Joker "The Joker" in development with Todd Phillips and Martin Scorsese attached? - Part 2

[shinlyle]

US critics just seem like a bunch of overly sensitive fuddy duddys after this. How can they be taken seriously when 90% of them recognise it's a well crafted film, but are marking it down due to their own bias and sensibilities?

Dude, this is the United States of the Offended. Everyone has an opinion, and they all mistake "opinion" for "fact". It it is controversial, or it is thought-provoking, then it is spurned, persecuted, and brushed away so quickly that it is forgotten in a month so the next thing that "upsets" people can take it's place. Conservative, liberal, they all get offended by something, and that stuffs all creativity into a little box. It's why 80% of movies are sequels or remakes.

Honestly, as much as I used to love RT for a consensus view on films, I now hate the power it gives film critics over films as a whole. Whereas a film was once reviewed as a film, the good and bad of it, and the opinion of the film was set up there for the audience to decide if the film was for them or not, they now see a tomato that is rotten or fresh and choose based on that. It can be a useful tool, but some of the critics are the offended people I mentioned. There are some critics who can detach themselves somewhat, and review something fairly. There are a slew of Christian films (I'm a Christian and church-goer), and some of those are judged by agnostic critics as being silly because they don't believe, which I get, but are they judging it based on it being a film, or based on the fact that it's religious? Same goes for an agnostic or secular movie being judged by someone of faith. If you can't put aside your personal bias to provide a fair shake for the art being viewed, then recuse yourself, much like a judge or a lawyer would have to do is it was their husband or wife on trial.

Wow. What a rant.

Um...hope the movie does well! Maybe I'll get to see it next weekend (Taking the missus to see Downton Abbey tomorrow....don't judge me!)

 

[terry78]

Basically we as a society can't take our feelings out of the equation when reviewing entertainment.

 

[-JKR-]

But the feeling should at least be in line with what's shown on the screen, instead of introducing outside thoughts.

 

[The Chris]

No.

Out of curiosity did you see it in high frame rate, and if so how was that? I'm kind of forced to see it like that next week but i haven't been a fan of it.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Sarcasm? Or did you really hate it despite the fact that it had artistic merit?

It was the most unpleasant experience I have ever had watching a movie. But I think it was a genuine work of art. I think it’s the most important movie of the decade. Doesn’t tell you what to think or how to feel. Crazies are going to cling to this and take it as validation.

Indie films have tackled this subject, but this movie is far more dangerous and important because this is ****ing WB and an IP like JOKER. People are going to see this, it’s going to become a part of the conversation, and it raises some really difficult questions.

Everyone should see this, but at the same time, how could I in good conscience recommend such a negative film to a person?

I think Joaquin’s performance may have been the best performance I have ever seen. Much better acting than any other Joker that has come before. But I still prefer Jack and Heath because those portrayals are far more in line with my idea of Joker.

 

[terry78]

Heath acted like Joker but didn't look like him. Jack looked like him and somewhat acted like him but was more Jack. Joaquin basically gave us the birth of an icon from humble beginnings to the inevitable endgame. All three have their merits but seeing someone's descent into madness will always take the cake.

 

[TheFuture]

Well lads I've seen it. All I'll say is that Phoenix has done it again. Absolutely disappeared into the role.

Enjoy.

 

[-JKR-]

It was the most unpleasant experience I have ever had watching a movie. But I think it was a genuine work of art. I think it’s the most important movie of the decade. Doesn’t tell you what to think or how to feel. Crazies are going to cling to this and take it as validation.

Indie films have tackled this subject, but this movie is far more dangerous and important because this is ****ing WB and an IP like JOKER. People are going to see this, it’s going to become a part of the conversation, and it raises some really difficult questions.

Everyone should see this, but at the same time, how could I in good conscience recommend such a negative film to a person?

I think Joaquin’s performance may have been the best performance I have ever seen. Much better acting than any other Joker that has come before. But I still prefer Jack and Heath because those portrayals are far more in line with my idea of Joker.

I take it you've never seen movies like Fight club, Taxi Driver and King of Comedy.

And there's nothing validating about Arthur's portrayal. So you can wholeheartedly reccomend, as it's a movie and not a self helf book or guide on how to live your life.

 

[TheFuture]

I take it you've never seen movies like Fight club, Taxi Driver and King of Comedy.

And there's nothing validating about Arthur's portrayal. So you can wholeheartedly reccomend, as it's a movie and not a self helf book or guide on how to live your life.

Yes I agree there's nothing validating his actions, mainly because you're questioning literally every facet of his narration / POV. It really is a mind melt.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I take it you've never seen movies like Fight club, Taxi Driver and King of Comedy.

And there's nothing validating about Arthur's portrayal. So you can wholeheartedly reccomend, as it's a movie and not a self helf book or guide on how to live your life.

None of those movies came out this decade. This movie is so important. Just because it took inspiration from those films doesn’t mean it doesn’t stand alone. This movie is going to become part of the zeitgeist.

 

[mddbatman]

On my way to see it in an hour, see you on the other side.

 

[terry78]

I don't get why people can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that The Joker has never been a person to idolize, he's a ****ing murderous supervillain that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Yeah, they have taken cues from real world people in regards to why he does what he does, but that is what is supposed to make him scary.

 

[The Joker]

All three have their merits but seeing someone's descent into madness will always take the cake.

Not for me. And that's one of the things I have kept in mind when supporting this movie. Because one of the most effective elements about the Joker is the mystery of his past, that we do not know who he was or what exactly made him into the monster he is. Stripping all that away and putting a microscope on him of who he was before he became the Joker will always be a negative. That's why I am viewing this an elseworlds/what if type of scenario, and not a proper adaption the Joker. Which the people behind this movie have even themselves stated; it bares little resemblance to the comic book character.

I've always appreciated their open honesty about that, and not even tried to pretend otherwise.

 

[terry78]

Yeah, it can be taken as more or a graphic novel deal, but it still works as a what if. Basically if Joker existed this is more than likely how he'd come about if the theories about the chemcial factory and what not were never concocted.

 

[The Shape]

Not for me. And that's one of the things I have kept in mind when supporting this movie. Because one of the most effective elements about the Joker is the mystery of his past, that we do not know who he was or what exactly made him into the monster he is. Stripping all that away and putting a microscope on him of who he was before he became the Joker will always be a negative. That's why I am viewing this an elseworlds/what if type of scenario, and not a proper adaption the Joker. Which the people behind this movie have even themselves stated; it bares little resemblance to the comic book character.

I think you’ll really appreciate this film and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I feel this film is closer to the true essence of The Joker than many would have you believe, despite all of the differences.

 

[The Joker]

I think you’ll really appreciate this film and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I feel this film is closer to the true essence of The Joker than many would have you believe, despite all of the differences.

Thanks man. I'm seeing it this evening. Very, very excited for it.

Despite the snobbery of the critics, the audiences seem to be lapping it up. I just checked the RT audience score, and its growing instead of shrinking as number of votes pile up.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Any movie based on another existing property is always an elseworld take. Even something like the MCU it's still just an alternate take on existing characters. So this really isn't unique to Joker. The only thing really unique in that regard is that this movie is not connected to other movies.

 

[The Joker]

Technically true, but the MCU take their inspiration from the comics in adapting their characters. They are making a conscious effort to have their characters inspiration come from the source material. They will of course put their own tweaks and spins on some things like all CBMs, but at the end of the day they are trying to make it resemble the comics creatively. Whereas this movie according to Phillips didn't;

“We didn’t follow anything from the comic-books, which people are gonna be mad about. We just wrote our own version of where a guy like Joker might come from. That’s what was interesting to me. We’re not even doing Joker, but the story of becoming Joker. It’s about this man.”

'Joker' Won't Have "Anything" From the Comics, Says Director Todd Phillips

And that's fine. Its the way I have supported this movie because I know they are not trying to sell this as anything other than a wholly original take with nothing taken from the source material. That made all the radical changes like a Joker in a Batman-less world more acceptable for me.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Technically true, but the MCU take their inspiration from the comics in adapting their characters. They are making a conscious effort to have their characters inspiration come from the source material. They will of course put their own tweaks and spins on some things like all CBMs, but at the end of the day they are trying to make it resemble the comics creatively. Whereas this movie according to Phillips didn't;

“We didn’t follow anything from the comic-books, which people are gonna be mad about. We just wrote our own version of where a guy like Joker might come from. That’s what was interesting to me. We’re not even doing Joker, but the story of becoming Joker. It’s about this man.”

'Joker' Won't Have "Anything" From the Comics, Says Director Todd Phillips

And that's fine. Its the way I have supported this movie because I know they are not trying to sell this as anything other than a wholly original take with nothing taken from the source material. That made all the radical changes to the character acceptable for me.

I get what people are trying to say when they bring up this point, but it's a flawed point. Regardless if they're taking inspiration from the comic or not, any type of adaptation is effectively an alternate universe take. No matter how accurate the portrayal is. So really, this argument doesn't move the needle for me either way. The quality of the movie itself is really what I care about. I can argue plenty that even takes within the MCU for characters like Hela are very inaccurate to their traditional depictions, but that doesn't change the fact that I like how they used her in the movie. If you deliver me a good movie, you can sell me on dramatic changes to characters. Depending upon whether they're good changes or not, but that same thing applies to any adaptation of anything.

 

[Prettyricky]

Im confused by the backlash of violence over this movie, john wick 3 killed an entire population while people cheered on the kills. Once upon a time in mexico at least in my screening had people hooping and hollering at the last act that showed a women getting her face bashed in repeatedly and another burned alive. All great films mind you but yet this out of nowhere everyone just looses there minds because its the joker. I mean cmon already, stop cherry picking when violence in cinema is offensive.

 

[The Joker]

I get what people are trying to say when they bring up this point, but it's a flawed point. Regardless if they're taking inspiration from the comic or not, any type of adaptation is effectively an alternate universe take. No matter how accurate the portrayal is. So really, this argument doesn't move the needle for me either way. The quality of the movie itself is really what I care about. I can argue plenty that even takes within the MCU for characters like Hela are very inaccurate to their traditional depictions, but that doesn't change the fact that I like how they were used in the movie. If you deliver me a good movie, you can sell me on dramatic changes to characters. Depending upon whether they're good changes or not, but that same thing applies to any adaptation of anything.

But that's you. You should well know that is not how many people view movies like that. When a movie is rooted in a source material, and people are fans of that source material, its going to impact said quality for that movie for people. Some can let it go and not care what alterations are made, some cannot. But to say its a flawed point just because all adaptions fall under the umbrella heading of elseworlds is the real flawed point.

What's a good change for you can be viewed as a bad change for others. Hence why Phillips himself said people are going to be mad about the total lack of Joker inspiration from the comics. Its the nature of the beast. A lot of people like their characters rooted in the source material. He understands that. Its as simple as that.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But that's you. You should well know that is not how many people view movies like that. When a movie is rooted in a source material, and people are fans of that source material, its going to impact said quality for that movie for people. Some can let it go and not care what alterations are made, some cannot. But to say its a flawed point just because all adaptions fall under the umbrella heading of elseworlds is the real flawed point.

What's a good change for you can be viewed as a bad change for others. Hence why Phillips himself said people are going to be mad about the lack of Joker inspiration from the comics. Its the nature of the beast. A lot of people like their characters rooted in the source material. Its as simple as that.

I have no doubts that some people will be upset with this movie if it has very little resemblance to the comic book version. But just because the director put out a disclaimer claiming that, it doesn't mean it should be any more acceptable then any other movie adapting a character. Every single adaptation in the history of Cinema has had this same problem with whether or not changing a character in a certain way somehow ruins it for fans. Todd Phillips putting out a disclaimer again does nothing for me, and when I continually see this argument I just shake my head. If that is how some people have to rationalize this movie then that's fine for you. But I find the view point itself hypocritical

 

[I Am The Knight]

This movie has actually a number of classic Bat elements in it.

 

[Holy Slapper]

A good number of the negative reviews basically state that the film itself is sound, but they were turned off by the film's message/nihilistic overtures.

The most recent negative reviews, don't even seem to mention about the message, more the lack or how empty they felt or felt nothing after seeing it.

Quotes from Slate and NYT:

Joker is a bad movie, yes: It's predictable, clichéd, deeply derivative of other, better movies, and overwritten to the point of self-parody

It's hard to say if the muddle "Joker" makes of itself arises from confusion or cowardice, but the result is less a depiction of nihilism than a story about nothing.

 

[The Joker]

I have no doubts that some people will be upset with this movie very little resemblance to the comic book version. But just because the director put out a disclaimer claiming that, it doesn't mean it should be any more acceptable then any other movie adapting a character. Every single adaptation in the history of Cinema has had this same problem with whether or not changing a character in a certain way somehow ruins it for fans. Todd Phillips putting out a disclaimer again does nothing for me, and when I continually see this argument I just shake my head. If that is how some people have to rationalize this movie then that's fine for you. But I find the view point itself hypocritical

"Todd Phillips putting out a disclaimer again does nothing for me"......again that's you and people like you who don't care about such things. Many people don't agree with your line of thinking on this, which is why Phillips put a disclaimer out in the first place. He's warning the hordes who are going to be going in expecting to see a Joker with lots of comic book inspiration.

You don't see many CBM directors warning their audiences months in advance that this is not going to be anything like the comics. I applaud Phillips for doing that and just being totally honest. This is something wholly original. It helped die hards like me accept all the radical changes I've been seeing and hearing.