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

[TheFuture]

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.

Yeah I can't stress this enough; if you go in expecting a Joker that dominates the screen like Ledger did you're going to be pissed off. The film doesn't even lead with a DC logo which tells you everything you need to know.

Only advice I can give is leave your expectations at the door and enjoy the ride.

 

[Spider-Fan]

"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.

So hypothetically, if Zack Snyder had come out before Batman v Superman and said that his take on Batman was going to be something radical the fans may not like, it's somehow would make his artistic choices more valid? I think you're going to come back and tell me no that it would not. So what's the difference? Is the difference here is you want to like the Joker project so you're doing everything you can to making all the mental gymnastics you can in order to get yourself in a mind space where this movie will be acceptable to you when there are things in it you may have objected to going in? Or is it that maybe Todd Phillips just made a movie that might be more compelling? Again, I just don't see where honesty of the director really should make something valid or not. The movie and the adaptation should speak for itself

 

[Holy Slapper]

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.

Let's not get carried away here. He's still a hitman killing other hitmen who are trying to kill him, more often in the least realistic ways as possible (hello, aimbot!). John Wick is more a comic book movie than Joker.

 

[The Joker]

Yeah I can't stress this enough; if you go in expecting a Joker that dominates the screen like Ledger did you're going to be pissed off. The film doesn't even lead with a DC logo which tells you everything you need to know.

Only advice I can give is leave your expectations at the door and enjoy the ride.

Exactly. Always been my mind set for this movie. I'm not going in expecting to see a faithful comic book adaption.

So hypothetically, if Zack Snyder had come out before Batman v Superman and said that his take on Batman was going to be something radical the fans may not like, it's somehow would make his artistic choices more valid? I think you're going to come back and tell me no that it would not. So what's the difference? Is the difference here is you want to like the Joker project so you're doing everything you can to making all the mental gymnastics you can in order to get yourself in a mind space where this movie will be acceptable to you when there are things in it you may have objected to going in? Or is it that maybe Todd Phillips just made a movie that might be more compelling? Again, I just don't see where honesty of the director really should make something valid or not. The movie and the adaptation should speak for itself

Of course it wouldn't. Just because you warn of changes doesn't mean they are going to be changes you like. I'm not applauding Phillips for that, I am applauding him for warning people and helping fans like me temper their expectations if they were going in expecting to see a Joker from the comics.

 

[Prettyricky]

Let's not get carried away here. He's still a hitman killing other hitmen who are trying to kill him, more often in the least realistic ways as possible (hello, aimbot!). John Wick is more a comic book movie than Joker.

I don't disagree with that at all but you cant cheer violence in one movie and be offended by another. There all fake movies telling a story of fake characters.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Exactly. Always been my mind set for this movie. I'm not going in expecting to see a faithful comic book adaption.



Of course it wouldn't. Just because you warn of changes doesn't mean they are going to be changes you like. I'm not applauding Phillips for that, I am applauding him for warning people and helping fans like me temper their expectations.

And in my scenario, Zack Snyder would have been doing the same thing. So again I ask, what's the difference?

Also I want to put this disclaimer, I am not trying to turn this into a Zack Snyder debate. So don't come at me guys with replies like Zack Snyder sucks, etc. I'm just expressing my view on how the fact that this is an alternate take on the Joker should not matter or add to its overall quality simply because it's advertised that way.

 

[-JKR-]

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.

I never said it doesn't stand on its own. I was just surprised by how you found it to be "dangerous". And it's actually pretty tastefully done. Phillips doesn't go for cheap shocks.

 

[8ulk87]

Joker is heading for a $90+ mil US opening 3day.
October record ($80,26 mil) will be claimed. It was nice while it lasted for Venom.

Heading for $500+ mil WW total , unless somehow OS tanks.

 

[TheFuture]

So hypothetically, if Zack Snyder had come out before Batman v Superman and said that his take on Batman was going to be something radical the fans may not like, it's somehow would make his artistic choices more valid? I think you're going to come back and tell me no that it would not. So what's the difference? Is the difference here is you want to like the Joker project so you're doing everything you can to making all the mental gymnastics you can in order to get yourself in a mind space where this movie will be acceptable to you when there are things in it you may have objected to going in? Or is it that maybe Todd Phillips just made a movie that might be more compelling? Again, I just don't see where honesty of the director really should make something valid or not. The movie and the adaptation should speak for itself

It doesn't make the artistic choices more valid but it helps when the fandom knows where they stand and what to expect.

My mind is hazy about the BvS production but from what I remember, Snyder was convinced he was giving the fans what they wanted; that Affleck was bringing the comics to life.

Snyder didn't even have the wherewithal to realise what he was doing could end up being extremely divisive. If he did it wouldn't have softened anyone's critique, but it probably would have lead to a more positive discourse around the film as opposed to the toxic nightmare it ended up becoming.

 

[Web-Head]

Yeah I can't stress this enough; if you go in expecting a Joker that dominates the screen like Ledger did you're going to be pissed off. The film doesn't even lead with a DC logo which tells you everything you need to know.

Only advice I can give is leave your expectations at the door and enjoy the ride.

I knew this going in, at least for the most part, and I think that's why I didn't quite love it or Phoenix's performance as much as others did.

 

[-JKR-]

The movie is actually more faithful to the source material than expected.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It doesn't make the artistic choices more valid but it helps when the fandom knows where they stand and what to expect.

My mind is hazy about the BvS production but from what I remember, Snyder was convinced he was giving the fans what they wanted; that Affleck was bringing the comics to life.

Snyder didn't even have the wherewithal to realise what he was doing could end up being extremely divisive. If he did it wouldn't have softened anyone's critique, but it probably would have lead to a more positive discourse around the film as opposed to the toxic nightmare it ended up becoming.

But again, does tempering expectations really mean anything in regards to actual tangible quality? Should we like The Last Jedi or other various divisive films more if directors are more honest about their films being divisive? Or should we just judge films on their own merit regardless if we're told from the beginning that it might be divisive? That's all I'm trying to say. If I liked this movie when I see it later tonight hopefully, then I will come in here and talk about the things I liked about the movie. At the end of the day that's all I care about, what I see on the screen. What the alternate take argument is telling me, is that people want to like the movie and already are making mental hurdles to ensure that they do when they go see it. But at the end of the day, that's all just marketing to me. Marketing doesn't make anything good or bad.

 

[TheFuture]

The movie is actually more faithful to the source material than expected.

In that you can't trust anything you're seeing from Arthur's POV that's absolutely true. I think the film in time will move on from being divisive once people digest it.

It's difficult to articulate but once the film explodes you get very little time to take it in before it's over. Once I see it again I'm sure I'll see an increasingly faithful adaptation.

 

[The Joker]

And in my scenario, Zack Snyder would have been doing the same thing. So again I ask, what's the difference?

Also I want to put this disclaimer, I am not trying to turn this into a Zack Snyder debate. So don't come at me guys with replies like Zack Snyder sucks, etc. I'm just expressing my view on how the fact that this is an alternate take on the Joker should not matter or add to its overall quality simply because it's advertised that way.

The difference is it can help fans temper expectations and know exactly what they are getting rather than what they were hoping or expecting. If Snyder had said this is a Batman/Superman movie baring little resemblance to the comics it wouldn't have made me like the characterizations we got any better, because bad writing is bad writing, whether you get a warning of it or not. Same as if Ayer had done the same with Suicide Squad, the pining for Harley wimp of a Joker that Letoker gave us wouldn't have been any more likable, but it would have helped knowing that going in knowing that was what we were in for, rather than being hopeful there was some chance of a decent Joker in that movie.

Look at MCU Spidey, if fans knew before hand there would be very little Uncle Ben influence on the character beforehand I think the backlash on that would have been far less severe. People still wouldn't like it, but they would have been prepared for it.

It doesn't make the artistic choices more valid but it helps when the fandom knows where they stand and what to expect.

My mind is hazy about the BvS production but from what I remember, Snyder was convinced he was giving the fans what they wanted; that Affleck was bringing the comics to life.

Snyder didn't even have the wherewithal to realise what he was doing could end up being extremely divisive. If he did it wouldn't have softened anyone's critique, but it probably would have lead to a more positive discourse around the film as opposed to the toxic nightmare it ended up becoming.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The difference is it can help fans temper expectations and know exactly what they are getting rather than what they were hoping or expecting. If Snyder had said this is a Batman/Superman movie baring little resemblance to the comics it wouldn't have made me like the characterizations we got any better, because bad writing is bad writing, whether you get a warning of it or not. Same as if Ayer had done the same with Suicide Squad, the pining for Harley wimp of a Joker that Letoker gave us wouldn't have been any more likable, but it would have helped knowing that going in knowing that was what we were in for, rather than being hopeful there was some chance of a decent Joker in that movie.

Look at MCU Spidey, if fans knew before hand there would be very little Uncle Ben influence on the character beforehand I think the backlash on that would have been far less severe. People still wouldn't like it, but they would have been prepared for it.



Exactly my thoughts.

Really the MCU Spider-Man thing is only talked about amongst fan circles. Outside of a small minority of fans that's not really very divisive. Once again, I get conceptually this idea that tempering expectations prepares people for things. I'm just saying that the end of the day whether your expectations are tempered or not, the piece of art you're watching is the same. Regardless if Zack Snyder is more honest about how the characters are going to be portrayed in his movie or not, it's still the same movie. So like I said, really the art speaks for itself. Hence why I feel this idea that Todd Phillips somehow prepared people for something radically different is overrated. Either his movie is good or not the end of the day

 

[-JKR-]

Yes. And it is. It's great.

 

[The Joker]

Really the MCU Spider-Man thing is only talked about amongst fan circles. Outside of a small minority of fans that's not really very divisive. Once again, I get conceptually this idea that tempering expectations prepares people for things. I'm just saying that the end of the day whether your expectations are tempered or not, the piece of art you're watching is the same. Regardless if Zack Snyder is more honest about how the characters are going to be portrayed in his movie or not, it's still the same movie. So like I said, really the art speaks for itself. Pence why I feel this idea that Todd Phillips somehow prepared people for something radically different is overrated. Either his movie is good or not the end of the day

Yes, because general audiences don't know or care about such things. Naturally only fans of the character and the source material would dislike such things. That's a given. Despite the lack of Uncle Ben influence, the characterization is well written, generally faithful to the spirit of the character, and there is a lot of comic book influence in general in the movies. So its a storm in a tea cup. But just an example of a change that ruffled feathers with fandom, and most likely would not have had such a fan backlash if there had been warning of it.

FYI, nobody said giving warning about a movie magically changes a movie. Just that it helps knowing what to expect. Expectations are always something that influence people's outlook on a movie. That is fact. Knowing you are getting or not getting something you more than likely would expect from a movie, in this case a Joker with a lot of comic book inspiration, that can and does have a lot of impact on how people view a movie. Which is why Phillips gave his disclaimer months in advance, and flat out said people will be mad about it. Because that's the way it is with people, whether its not how you personally view a movie or not.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yes. And it is. It's great.

I hope I agree. I actually am encouraged by how divisive reviews have been. Usually a movie the scores in the 60s has middle of the road reviews, but this one ranges in peaks and valleys. That alone encourages me.

But I won't know that until probably later tonight. I was just focusing on this side conversation for now

 

[The Joker]

Anyway I'm off to see the movie now.

Later folks.

 

[TheFuture]

Forgot to say I read some reactions claiming there was laughter at the most inappropriate moments which lent to the "toxic" tag of this film; I can tell you that there was zero laughter in my viewing. Arthur is a grim, non glorifying portrayal of a very disturbed man.

 

[Holy Slapper]

I don't disagree with that at all but you cant cheer violence in one movie and be offended by another. There all fake movies telling a story of fake characters.

I can, easily. It's all about presentation. An "action star" killing bad guys who are trying to kill him in the most unrealistic setting/world vs a mad man killing innocents who said a bad word to/about him.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yes, because general audiences don't know or care about such things. Naturally only fans of the character and the source material would dislike such things. That's a given. Despite the lack of Uncle Ben influence, the characterization is well written, generally faithful to the spirit of the character, and there is a lot of comic book influence in general in the movies. So its a storm in a tea cup. But just an example of a change that ruffled feathers with fandom, and most likely would not have had such a fan backlash if there had been warning of it.

FYI, nobody said giving warning about a movie magically changes a movie. Just that it helps knowing what to expect. Expectations are always something that influence people's outlook on a movie. That is fact. Knowing you are getting or not getting something you more than likely would expect from a movie, in this case a Joker with a lot of comic book inspiration, that can and does have a lot of impact on how you view a movie. Which is why Phillips gave his disclaimer months in advance, and flat out said people will be mad about it. Because that's the way it is, whether its not how you view a movie or not.

This once again gets back to the heart of my argument, which is marketing should not dictate how much you enjoy something. You shouldn't have to compromise what you look for in a movie simply because the marketing told you to or because a guy who made the movie already told you you may not like it. At that point, are you actually holding your own opinion anymore? Or are you just a mouthpiece for what the marketing slaves want you to think? I bring this argument up because I encourage critical thought amongst people. Think for yourself, don't let other people think for you. This is why I say in all cases, you should be able to tell if the movie is good or not simply by your own experience and your own opinions. If this truly is a movie that you're going to like, you should not need that disclaimer in order to like it

 

[I Am The Knight]

Forgot to say I read some reactions claiming there was laughter at the most inappropriate moments which lent to the "toxic" tag of this film; I can tell you that there was zero laughter in my viewing. Arthur is a grim, non glorifying portrayal of a very disturbed man.

The movie does have some dark humor, especially in one particular scene. Expect some nervous laughter.

 

[TheFuture]

The movie does have some dark humor, especially in one particular scene. Expect some nervous laughter.

Yes admittedly nervous laughter but no glee in the violence.

 

[Mysteryman]

Any chance that Joker makes 100 million this weekend?