SeANMcBAY posted:

That was darker than I expected. I didn’t expect the movie to be about class divides. It was a little heavy handed but that’s needed these days so whatever. I liked it and would like to see it again.

SeANMcBAY posted:

Taxi Driver and King of Comedy dark. The movie seems to be obviously inspired by both.

Vir posted:

Joker's crimes were always more about mayhem and theatrics than actual profit, right?

Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:

One of the major plot arcs in the movie is that Penny, Arthur's mother, was formerly a servant of the Wayne family and she keeps writing Thomas Wayne letters that never get answered. is revealed that Penny is begging Thomas for help because they had an affair and Arthur is the result, but Penny signed paperwork to keep it hush hush. However, when Arthur confronts Thomas Wayne, HE reveals that Penny is actually deranged, Arthur is an adopted orphan she passed off as Thomas', and that Penny was thrown briefly into arkham for child abuse, which Arthur confirms when he checks the arkham medical records. However, when he's looking through his mother's things later in the final act, he finds the aforementioned picture, which throws everything into doubt - was penny telling the truth and the Wayne's framed her for abuse and falsified adoption papers, or was Wayne telling the truth and Penny is a schizophrenic? Or is the truth a mix? The movie doesn't say.

LORD OF BOOTY posted:

6-year-old gonna grow up to live in a society and slonk gang weed

King Vidiot posted:

Hey it's his society, we're just living in a.

Anyway, hearing about this movie just makes me really want an official Antifa Joker vs. Fascist Batman. Like, Batman would basically represent the Pinkertons protecting the interests of the upper classes from people like the Joker. And Joker would be completely non-violent, like he'd go out of his way to not actually hurt people and would just be a dick pulling boners all the time and chortling at the Batman.

And Batman would be old and kinda paunchy and have a Punisher logo on his Batsuit even though that's a different comic universe.

Necrothatcher posted:

Also it's kind of in character for him to not give a poo poo what's going on on the streets. He doesn't seem concerned about his personal safety in any other scene.

Sierra Nevadan posted:

'Joker' Sets New October Opening Day Record at Box Office

Liquid Dinosaur posted:

So how will this universe's batman reflect that the film he saw prior to his parents' murder wasn't Zorro or The Mask of Zorro, but rather Zorro, The Gay Blade?

H13 posted:

My friend felt that he went onto the TV show to kill De Niro. As in that was his whole plan. That's a pretty Joker plan, except I read it as that Joker was going to kill HIMSELF on air, and it wasn't until De Niro provoked him that he impulsively changed his plan.

Strontosaurus posted:

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

The only really outré thing in this I feel was the implication that Arthur possibly had pedophilic tendencies.

well why not posted:

RIP to the people who were murdered by Dungeons and/or Dragons.

Jokes aside tho, suicides do rise after TV shows featuring suicides air. Movies aren’t mind control but people do absorb ideas from them.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1181269223403855872

Holy poo poo, lol.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

99% is being generous!

gary oldmans diary posted:

The movie definitely left you to assume in highsight that there must have been more than what was shown to bring the common man from general anti-rich sentiment to violent action.

I'm not sure if the social uprising part of the story would be better served by more info of actions taken by a brazen upper class than the info of social service cuts and Thomas Wayne's statements or a later scene just showing that ordinary people were absolutely pissed off by Wayne calling them clowns. Entitled wealthy people beating up Arthur is part of the story showing upper class elitism, but the regular people weren't aware of it.

e: In hindsight because the rioting was very enjoyable while watching.

gary oldmans diary posted:

I had hoped the man strapped to the gurney and freaking out in the trailer was part of the regular day-to-day horror he experiences when visiting his psychologist. But it's part of visiting Arkham which he only did once before he went full Joker.
That probably would've been too much. I mean there were already 2 main instances where a single individual incited people and he was already both of them. Another incident and it would be like the Star Wars "gee, Luke, I wonder which of the 2 females in the galaxy must be your sister" scenario.

Perry Mason Jar posted:

Am I the only one who interpreted (or recognized as a possible interpretation) his mother's mental illness as being a fabrication by Thomas Wayne, who gaslit her and consequently forced her into an asylum? This theory is bolstered by:

1. Mother never showing any signs of mental illness prior to the revelation nor after - that is, no psychotic behavior, no delusions, no abuse of Arthur, and so on.

2. Scenes of her in the asylum merely show her sticking to her story (her truth, possibly the truth) and nothing beyond it; the doctors refuse to entertain her narrative, apparently any narrative that does not comport with Thomas Wayne's version of the truth. Wayne doesn't even need to explicitly tell the doctors to do this for it to happen, not like it's uncommon for people of that ilk to trust the word of a respected, successful rich man against a lowly house-maid and woman.

3. The only evidence we have regarding Arthur's possible adoption is Thomas Wayne's words.

4. Wayne punching Arthur. As if to say, "I am powerful, I can do what I please, and I will not tolerate anyone contradicting what I say. You are nothing and therefore my reality IS reality, and don't forget it."


The movie does leave it ambiguous but I'm surprised no one's mentioned this possibility. Not that this is remotely impossible today but it's certainly even more plausible in the era in which this would've happened.

vvv oh yeah vvv

CelticPredator posted:

What fridge scene? I think I left the theater for a minute. I honestly don’t recall

CelticPredator posted:

Not all kids are hyper active brats my dude

Vir posted:

I do like how the movie keeps both options open, in a way - in Joker fashion. Arthur could be Wayne's son, he could be adopted normally, or she might have adopted him as a substitute after having to have an abortion. I think it's leaning towards him being Wayne's son. But for those saying that it's unlikely that a single woman could adopt, that's true, but she might not have been single at the time she adopted.

ruddiger posted:

The movie takes place in the 80s (Excalibur is on the theater marquee in one shot and that was released in 81) and Arthur is said to be in his 30s so he would’ve been a child during the 60s/70s.

ruddiger posted:

Alfred was talking out of his rear end with that watch the world burn garbage, he couldn't see past his own imperialist ideology.

Asked this earlier but never got an answer, has Thomas Wayne run for office before in the comics, or was that something made up for the movie?

1glitch0 posted:

But a lot of people are very dumb. I'll never forget when Matrix Reloaded came out and I overheard a conversation where a couple was about to see Reloaded and the guy was trying to explain to her, who apparently hadn't seen the first movie, about how it was all about aliens and time travel. Like it had been years after the first movie and he still thought it was about aliens and time travel. Morpheus gave an entire speech explaining the premise and this guy thought ALIENS and TIME TRAVEL! And I eavesdropped on the entire conversation because that's when I realized that's why big budget Hollywood movies have focus groups. Because people are dumb as poo poo, but studios want their money.

If someone wants to do a great indie movie I'm all for not compromising, but if they want to do a franchise big budget blockbuster you have to spell things out because I bet 40% of the audience will not get it even when you do spell it out.

1glitch0 posted:

It seems to be a really common thing which baffles me. People can socialize and chat with their friends anywhere and they don't have to pay 15 bucks a person to do it. It's no wonder Hollywood thinks they can just put up flashing bright lights and noises on a screen and get people to pay and see it. They're right! That's why I'm baffled by food in theaters too. People can't stop shoving food into their faces for 90 minutes?? That seemed weird to me since I was in my late teenage years. Go to dinner with your friends after the movie to talk about it or go before. But during the movie, watch the goddamn movie.

Many years ago I once got stuck at a mall and decided to see a movie to kill time and found out once I was inside it was one of those "servers bring you actual entrees to tables in the theater type places all movie long" type places (a thing that was just starting and I had never heard of) and I was just like, well, what new fresh hell is this?

But yes, you are very snobby for wanting to watch the thing you paid money to watch in silence and darkness to be able to watch in silence and darkness. :-)

Inspector Gesicht posted:

Maybe a horror-movie with the Scarecrow,

Bogus Adventure posted:

I'd be happy with John Noble. He owned in Arkham Knight.

However, I'd also love a Penguin versus Riddler movie starring Robin Lord Taylor and Cory Michael Smith

The Kingfish posted:

I loved the way Joker nervously pumped his legs. A pretty common tick in real life but not something you often see on film.

ruddiger posted:

https://twitter.com/mexicansoflate/status/1190761084539547648?s=21