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

[Hammer!]

You'll see plenty more of it. This is the classic fanboy cycle. Trash the old to make the new look better. It happened plenty back in the Letoker days. Which is really funny in hindsight seeing as how that turned out.

I posted that the movie looks good, but lamented that this take on the character doesn't feature my favorite characteristics of said character. Got a response that apparently that opinion was "facepalm worthy".

 

[The Joker]

I kinda feel sorry for Leto. He's a good actor and i think with a good script and director, he could've been a great Joker. But now he's a joke.

I agree. That is often the case with many poor interpretations of a CB character. Bad writing and direction. Though saying that Leto has to take some of the blame for the performance, which was often cringeworthy. "This handsome HUNKA HUNKA!!!".

His laugh sounded like a dying donkey.

I posted that the movie looks good, but lamented that this take on the character doesn't feature my favorite characteristics of said character. Got a response that apparently that opinion was "facepalm worthy".

Yep that sounds about right.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

lol Taxi Driver has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

Yes actually it does. The fact that you don't see the connections between that film and this one are incredibly telling considering key elements of this film and the characterization are deliberately paying homage to Taxi Driver.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I kinda feel sorry for Leto. He's a good actor and i think with a good script and director, he could've been a great Joker. But now he's a joke.

He really could've. I still have no idea what the director was thinking when creating the joker for suicide squad. It was just terrible from the start.

 

[Hammer!]

Yes actually it does. The fact that you don't see the connections between that film and this one are incredibly telling considering key elements of this film and the characterization are deliberately paying homage to Taxi Driver.

The connection between the films is pretty obvious, again has literally nothing to do with my preference on the character.

 

[TheScarecrow]

He really could've. I still have no idea what the director was thinking when creating the joker for suicide squad. It was just terrible from the start.

Leto was complicit.

And I really doubt David Ayer told him to purr like a cat and act like a fool behind the scenes.

I don't think Joker as a gangster is bad per se. It was just executed poorly.

 

[hellblazer103]

I agree. That is often the case with many poor interpretations of a CB character. Bad writing and direction. Though saying that Leto has to take some of the blame for the performance, which was often cringeworthy. "This handsome HUNKA HUNKA!!!".

His laugh sounded like a dying donkey.



Yep that sounds about right.

I usually say dying cat or parrot lol. I just know it's SOME kind of dying animal

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I disagree. When I think of all the great Jokers, they all had the ability to get a laugh out of you. Whether it was because of a one liner, or even doing something villainous.

I mean is anyone here going to tell me that there was no laughter from their movie audience during the Nurse Joker sequence in TDK for example?

IMO Joker being such a funny guy is part of what makes him so terrifying. He disarms you with the wackiness and buffoonery and then you get mood whiplash as he switches gears on a dime and gives you a peek at the monster underneath.

 

[FunkMiller]

Why do you get so triggered every time someone says something positive or imply they may like this version of Joker more than Ledger's? I'm talking about MY opinion. I think I will like this version more. If you like the Ledger version more after watching this film then good for you. I like the fact this version of the Joker is SCARY and feels real. if you disagree then tell me, but don't act like i'm stupid for thinking that.

And the Joker is a monster. He stopped being a kid's character a long time ago. Maybe when he killed Jason Todd, or when he paralyzed Barbara, or when he kidnapped Tim and made him witness all the atrocities he did in Christmas, or so many ****ed up **** he has done. There's something called evolving characters and the Joker has evolved a lot since it's original version. Don't tell you are one of the guys that thinks just because a character is from a comic book it can't be more than that? Joker has MANY versions. Ledger is just one of them. He isn't the definitive Joker. He's not even close to the Joker from the comics. Does that mean it's bad? No, of course not.

I tend to think that there’s nothing wrong with a comic book character acting like a comic book character. This attitude that comics are somehow less worthy in terms of their characterisations is one I’ll never understand.

And who wants these characters to be real? He’s a guy who dresses up like a clown in a bright purple suit and commits hideous crimes, for crying out loud. In the real world he’d be absolutely idiotic.

There is indeed no such thing as a definitive Joker, but I’d argue (again) that by all accounts, this Phoenix Joker is far, far more removed from the source material than any other, to the extent that you could argue it’s not really The Joker he’s portraying at all, but more a character inspired by The Joker. I think they’ve just removed too much. But I’m happy to stand directed when I see the film.

Also, you’d better let WB know The Joker isn’t a character for kids any more. They keep putting him in children’s cartoons.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I wish October 4th would hurry up

 

[Gothamsknight]

IMO Joker being such a funny guy is part of what makes him so terrifying. He disarms you with the wackiness and comedy and then you get a morbid whiplash as he switches gears on a dime and gives you a peek at the monster underneath.

Exactly. Btw, this scene is still so effective to me in my mid 20s as it was when I was kid.

 

[Hollis Mason]

I tend to think that there’s nothing wrong with a comic book character acting like a comic book character. This attitude that comics are somehow less worthy in terms of their characterisations is one I’ll never understand.

And who wants these characters to be real? He’s a guy who dresses up like a clown in a bright purple suit and commits hideous crimes, for crying out loud. In the real world he’d be absolutely idiotic.

There is indeed no such thing as a definitive Joker, but I’d argue (again) that by all accounts, this Phoenix Joker is far, far more removed from the source material than any other, to the extent that you could argue it’s not really The Joker he’s portraying at all, but more a character inspired by The Joker. I think they’ve just removed too much. But I’m happy to stand directed when I see the film.

Also, you’d better let WB know The Joker isn’t a character for kids any more. They keep putting him in children’s cartoons.

There's nothing wrong with a comic book character acting like a comic book character, just like there's nothing wrong with one trying to be more than that. Even that statement is wrong, because it implies comic books are only for kids and stupid stuff, which is totally wrong. Stories like Watchmen, Sandman, The Dark Knight Returns, Year One, Long Halloween, The Cult, Arkham Asylum, Miracleman, etc, are there. I don't know when was the last time you read a comic, but it has evolved a LOT since. Characters and stories have evolve. Saying they didn't is lying.

These characters are complex and their stories can be explored and diverse. If we refused to evolve characters from what they are, then we will never have something new. That's not how art works. Just look how many rich stories we get when we do that. If Nolan didn't think about that, TDK trilogy wouldn't exist.

And Joker being in kid's cartoons doesn't make him a less serious character. If nothing, in BTAS he's the most sickest and evil character and problaby the best villain in a cartoon show. Also, characters like Deadpool and Punisher appear in cartoons. Does that make them kid's characters?

 

[Kane52630]

It's funny every time. And then when he pretends to forget Rachel's name just to rile Harvey up. Gold.

 

[hellblazer103]

see, I've actually just recently seen people try to use this joke as a genuine critique against the movie...

 

[FunkMiller]

There's nothing wrong with a comic book character acting like a comic book character, just like there's nothing wrong with one trying to be more than that. Even that statement is wrong, because it implies comic books are only for kids and stupid stuff, which is totally wrong. Stories like Watchmen, Sandman, The Dark Knight Returns, Year One, Long Halloween, The Cult, Arkham Asylum, Miracleman, etc, are there. I don't know when was the last time you read a comic, but it has evolved a LOT since. Characters and stories have evolve. Saying they didn't is lying.

These characters are complex and their stories can be explored and diverse. If we refused to evolve characters from what they are, then we will never have something new. That's not how art works. Just look how many rich stories we get when we do that. If Nolan didn't think about that, TDK trilogy wouldn't exist.

And Joker being in kid's cartoons doesn't make him a less serious character. If nothing, in BTAS he's the most sickest and evil character and problaby the best villain in a cartoon show. Also, characters like Deadpool and Punisher appear in cartoons. Does that make them kid's characters?

You’re doing a very good job of twisting my words there, chief. I never implied all comics are child friendly - but you stated that The Joker isn’t a character for kids anymore. I replied that this is clearly not the case. You don’t need to quote those adult comic titles at me, I’ve read all of them many times.

My central point is that I feel - from everything I’ve seen - that this Joker movies does away with too much of The Joker’s character. While it may be a very good movie, with a strong central performance from Phoenix, it still strikes me as being a project that is more or less Joker In Name Only. This - as previously stated - is not necessarily a bad thing because it allows for a different kind of storytelling, but it’s still a valid criticism to suggest that maybe too much of what makes the joker The Joker has been stripped away.

Not least of which is the lack of Batman. By removing The Joker’s protagonist to his antagonist, Phillips has created something of a void that he’s tried to fill by also making The Joker the protagonist. This is a mistake I believe. And it appears to be the thing that a majority of the criticism about the movie is hung around. The Joker should never, ever be positioned as sympathetic.

 

[Hollis Mason]

You’re doing a very good job of twisting my words there, chief. I never implied all comics are child friendly - but you stated that The Joker isn’t a character for kids anymore. I replied that this is clearly not the case. You don’t need to quote those adult comic titles at me, I’ve read all of them many times.

My central point is that I feel - from everything I’ve seen - that this Joker movies does away with too much of The Joker’s character. While it may be a very good movie, with a strong central performance from Phoenix, it still strikes me as being a project that is more or less Joker In Name Only. This - as previously stated - is not necessarily a bad thing because it allows for a different kind of storytelling, but it’s still a valid criticism to suggest that maybe too much of what makes the joker The Joker has been stripped away.

Not least of which is the lack of Batman. By removing The Joker’s protagonist to his antagonist, Phillips has created something of a void that he’s tried to fill by also making The Joker the protagonist. This is a mistake I believe. And it appears to be the thing that a majority of the criticism about the movie is hung around. The Joker should never, ever be positioned as sympathetic.

I haven't twisted anything. Until now you haven't said anything but only argue that this movie isn't doing the Joker as YOU think the character should be done or what the character is. To that let me ask you: How many comics have you read? Or you're one of the guys that only watched Ledger's Joker and thinks he's the perfect iteration? Joker has MANY versions. MANY. Why just reduce him to one?
And Joker has been done as a tragic villain before. Killing Joke, or even recently with White Knight.

Doing a different version of the character isn't gonna make the others go away. Phillips said it better, if you don't like this one, just wait for the next version. But being afraid of doing something different just because you may change the character a little sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

And a character that beats a kid to death doesn't sound like a kid's character to me.

Excuse me if i sound rude. That's not my wish.

 

[Boom]

My central point is that I feel - from everything I’ve seen - that this Joker movies does away with too much of The Joker’s character. While it may be a very good movie, with a strong central performance from Phoenix, it still strikes me as being a project that is more or less Joker In Name Only. This - as previously stated - is not necessarily a bad thing because it allows for a different kind of storytelling, but it’s still a valid criticism to suggest that maybe too much of what makes the joker The Joker has been stripped away.

Not least of which is the lack of Batman. By removing The Joker’s protagonist to his antagonist, Phillips has created something of a void that he’s tried to fill by also making The Joker the protagonist. This is a mistake I believe. And it appears to be the thing that a majority of the criticism about the movie is hung around. The Joker should never, ever be positioned as sympathetic.

You've made your central point several times now. We get it. I don't know what you expect us to do about it, so why it bears constant repeating frankly escapes me.

The movie is far removed from the source material. You think it's Joker In Name Only. I honestly don't know what else we can tell you at this point, m1ll3r. It is what it is. Accept it as an Elseworlds tale or don't. Hopefully you enjoy the movie for what it is, but griping about the lack of Batman or the deviations from the source material isn't going to change anything about what the movie is. It's done.

Believe me when I tell you that we all know where you stand on this.

 

[Hollis Mason]

And to answer your question of who would like to see realistic versions of these characters, i do. If that means giving us stories that look as good as this movie does, I'm in.

 

[Gothamsknight]

see, I've actually just recently seen people try to use this joke as a genuine critique against the movie...

As have i. Don't remind me haha. I've heard so many BS ways of people trying to tear TDK none of the reasons they list make sense. Not a single one over the course of 11 years

 

[Rorschach2012]

I’m all for different versions of these characters. We’ll always have the classic interpretations and nothing will ever beat the DCAU

 

[FunkMiller]

I haven't twisted anything. Until now you haven't said anything but only argue that this movie isn't doing the Joker as YOU think the character should be done or what the character is. To that let me ask you: How many comics have you read? Or you're one of the guys that only watched Ledger's Joker and thinks he's the perfect iteration? Joker has MANY versions. MANY. Why just reduce him to one?
And Joker has been done as a tragic villain before. Killing Joke, or even recently with White Knight.

Doing a different version of the character isn't gonna make the others go away. Phillips said it better, if you don't like this one, just wait for the next version. But being afraid of doing something different just because you may change the character a little sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

And a character that beats a kid to death doesn't sound like a kid's character to me.

Excuse me if i sound rude. That's not my wish.

Sigh.

It’s like we’ve lost all ability to be nuanced about anything.

I’m not criticising this movie for what it is... because I haven’t seen it yet. I’m just raising the point that the depiction appears to stray further from the source material than other versions - and that this may account for some of the criticisms being levelled against the movie. You’re talking like I’m slagging off Phoenix’s performance. I’m not. I’m very much looking forward to seeing it. But I can also acknowledge that it’s an iteration of The Joker that is very different from any other version that has come before it, and how that could be problematic, especially in terms of presenting him as a protagonist.

But I guess we’re at the stage now where you either have to back something unconditionally - or you’re not really a comic book fan.

Anyway, Boom’s right. I’ve made my point, and won’t stretch it out further.

 

[Boom]

But seriously Heath Ledger can't be beat.

 

[Kane52630]

I don't get the "The movie stray further from the source material"... While the movie on the surface looks like it's taking inspirations from The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns. Heath Ledger's Joker is no different.

 

[FunkMiller]

But seriously Heath Ledger can't be beat.

You know, I actually think part of the reason Phillips and Phoenix have created such a different take on the character is to avoid too many character comparisons to Ledger’s performance... which is an extremely wise move.

I may not be entirely happy on a personal level with how much they’ve moved away from what I tend to recognise as ‘The Joker’ (Batman’s greatest villain etc.) but it absolutely makes sense from a film making and acting perspective.

I don't get the "The movie stray further from the source material"... While the movie on the surface looks like it's taking inspirations from The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns. Heath Ledger's Joker is no different.

Arthur Fleck is an entirely new creation. There’s no Batman. Thomas Wayne alive and well. Joker is the protagonist, and he’s presented as a semi sympathetic character, who’s actions might well be justified. Ledger’s Joker is far closer to his comic book counterpart.

But that’s just my opinion. If you think this Joker is close to the comics then that’s all good

 

[Hollis Mason]

You know, I actually think part of the reason Phillips and Phoenix have created such a different take on the character is to avoid too many character comparisons to Ledger’s performance... which is an extremely wise move.

I may not be entirely happy on a personal level with how much they’ve moved away from what I tend to recognise as ‘The Joker’ (Batman’s greatest villain etc.) but it absolutely makes sense from a film making and acting perspective.



Arthur Fleck is an entirely new creation. There’s no Batman. Thomas Wayne alive and well. Joker is the protagonist, and he’s presented as a semi sympathetic character, who’s actions might well be justified. Ledger’s Joker is far closer to his comic book counterpart.

But that’s just my opinion. If you think this Joker is close to the comics then that’s all good

Of course there's no Batman and Thomas is alive. This is set before the Wayne's murder. How does that make it less close to the comic book counterpart? They aren't changing that.