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

[Fincher]

Any time a new DC movie is said to be in development, it crowds the field and raises the chances that each of the ones already in development won't end up happening. So, given that I'm more interested in Gotham City Sirens, Justice League Dark, and Batgirl than a Joker origin, this could be taken as not the best sign.

However, if it does happen, it's something I'm open to. My favorite Joker-related thing is Batman '89, which told the Joker's origin, so I don't care about the idea that The Joker is supposed to be an unknown.

I'll also say that I could do without the shared universes with crossovers model in general, so I'm not going to object to there being "Elseworlds" movies.

 

[Boy Scout]

Maybe someone can explain to me what the logical throughline is between the umbrella term “origin” and “the mystique is ruined if they show us ______”. I’m baffled at how the two are equated, it’s completely inane logic.

What's hard to understand? Origin stories typically tell the audience how a character became who we know they'll become and detail the circumstances that led to their creation (for lack of a better term). Many had clearly expressed that telling The Joker's origin ruins one of the best things about him, which is his mystique.

Now, to be fair, it can be done well. Very well, in fact. But I personally think that The Joker's origin should be left a mystery, and this movie should just be a standalone that tells us about one of his many, many crimes.

It’s even more baffling considering the most acclaimed and touted “definitive” Joker story is literally an origin story. Did that ruin the mystique of Joker? Or did it raise more questions?

Which story is that? Man Who Laughs?

 

[Frodo]

People are projecting their expectations onto a film that doesn't exist yet.

Christopher Nolan deliberately kept Heath's Joker a mystery and worked that mystery into the plot.

Tim Burton decided to show Jack's origin and worked it into the plot. Was Jack's Joker any less interesting because we saw him fall into the vat of chemicals? I thought it was really neat to see how this plain looking gangster turned into this raving lunatic with a huge smile on his face.

It's all in the execution. I think it's lame to **** on this movie before we have any idea what the origin will even be.

This. I also think alot of the resistance comes from fans who like the DCEU in its current form, and see that its is likely being phased out in favor of the new approach.

 

[Jekecy]

What's hard to understand? Origin stories typically tell the audience how a character became who we know they'll become and detail the circumstances that led to their creation (for lack of a better term). Many had clearly expressed that telling The Joker's origin ruins one of the best things about him, which is his mystique.

People either have to:

Denounce ALL origin stories

OR

Sit quiet until more info is released because it is understood the 'origin' under this context is still undefined.

Pick one.

Fans cannot tout B89, MOTP, TKJ, etc. in high regard and simultaneously dismiss the entire notion of an origin. Joker's history has been explored. Successfully. Multiple times.

There's all this bickering against a concept that hasn't even been defined. That's beyond absurd.

Which story is that? Man Who Laughs?

Killing Joke.

That delved into part of history. It can be argued it was false or it didn't fully commit, but it's all there.

 

[Limonade]

I'm sure someone pitched WB the solo Joker movie like a horror movie similar to that of SAW or Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th.

 

[Wildcard]

Maybe someone can explain to me what the logical throughline is between the umbrella term “origin” and “the mystique is ruined if they show us ______”. I’m baffled at how the two are equated, it’s completely inane logic.

It’s even more baffling considering the most acclaimed and touted “definitive” Joker story is literally an origin story. Did that ruin the mystique of Joker? Or did it raise more questions?

We’re living in an age of rapid fire hysterical judgments, ya’ll need to slow down.

Maybe because that's how I as well as many fans prefer to view the Joker? As a mysterious individual where you don't really know who he was prior to becoming the Joker. In a lot of cases, doing so can take away from a character.

Also, the story you're referring to even calls into question if the origin is actually accurate, hence the "if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice" line. It's inane that you just looked over that.

Add that to the fact that it's not like I jumped the gun and started saying this is going to be horrible no matter what they do. I simply stated I'd prefer they adapt other stories. So perhaps you need to take your own advice and slow down.

 

[Jekecy]

Maybe because that's how I as well as many fans prefer to view the Joker? As a mysterious individual where you don't really know who he was prior to becoming the Joker. In a lot of cases, doing so can take away from a character.

That doesn't have to change with this movie. What did Casino Royale reveal about Bond's past prior to his MI6 career? Is that not an origin movie?

Can we agree that origins can cover different time periods and aspects of one's life?

Also, the story you're referring to even calls into question if the origin is actually accurate, hence the "if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice" line. It's inane that you just looked over that.

It's precisely what I was referring to when I rhetorically asked if it raised more questions. You even quoted it.

Add that to the fact that it's not like I jumped the gun and started saying this is going to be horrible no matter what they do. I simply stated I'd prefer they adapt other stories. So perhaps you need to take your own advice and slow down.

When someone writes "WHY?!?!" I typically read that as a loud decry considering the all-caps and exclamation points.

 

[Kane52630]

While I think this whole thing is ridiculous and sad from WB... if they could get Joe Gilgun to play The Joker then they got my interest.

 

[jmc]

The only way you can make this work that stays inline with the character is if the entire narrative is unreliable. On paper at the very least that can work. but the issue that I think WB is going to face more than anything else is that this isn't going to be as appealing to the masses as they may hope it it.

 

[Wildcard]

That doesn't have to change with this movie. What did Casino Royale reveal about Bond's past prior to his MI6 career? Is that not an origin movie?

Not even trying to be a dick but I'm not a Bond fan so I really can't answer that

Can we agree that origins can cover different time periods and aspects of one's life?


It's precisely what I was referring to when I rhetorically asked if it raised more questions. You even quoted it.



When someone writes "WHY?!?!" I typically read that as a loud decry considering the all-caps and exclamation points.

Yeah, we can definitely agree on that. That thought is one of the reasons I'm willing to wait and see what this will be rather than grabbing my pitchfork. haha

And I meant that "WHY?!" as in of all the projects they could work on, why out of the blue choose this one. But like I said I am open to the idea. I'm not so cynical that I won't give this a chance at least.

 

[Boy Scout]

People either have to:

Denounce ALL origin stories

OR

Sit quiet until more info is released because it is understood the 'origin' under this context is still undefined.

Pick one.

1) Not all characters or stories are created equal. Depending on your preferences, it makes perfect sense to be more excited or interested in a Superman origin story, but not a Joker one.

2) It's a message board. What do you expect? Besides: it's not hard to make educated guesses about what an origin movie will attempt to cover and explain.

Fans cannot tout B89, MOTP, TKJ, etc. in high regard and simultaneously dismiss the entire notion of an origin. Joker's history has been explored. Successfully. Multiple times.

Very true, which is why I conceded that the movie could be a good one. I, and many others, just feel like it's a story better left untold. It also just feels like an ill-conceived cash grab.

Killing Joke.

That delved into part of history. It can be argued it was false or it didn't fully commit, but it's all there.

I don't think most remember or love that story for the possibly false origin, though. Didn't it also introduce the quote about The Joker preferring his past to be multiple choice?

 

[Jekecy]

1) Not all characters or stories are created equal. Depending on your preferences, it makes perfect sense to be more excited or interested in a Superman origin story, but not a Joker one.

The "ALL" in that statement was referring only to Joker; as in all the origin stories which have involved him. If fans can concede they've liked a story or two, then surely they'd have to concede the concept has merit and can already work.

2) It's a message board. What do you expect? Besides: it's not hard to make educated guesses about what an origin movie will attempt to cover and explain.

But positing that doesn't even inform much. An origin movie is supposed to unveil and explore the events which formed the iconic character we know today. Okay. But the important pieces of that component can literally be anything.

As this is a new iteration, all avenues are open. The origin story could start with him as a kid, as a teen, or an adult. And even if you had that information, you don't know what parts of his life will be covered. There's too many unknown factors here to consider before coming up with a judgment.

I don't think most remember or love that story for the possibly false origin, though. Didn't it also introduce the quote about The Joker preferring his past to be multiple choice?

It very much did, but let me ask you this: what if that's the goal of this film? An unreliable narrator and central figure is an oft used trope of mysteries and thrillers. And in fact is what was used for The Killing Joke. There's nothing to stop it from being used again to great dramatic effect.

And if not, I still see a story potential. Look at TDK's intro prologue; it technically portrays a Year Zero Joker. No purple tux, no Batman, no past. A origin film could conceivably cover the period between when he's first chemically bathed and end right before he's clashed with Batman. That's a part of history not really covered on any medium and still fits in line with the mystique of Joker.

 

[The Guard]

Yeah, the knee jerk reactions to the word origin are a bit much. You're all assuming that the creators, and say, Geoff Johns, are unaware of the unreliable origin that is so popular in comics and a very well known film featuring this character. Second, like it or not, this character who "shouldn't have an origin" has had one since 1951. It has been built on and referenced constantly in various media. It's a core part of the character, and can be handled several different ways.

And the idea that because they'd like to make a few standalone movies that WB is abandoning the DCEU is absurd. It's called diversification. Like any other genre, comic book films will have to evolve to remain profitable.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Doctor Doom and Joker possibly getting solo movies....what is happening !!

 

[weezerspider]

I think some of you guys are overselling Scorsese's involvement. In the press release it even says his involvement is pretty fluid right now and he'll decide if he stays on after he reads the script. There's a very good chance this film is even less of a Scorsese film than Man Of Steel is a Chris Nolan film, and that's not a Nolan film at all.

Yes, a Joker film in the style of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull sounds amazing, but it's being directed by the guy who directed....The Hangover. Marty's name being attached to the film doesn't inherently mean anything. He was a producer on Bleed For This and that wasn't Raging Bull. It was a generic boxing film. You have to realize Scorsese, if he does this at all, is going to be the kind of producer he would want: one who leaves the director alone and lets him make his film. This will be a Todd Philips film. Not a Scorsese film. Unless something changes.

 

[NotNickFury]

Found a perfect Joker related reaction-

[YT]CrtgLVN69mc[/YT]

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Good use

 

[Osiris-Rex]

So people are fine with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Poison Ivy, The Flash, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Nightwing, Bane
all given an origin but Joker is God and knowing his origin ruins the story? Isn't Joker still the same character whether you know how he got started or not?
How exactly does finally knowing how Joker got started ruin the character?

 

[JtheDreamer]

Yeah, the knee jerk reactions to the word origin are a bit much. You're all assuming that the creators, and say, Geoff Johns, are unaware of the unreliable origin that is so popular in comics and a very well known film featuring this character. Second, like it or not, this character who "shouldn't have an origin" has had one since 1951. It has been built on and referenced constantly in various media. It's a core part of the character, and can be handled several different ways.

And the idea that because they'd like to make a few standalone movies that WB is abandoning the DCEU is absurd. It's called diversification. Like any other genre, comic book films will have to evolve to remain profitable.

Right on time trying to put out flames again eh?

WB/DC needs to hire you already.

 

[LaughterLives]

This is a mistake. This is a great production team but they're gonna end up making The Joker Sympathetic and that's just the worst thing they can do with character on screen.

 

[HBarnill]

I think some of you guys are overselling Scorsese's involvement. In the press release it even says his involvement is pretty fluid right now and he'll decide if he stays on after he reads the script. There's a very good chance this film is even less of a Scorsese film than Man Of Steel is a Chris Nolan film, and that's not a Nolan film at all.

Yes, a Joker film in the style of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull sounds amazing, but it's being directed by the guy who directed....The Hangover. Marty's name being attached to the film doesn't inherently mean anything. He was a producer on Bleed For This and that wasn't Raging Bull. It was a generic boxing film. You have to realize Scorsese, if he does this at all, is going to be the kind of producer he would want: one who leaves the director alone and lets him make his film. This will be a Todd Philips film. Not a Scorsese film. Unless something changes.

Scorsese will probably be embarrassed that Phillips is on his turf and directs this himself. I mean, Scorsese's a humble guy but even he would recognize how much Phillips sucks as a filmmaker. He's the Chuck Lorre of cinema.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Scorsese will probably be embarrassed that Phillips is on his turf and directs this himself. I mean, Scorsese's a humble guy but even he would recognize how much Phillips sucks as a filmmaker. He's the Chuck Lorre of cinema.

Considering what huge hits shows like Two and a Half Men, Mike and Molly, The Big Bang Theory, and Mom were and are for Warner Bros. Television I am sure DC Films would love to have a Chuck Lorre of cinema working for them.

 

[vantheman77]

We already had a Joker origin back in Batman 89. Why do we need it now?

 

[Alien Anal]

I think the difference with this being an origin story is that its set in its own universe. This doesn't ruin the mystique of the joker for future films because it will be the only story told in this universe.

This isn't the origin story of every joker in history its just the origin of this particular one.

 

[StarLord]

While I think this whole thing is ridiculous and sad from WB... if they could get Joe Gilgun to play The Joker then they got my interest.

Spoiler

I'm well on board for dat.

They should get Ben Wheatley to direct this instead.