? The only thing tying it to Batman, is that this is based in Gotham City, and Thomas Wayne is running for mayor.

And as far as the descriptions go, I don't know how I feel about the overall themes they're putting into place. So Thomas Wayne is described as a Trump-like billionaire playboy who is running for mayor. People are carrying signs that call him a fascist, so they're protesting him, cause they hate him. The Joker seems to have a vendetta against him, and his followers have attacked him on the subway. So it looks like they're making The Joker out to be a good guy, who is standing up to the "fascist" Trump-like Mayor, Thomas Wayne. A little too on the nose there, but a weird way of making The Joker stand up against the "fascist" Right Wing guy running for mayor. I dunno...

And the weirder thing, is that I'm seeing people who I've personally seen get nitpicky with things in the DCEU, but are totally onboard for this. One second, they're complaining cause Superman's costume isn't the right shade of blue, or that he doesn't smile enough, but give them a Joker movie that has no Batman, and that looks nothing like The Joker, and they're all onboard. I don't get it?

I get all that. I'm waiting to see the final product (or at least get more information about the movie) before commenting on the possible political stuff going on there. It wouldn't be a major shock if that's the direction the movies goes. But I'll wait and see.

The fact paint is easier for me to accept post-Ledger. Besides, the movie has to do something to set itself apart from Leto's Joker. Plus, the Pagliacci thing has direct relevance to the Joker. The Pagliacci-esque design of the Joker makeup isn't an accident.

In the final analysis, all I need from this movie is for it to be an interesting diversion until WB finds its way on Batman. I'm guessing the DCEU as we knew it will be wound down sooner or later and maybe WB will go for more standalone or anthology types of stuff that Marvel can't compete with.

And who knows? This Joker film might prove that comic book movies don't need $300+ million budgets to be good. Sometimes simply have good characters and a good story can be enough. This movie is budgeted at $55 million. For that type of money, I'm guessing WB is letting Phillips do whatever he wants.

This could be a very positive thing.

[Silver Nemesis]

Look closely at the map and you'll see several familiar names: Snyder, McKean, Nolan, Prince, Englehart, Jack, Rogers, Kane, and – best of all – Otisburg.

And here are some more pics of Phoenix in his clown getup.

[thecolorsblend]

"Wanye"?

Seriously? Nobody noticed that?

But maybe it's an intentional part of the movie.

The map is interesting too. Too many names associated with Batman comics or else taken directly from Batman comics to be a coincidence. Somebody involved with this production is mining the comics for rich details.

People are losing their $h!t over this movie and I just don't see what the problem is. This looks pretty solid to me so far.

[The Joker]

I'm kinda split on this one. I want to like this, cause I'm tired of "shared universes" and am more than willing to give anthology concepts a try for the sakes of different approaches/flavors/broad in ideas (Hey, it worked for the millennium Toho era in Godzilla movies!), but given other people's misgivings, warnings, and the sheer lack of good faith from WB casting and descriptions (Alex Baldwin as a cheesy Trump-like Thomas Wayne, or Wanye as they put it? OK?!? I mean, we know the guy has "Trump" stamped on his forehead for awhile now, but this doesn't exactly distill confidence), does cause some definite concern that have merit.

Given from what I've seen, they're clearly trying to evoke Ledger's Joker since it's the version that's the bestest evar!   Concerning the look of this Joker, I much more prefer the bleached white look from toxic chemicals over him simply wearing clown makeup, or "war paint" but ... it's a little too "generic circus clown" for my tastes.

However, for the most part, I blame that on Warner Bros. more than anything. Cause, as we all have grown accustomed to, it's obvious that the very first thing a studio does when they sit down to make these things is ask, "How can we make it different this time?" (which I personally really wish they would STOP doing). Honestly, the Joker isn't a particularly difficult character to translate, but for whatever reason, Warners appear to have a difficult time doing so ever since 1989. Actually, I don't even think they particularly care about accuracy at this point.

No problems on the tone of the tease for the teaser. I actually liked how that was put together with the song and how it was shot.

As a aside; the mere fact that they cast Joaquin Phoenix, tells me that this is more of a "for the critics" movie, and/or trying to instill good faith, than it is anything else. It's definitely not trying to aim for that arbitrary BILLION number you "have" to hit with these things now, cause otherwise the internet will just tell you that you screwed up and shouldn't have bothered. As Phoenix isn't the guy you put in a lead role if you want a billion dollars, he's the guy you cast when you want people who hate these kinds of movies to talk about them like more than overblown MCU cartoons.

If anything, it's clear as day that the Jack Nicholson Joker is the closest cinematic version to the modern comic book Joker, and that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.

[Silver Nemesis]

Add me to the list of people that are intrigued by this film. Not supportive, exactly. But intrigued.

In principle, I hate the idea of a Batman movie without Batman. I'm also strongly opposed to heavy-handed political agendas that could alienate 50% of the fan base. And I agree with what others have said about the film being unnecessary. But even so... something about this project has my attention. It may well end up being terrible, but colors makes an interesting point about the smaller budget indicating a more focused, character-driven alternative to all the overblown FX-driven CBMs we've been inundated with lately. Fewer cooks in the kitchen can only be a good thing. And as The Joker says, it's nice to have a break from the shared universe trend with a film that can stand on its own merits without piggybacking off something bigger. The end result might just surprise us.

It's difficult to gauge the tone they're going for at this point. There is a visual resemblance to Ledger's Joker, but I get the feeling this might be a more comedic interpretation of the character than suggested at face value. Todd Phillips has worked almost exclusively in the comedy genre until now (as had Burton in 1989), and the filmmakers have cited The King of Comedy (1982) as one of their primary cinematic influences. While The King of Comedy deals with dark, obsessive themes, it's also one of Scorsese's funniest movies. Then there are things like the misspelling of 'Wanye' on the campaign poster and the inclusion of Otisburg on the railway map. I might be wrong, but all of these clues point to this being a black comedy rather than a straight-faced crime drama à la Nolan. I could be way off the mark about this, and it's really too early to tell. But I'd like to learn more about the film before I write it off completely.

[The Joker]

Interesting video, and worth a watch.

[Silver Nemesis]

Some more footage has appeared online.

Here's an open question for everyone on the site. If you had to choose between this film or the Leto Joker & Harley movie, which would you be more interested in seeing? I'm fairly confident most of us would answer this question with: "Neither, I just want a good Batman film!" But for argument's sake, supposing you have to choose one. Which would it be and why? If you like the idea of a Joker spinoff, would one be preferable to the other? If you don't like the idea of a Joker spinoff, might one be a lesser evil than the other?