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

[I Am The Knight]

An update of sorts.

https://www.thewrap.com/todd-phillips-joker-batman-80s-comedian-scorsese-king-of-comedy-scorcese/

Me likey! Love The King of Comedy.

 

[David H.]

I do hope we get the “multiple choice” disclaimer, though.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Sounds interesting, but execution will matter the most.

 

[Pennywise]

Just noticed that the article mentioned the film may start filming in mid to late 2018, unless delayed by rewrites of the script.

 

[Deck Rickard]

I'm confused over what they're doing with this. So the Joker first becomes active in the 1980s? So I guess Batman (in this universe) was too, thereby making them both senior citizens in the present day?

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I'm confused over what they're doing with this. So the Joker first becomes active in the 1980s? So I guess Batman (in this universe) was too, thereby making them both senior citizens in the present day?

This movie is not part of the DCEU.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Well, for all the people who hated Joker having a background in B89, will probably be upset about him being a failed comedian in this.

That's something I've never understood. The Killing Joke is considered this seminal work in Batman canon and a lot of it was about an origin for the Joker that supposedly is hypothetical. It comes off a little as the writers and readers having their cake and eating it too, where they get an origin for the Joker while simultaneously being able to say "MAYBE it isn't true".

Personally, I never thought of the Joker's past being a mystery being an absolutely essential aspect of the character. As long as he falls into a vat of chemicals while committing some sort of crime at a chemical factory and comes out looking and acting the way he's supposed to, it's all aces to me, even if a writer or director decides to tell us what happened before the chemical plant heist.

 

[OutOfBoose]

And in The Mask of the Phantasm he has background too. Which is also a cult Batman story.

It's not that big of a deal for me if the Joker has specific past. It all depends on context and execution. Not everyone will agree, and I get where they come from, but I'm open to other interpretations.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Right. Now while Mask of the Phantasm is a little more vague than Batman 89, it does stick with the notion that the Joker was a mob enforcer before the accident.

 

[Jonwo]

This movie is not part of the DCEU.

It's probably going to the film equivalent of Elseworlds or DC's upcoming Black Label.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Yeah I know. I'm hoping Batman is in it in a supporting role. Kind of play with the idea of Joker as the protagonist and Batman as the villain(in the sense that the authorities are the bad guys in a mob film) in an 80s crime drama.

 

[The Joker]

That's something I've never understood. The Killing Joke is considered this seminal work in Batman canon and a lot of it was about an origin for the Joker that supposedly is hypothetical.

Not the same at all. For a start TKJ doesn't even give him a name, unlike in B'89. Second of all TKJ presents that failed comedian story as one possible origin story, as Joker himself states that he always remembers his past differently, and he likes it that way.

Nothing is set in stone there. His failed comedian origin could be a total fabrication of his crazy mind.

 

[Travesty]

And here we go....

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The Killing Joke was never about The Joker's origin. It was about The Joker trying to convince himself that he isn't a monster and that he is not different from everyone else. That's why he kidnaps Gordon and shoots his daughter, so he can prove that "all it takes is one bad day". The "origin" was a fantasy that The Joker concocted up in his own mind to justify his own actions. He all but admits that when he tells Batman "if you have to have a past, why not multiple choice". He's basically telling Batman that his origin is ******** and he makes it up as he goes.

Fundamentally, the story is not about The Joker's past. If Alan Moore wanted to make it about the past of The Joker and make it a definitive origin story he would've written the story completely differently. He goes out of his way to keep it, at best - ambiguous. He never commits to that actually being The Joker's past.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Something made him into the Joker either way. What is he driven by? Some tragic accident, or the tragic accident means nothing for him due to his insanity and he re-invents himself with all these multiple origins to keep going... I think it can be explored in his solo film. Yeah, good luck writing a story out of that.

 

[FunkMiller]

Not the same at all. For a start TKJ doesn't even give him a name, unlike in B'89. Second of all TKJ presents that failed comedian story as one possible origin story, as Joker himself states that he always remembers his past differently, and he likes it that way.

Nothing is set in stone there. His failed comedian origin could be a total fabrication of his crazy mind.

...which is why Ledger’s Joker is the best non-comic interpretation of the character. You detail a backstory, you destroy a lot of his mystique.

 

[Greens]

Not the same at all. For a start TKJ doesn't even give him a name, unlike in B'89. Second of all TKJ presents that failed comedian story as one possible origin story, as Joker himself states that he always remembers his past differently, and he likes it that way.

Nothing is set in stone there. His failed comedian origin could be a total fabrication of his crazy mind.

For all intents and purposes what was outlined in The Killing Joke IS his origin story. If you judge The Killing Joke in a vacuum, yeah it could just be a fake story but it has taken a life of its own.

This is why there is no mystique to destroy. He fell into a vat of acid. There may be stories out there where his origin is different but by and large that's what happened to him. Two live action Jokers have adopted that backstory and I don't think they were hindered by it at all (Leto was hindered by a bunch of other things, though).

 

[The Joker]

The Killing Joke was never about The Joker's origin. It was about The Joker trying to convince himself that he isn't a monster and that he is not different from everyone else. That's why he kidnaps Gordon and shoots his daughter, so he can prove that "all it takes is one bad day". The "origin" was a fantasy that The Joker concocted up in his own mind to justify his own actions. He all but admits that when he tells Batman "if you have to have a past, why not multiple choice". He's basically telling Batman that his origin is ******** and he makes it up as he goes.

Fundamentally, the story is not about The Joker's past. If Alan Moore wanted to make it about the past of The Joker and make it a definitive origin story he would've written the story completely differently. He goes out of his way to keep it, at best - ambiguous. He never commits to that actually being The Joker's past.

Exactly right.

...which is why Ledger’s Joker is the best non-comic interpretation of the character. You detail a backstory, you destroy a lot of his mystique.

Agreed.

For all intents and purposes what was outlined in The Killing Joke IS his origin story.

According to whom? Was that ever officially confirmed? If so, then where?

If you judge The Killing Joke in a vacuum, yeah it could just be a fake story but it has taken a life of its own.

That is the only way to judge it, and the only way it has been presented. Actually scratch that, when TKJ was released it wasn't even meant to be canon. But it's popularity had DC make it canon, as in the crippling of Barbara element. The actual backstory of the Joker part was, and still is exactly as the story stated. One possibility.

This is why there is no mystique to destroy. He fell into a vat of acid. There may be stories out there where his origin is different but by and large that's what happened to him. Two live action Jokers have adopted that backstory and I don't think they were hindered by it at all (Leto was hindered by a bunch of other things, though).

Of course there's a mystique to destroy. Falling into a vat of acid doesn't tell you anything about who he was. The vat of acid element simply tells you how he got the bleached skin. Nothing more. That's never been the part that makes the Joker a mystery.

Even if you take the Red Hood story element as canon, and Batman firmly believes Joker was the Red Hood and the fall into the chemicals is what made him the Joker physically, Batman is still clueless about who the Joker really is. He could have been anyone under that hood. Something Batman has stated many times.

So you can choose to view TKJ as his official origin if you like. That's your own choice. Factually it is not official in any way. Unless someone here has evidence to the contrary that I am unaware of (and please post it if anyone here does). Being his most famous possible origin doesn't equate to it being the official one.

 

[Deck Rickard]

This movie is not part of the DCEU.

I know that, but what I mean is, will Batman figure into this story at all? And will it connect to Matt Reeves’ Batman film, if that movie isn’t connected to the DCEU? Or are they planning to have a completely different actor play the Joker in that series, if he shows up? It just feels like a waste of Phoenix if he never interacts with Batman.

 

[Rorschach2012]

If this movie is good, just build the whole Batman franchise around this era and forget about the DCEU

Batman - Jake Gyllenhaal
The Joker - Joaquin Phoenix

Leto and Affleck will quickly be forgotten. They’re like the George Lazenbys or Andrew Garfields of the Batman franchise

 

[The Guard]

The “multiple choice” thing is definitely part of The Killing Joke, but it’s not as cut and dry as “The Joker definitely made it up”. Batman’s point is that, even if it were true, having bad things happen doesn’t excuse evil behavior. Normal people don’t always crack after trauma. And there are some more modern comics that have essentially made the failed comedian bit canon, and explored that part of The Joker’s past. As much as anything is ever canon, it has very much been considered canon.

We saw the “ambiguous” approach with The Dark Knight. I don’t see the issue in doing something different this time around. Why do the same thing again?

 

[StarLord]

If this movie is good, just build the whole Batman franchise around this era and forget about the DCEU

Batman - Jake Gyllenhaal
The Joker - Joaquin Phoenix

Leto and Affleck will quickly be forgotten. They’re like the George Lazenbys or Andrew Garfields of the Batman franchise

Phoenix staying on is doubtful though. I think he's attracted to this because it's a one and done.

 

[Greens]

So you can choose to view TKJ as his official origin if you like. That's your own choice. Factually it is not official in any way. Unless someone here has evidence to the contrary that I am unaware of (and please post it if anyone here does). Being his most famous possible origin doesn't equate to it being the official one.

I'm saying it's basically his origin because nine out of ten times if anything about his past is referenced it's in accordance with that story. It's canon in the DC comics universe.

I just don't see the big deal about showing his origin. Yes, the mystique added to the Heath Ledger version, much like the origin could add to this movie's version.

 

[The Joker]

I'm saying it's basically his origin because nine out of ten times if anything about his past is referenced it's in accordance with that story. It's canon in the DC comics universe.

No, it's not canon within in the DC comics universe. Unless there is some official statement from DC, or a panel from the comics that says this is Joker's canon origin. Being the most referenced doesn't make it canon. Unless again someone has proof of otherwise I'm unaware of.

I just don't see the big deal about showing his origin. Yes, the mystique added to the Heath Ledger version, much like the origin could add to this movie's version.

The mystique adds to the comic book version, too, as he doesn't have an official origin, or even a real name either. The unknown is scary, and one of the best things about the Joker.

 

[Greens]

The unknown is scary, but that doesn't mean he needs to be unknown all the time. I guess that's what it boils down to for me.